Vice President Kamala Harris has politically flip-flopped on issues such as fracking, Second Amendment rights, taxpayer-funded sex-change operations for immigrants, support for Israel, and President Biden being “sharp as a tack.”
Aside from shoving an elderly president from office, what does Harris support? What are her political positions? What is her political agenda if elected?
Based on reportedly scripted interviews, Harris says she wants to “grow” the middle class. Many families lack resources, she says, to reach the middle class.
Harris is likely saying her economic agenda would be higher taxes, increased deficit spending to stimulate the economy, and government subsidy payments to support a scheme of guaranteed basic income so that low-income Americans can reach the middle class.
Harris is vague about her economic agenda. We could look to her California role model and friend, Gov. Gavin Newsom, whose economic plan is also to grow the state’s middle-class residents. Newsom is taxing wealthy Californians to “grow” the middle class.
According to AARP, “California has the nation’s highest individual income tax rates and high sales tax burdens compared to the rest of the country.” Newsom needs California’s tax dollars to address a crime wave, millions of undocumented immigrants and homeless Americans pouring into his state, and a near-mass exodus of small businesses.
In May, Newsom said California’s budget deficit was $26.7 billion. The Associated Press said it was $45 billion. CalMatters, a non-profit news organization, estimates the state’s budget deficit to be $73 billion.
Newsom’s economic plan has produced a big budget deficit, a political problem. Newsom can’t raise taxes enough to pay for his wrongheaded policies. He needs Harris in the White House so she can be his economic savior. Harris and her high-tech Cali Gang in D.C. could give Newsom access to the U.S. Treasury. He must be salivating at the prospect.
What would make Newsom happier is a national Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) for all low-income Americans. Current GBI schemes vary by city, county and state, but politicians usually grant GBI to low-income people for housing, food and other necessities.
When Harris says she is “concerned” that people lack “resources” to reach the middle class, she could say she supports a national GBI to help low-income families reach middle-class status. Economic theory says this would fail.
Many low-income people cannot manage money wisely. No matter how much cash they would get in GBI, they always need more. Since needs are endless and resources are not, Harris would require higher taxes to support bigger GBI payments.
Newsom promised reparation payments to Californians whose ancestors were enslaved. This has not turned out well for him. Why? California’s $73 billion deficit. Again, if Newsom had Harris in the White House and access to the U.S. Treasury, his reparations problem could be solved.
Harris’s “concerns” about low-income Americans should be about skills and education to improve lives, not government dependency on schemes like GBI. Until people can make rational decisions about their lives, money alone will not save them from lower-income lifestyles.
Donald Trump’s economic policy could be expected to be similar to his first administration’s. His policies promoted work, not dependence on government programs.
The Congressional Budget Office says the federal budget deficit is $1.8 trillion. Harris would have to raise taxes to provide Guaranteed Basic Income. With the prospect of GBI, is it any wonder why millions of immigrants have illegally crossed into the United States?
Some say Harris and Newsom are “bold, new thinkers.” They also tell us that Trump is “out of touch with where Americans are.” They also tell us that “California is the future.” With Harris in the White House, our nation’s future looks Venezuelan.
Harris, like Newsom, has apparently reached the political conclusion that skilled-based jobs are not the way for low-income workers to achieve middle-class status. For this reason, Harris, if elected, could be the “anti-work” president.
