Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris revealed for the first time some big economic plans on Friday, but these experts had mixed reactions on how much some of them would help everyday Americans.
Harris, who said in a fact sheet she’s focused on “some of the sharpest pain points American families are confronting,” plans to ease rent increases, cap prescription drug prices for everyone, boost first-time home buyers, end grocery price gouging and bolster the child tax credit.
Many of these plans resonate with voters who have struggled in the past few years with soaring inflation, but some experts are wary of what they call “price controls” to fight high prices and how she intends to pay for some of her proposals. Any changes to the tax code also would require congressional approval and depend heavily on which party controls the House and Senate, tax experts say.
“It’s optimistic and targeted to improving the middle class; however, we have yet to see details, and it’s unclear how the congressional elections will impact the likelihood of passage,” said Mark Baran, managing director at consulting firm CBIZ MHM’s National Tax Office.
Former Republican New York Congressman and senior vice president at business consultantancy alliantgroup Rick Lazio said in an email that the Harris campaign will need to consider “the societal costs of unsustainable higher public debt and its impact on inflation and the ability to respond to unplanned events, like recession, wars, pandemics, and natural disasters.”
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimate her full plan would increase deficits by $1.7 trillion over a decade and grow to $2 trillion if temporary housing policies were made permanent. “The Harris campaign has said this would be paid for through taxes on corporations and high earners and that they support the revenue raisers in the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget but has not put forward specific offsets as part of their agenda to lower costs for American families,” it said in a release.
To get a better view of what experts liked and questioned, USA Today has compiled a more detailed look of each proposal.
Child tax credit
- A return to COVID-era child tax credit (CTC) policies, which were $3,600 for qualifying children under age 6 and $3,000 for other qualifying children under age 18.
The CTC is currently $2,000 per qualifying child under age 17 that phases out for single filers earning over $200,000 and married couples with more than $400,000 in income. Republican vice-presidential nominee J.D. Vance has floated a $5,000 CTC and hinted at no income thresholds.
- New, expanded tax relief of up to $6,000 for families with a newborn.
“We were super excited to see her propose this big expansion,” said Mary Nugent, advisor of domestic policy at nonprofit Save the Children US. “To put it front and center and to be including this new kind of bonus for new parents with those youngest kids is really exciting in terms of the impact.”
Either Harris’ or Vance’s plan would reduce child poverty by at least half, she estimates. “Most families would see an increased credit and, the top line there is that we would see massive cuts in child poverty.”
Health care and food prices
- $35 price cap on insulin for Medicare recipients to cover insulin and annual out-of-pocket costs of $2,000 for all Americans, not just seniors.
- Stiffer regulations and strict antitrust enforcement to prevent increased costs for consumers on drugs and food.
- First-ever federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries.
The Groundwork Collaborative, a nonprofit progressive advocacy group, praised Harris’ push to hold companies accountable. “When just a handful of big companies control the majority of the market, or even control the market in a single region, they have the power to raise prices without worrying about a competitor nipping at their heels,” said Lindsay Owens, the group’s executive director, in a statement.
Economists were less enthusiastic, calling Harris’ efforts “price controls.”
“Harris is continuing with the Biden administration theme of blaming high inflation on corporate greed and price gouging – be it oil producers, pharmaceutical firms or, in this case, grocery retailers – rather than excessively loose pandemic-era fiscal and monetary policies,” wrote Paul Ashworth, chief North America economist for research firm Capital Economics, in a note. “She wants Congress to pass a federal ‘price-gouging’ ban. It sounds uncomfortably like price controls, which could lead to product shortages.”
Housing
- Block data firms from hiking lease rates, and prevent Wall Street investors from buying homes in bulk to resell at a premium.
- New tax incentives for builders who construct “starter homes.”
- Provide up to $25,000 in down-payment support for first-time homeowners.
“I’m encouraged by the recognition of by Vice President Harris of the affordable housing crisis in America,” Lazio said. “There is no congressional district in the nation that hasn’t seen a spike in the housing supply imbalance. Having said that, the devil is in the details and some of the initiatives like the subsidy for first time homebuyers regardless of their wealth or income needs to be rethought.”
Ashworth also noted many developed countries around the world “have tried to boost homebuilding but have struggled to achieve their goals because of capacity constraints in the construction industry or other bottlenecks, like zoning regulations.”
What wasn’t discussed?
- Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which expires at the end of 2025, is a massive tax package passed in 2017 that included provisions that touch almost every American. If it expires, tax rates for most Americans will rise, income brackets will narrow, and the standard deduction would get cut in half which could force many Americans to itemize again, among many other things.
It’s the “big elephant in the room,” said Baran. “Letting it expire completely will hurt middle class Americans because tax rates will go up.”
Ashworth also noticed the lack of discussion “of whether she would support the extension of the original Trump tax cuts, even for those making less than $400,000 per year. That potential fiscal cliff that would hit at the end of next year is the real policy battleground.”
This is “bad economic policy, but understandable from a political standpoint given that it could be enough to win the election race in Nevada,” Ashworth said. “Assuming there are limits on the amount of income that can be counted as tips and that only income taxes are eliminated rather than payroll taxes too, that tax cut might cost up to $150 billion over the next decade.”
- Small and medium sized businesses.
