Economic policy: who can Harris score points with?
Kamala Harris presented her economic policy programme on Friday. In addition to supporting families and tax incentives for housing construction, she is focusing her campaign on combating inflation. She intends to legislate against excessive price increases for food and medicines. According to opinion polls, such interventions are popular with voters, but European media regard them as controversial.
The wrong medicine
The Neue Zürcher Zeitung says Harris's economic programme is anti-market:
“As correct as Harris may be in her diagnosis of the voters' most pressing problem, her prescribed medicine is wrong. She is opting for state dirigisme, cancelling out markets and making populist accusations to the effect that big companies are fundamentally evil and only small corner shops are good. Nowhere is this more evident than in Harris' announcement regarding a 'nationwide ban on food price gouging'. If Harris has her way, companies that charge too much for food would be penalised by the state.”
No better than Trump
Berlingske is unimpressed by the presidential candidate's programme:
“According to the independent, politically broad-based organisation Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), Harris's plans will increase the US budget deficit by 1,700 billion dollars over the next ten years. ... The problem is that as precise as Harris is about how much money she wants to spend, she remains vague and imprecise about how this will be financed. There is no funding at all - just a few signals to the effect that the rich and big business should pay more taxes. ... In terms of economic responsibility, Harris is no better than Trump.”
Wanted: a middle-ground president
Harris needs a clear line, Le Figaro stresses:
“Whether you love or hate Donald Trump, it's easy to imagine the direction the country would take if he returned to the White House. The former senator, on the other hand, has often changed her mind. She still comes across as an opportunist. Her supporters call this pragmatism. Harris has the severe handicap of being a Democrat from California, the state of all woke excesses. ... It's up to her to convince voters that she can be a president of the middle ground: progressive on individual rights, moderate in her economic decisions and liberal on regulations.”
Politically astute focus on issues
Der Standard is pleased by the emphasis on content:
“Harris presented her proposals for affordable life for the middle classes on Friday evening. ... She focused on popular everyday issues, such as affordable housing and combating inflation. And in doing so, almost noiselessly, she has managed to distance herself from President Joe Biden's track record. These are both politically astute moves. The party convention is a unique opportunity for the Democrats to focus on key issues in opposition to Trump - who has so far presented almost nothing concrete. They should seize it.”
No guarantee of a victory
Steering to the left of Biden is bold indeed, Les Echos comments:
“Harris is mobilising voters who the Republicans hoped would remain relatively passive on 5 November: women, black people and the young. And she is currently disproving the concerns of Democratic party heavyweights who feared she lacked the time and talent to assert herself. However, none of this guarantees victory in less than 80 days. Her programme, which is further to the left than Biden's, could worry undecided voters.”
The toughest part is still to come
Kamala Harris still faces major challenges, Rzeczpospolita explains:
“The novelty effect is dissipating. The economic situation remains uncertain. The vice president has not yet dared to face a real interview and a debate with Trump is not yet in here diary. She will then have to defend herself on issues she is uncomfortable with, such as the failure of migration policy or widely perceptible inflation. Harris has achieved a remarkable amount. But the toughest part is still to come.”
Better to trust the Fed
Harris would do better not to focus on the fight against inflation, De Volkskrant urges:
“In times of inflation politicians must be cautious and rely on the interest rate policy of their central banks. ... Yes, prices have risen by around 20 per cent in recent years, but at the same time incomes and the number of jobs have also grown rapidly. So governments don't need to do that much. That's an uncomfortable message, because the pain of inflation outweighs the benefits of higher wages for many voters. So it's understandable that Harris at least wants to give the impression that she will tackle high prices.”
The end of an era
The election campaign is bringing two opposing economic and social models into sharp focus, La Repubblica notes:
“That of Donald Trump, who is banking on strengthening libertarian capitalism and malaise in order to win votes. And that of Kamala Harris, who is relying on the promise to uplift the middle class with more state interventionism. At the same time, it seems that we have reached the end of an era: after 40 years, Reagan's mature capitalist model is running out of steam. The same applies to growth: we've entered the mature phase of the economic cycle, and some, such as Paul Krugman, are talking about a recession. The same goes for the stock market: after years of continuous rises, the rallies may have reached a turning point.”