Kamala Harris $1.7 Trillion Economic Plan: A Breakdown of Key Proposals and Impacts
Raleigh, North Carolina — Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday introduced a sweeping set of economic policies she plans to implement within her first 100 days in office, with an estimated cost of $1.7 trillion in government spending. Her plan includes extensive subsidies and price controls on groceries to combat inflation, which has surged during the Biden-Harris administration.
Key components of Harris’ plan include a $25,000 down payment assistance program for first-time homebuyers and up to $6,000 in tax credits for lower and middle-income families during their child’s first year. However, she did not specify which income brackets qualify as “lower” and “middle.”
The proposed housing subsidies, worth approximately $200 billion of the total $1.7 trillion, have drawn criticism from economists who argue that such measures are inflationary and would worsen the projected $2 trillion deficit for 2024. Brian Riedl, a senior economic fellow at the Manhattan Institute, described the subsidies as likely to inflate the deficit further.
Concerns Over Economic Impact
Economists have voiced alarm over the hefty price tag of Harris’ proposals amid the fragile state of the economy. Adam Michel, director of Tax Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, argued that the plan’s reliance on price controls and cash handouts would stoke inflation by boosting demand while constraining supply, resulting in shortages and the need for rationing. He specifically pointed to the $6,000 child tax credit as a costly and unsustainable measure, adding, “It will only get more expensive from here.”
Joel Griffith, an economic research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, criticized Harris’ plan for contributing to the rising national debt, which currently stands at $34 trillion and is projected to reach $50 trillion by 2034. He described the proposals as “reckless” and warned they would exacerbate the debt crisis.
The nonpartisan Tax Foundation expressed concern over the lack of detail regarding how Harris’ plan would be funded, cautioning that her proposals could worsen the country’s debt trajectory, especially if they are deficit-financed.
Housing and Tax Proposals
In addition to the homeowner subsidies, Harris’ plan includes tax incentives for businesses constructing affordable housing and for individuals building homes themselves. She also aims to build 3 million new homes over the next four years. However, the Tax Foundation criticized her housing policies for failing to address supply constraints while lacking sufficient offsets to cover the costs, which could further destabilize the nation’s fiscal outlook.
EJ Antoni, a public-finance economist at the Heritage Foundation, warned that Harris’ agenda could be even more damaging than Biden’s, as it involves increased spending, borrowing, and money printing, all of which could drive up inflation. He also argued that Harris’ proposals would lead to widespread shortages of essential goods like food and housing.
Price Controls and Criticism
One of the most contentious aspects of Harris’ plan is her proposal to implement federal price controls on groceries—a first in U.S. history. She argued that price limits are necessary to address persistent inflation in food costs, which she attributed to supply chain disruptions during the pandemic. She cited a 50% increase in the cost of bread and ground beef since the Trump administration.
However, the Trump campaign has slammed Harris’ price control policies, labeling them “communist” and comparing them to the economic strategies of authoritarian regimes in Venezuela and Cuba. Kevin Hassett, a former Trump administration economist, warned that price controls on food could lead to shortages and even famines.
Stephen Moore, an economist who participated in a Trump campaign call, predicted that price controls would drive many grocery stores and convenience stores out of business due to their slim profit margins of 2-3%. He said price controls “only delay inflation” while creating shortages in the interim.
Harris’ Response
At a campaign stop in Raleigh, Harris defended her plan, acknowledging that Americans are still struggling with high costs despite improvements in the supply chain since the pandemic. She pledged to focus on creating opportunities for middle-class families to improve their economic security and stability through what she called an “opportunity economy.”
Harris argued that her policies would offer relief to families facing rising living costs, including groceries and housing, by providing tax breaks and subsidies. She also vowed to work with her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, to encourage states to cancel medical debt and prevent Americans from accumulating further debt. Additionally, she proposed capping insulin prices at $35 and limiting out-of-pocket drug expenses to $2,000 annually for all Americans, not just seniors.
While Harris’ plan has drawn sharp criticism from economists and the Trump campaign, it resonated with her supporters in North Carolina. Attendees at the event praised her focus on curbing price gouging and providing relief to families with young children. One attendee, Dylan Neil, described her proposals as “good policy” and argued that they would prevent large corporations from manipulating the system.
Playing to the Middle Class
Both Harris and Trump have made appealing to middle-class voters a cornerstone of their campaigns. Harris’ child tax credit and economic relief measures were well-received by some, particularly younger voters. Meg Sangimino, a content marketer, said the child tax credit “sounded very promising” and expressed appreciation for Harris’ focus on families.
As Harris continues to outline her economic agenda, the debate over its feasibility and potential impact on the economy will remain a central issue in the 2024 campaign.