THE CRUCIAL QUESTION OF THE CAMPAIGN: KAMALA HARRIS MISSTEPPED
The excitement among Democrats and their media allies following Vice President Kamala Harris’s perceived triumph over former President Donald Trump in the initial presidential debate is palpable. However, there lingers a sense of disappointment that Harris did not excel on what many consider the pivotal issue of the 2024 election.
The Economic Landscape
Unquestionably, economic concerns dominate voters’ minds. Surveys consistently indicate that many Americans lack confidence in Harris’s ability to manage economic issues effectively, with a significant portion believing Trump would perform better. Inflation and affordability are viewed as pressing challenges facing the nation today.
Trump’s Advantage at the Debate
During the debate, despite any potential bias from ABC News moderators, they recognized the necessity of addressing economic matters first—an area where Trump typically excels while Harris struggles. The opening question posed to her was straightforward: “Do you believe Americans are better off than they were four years ago?”
A Predictable Yet Critical Inquiry
This question was anticipated by all participants; however, for a brief moment, it appeared to catch Harris off guard. Her response included several key points about her vision for an “opportunity economy,” which she articulated as follows:
“I grew up in a middle-class family and am committed to uplifting working-class Americans through my plans. I envision an economy that supports families struggling with housing costs and provides substantial tax relief for young parents—specifically proposing a $6,000 child tax credit to help them afford essential items like cribs or car seats.”
Harris also emphasized her dedication to small businesses by proposing a $50,000 tax deduction aimed at startups—a sector she believes is vital for America’s economic backbone.
In contrast, she criticized Trump’s approach as one favoring billionaires and large corporations at the expense of everyday citizens.
Analyzing Harris’s Economic Strategy
It is evident that Harris prepared extensively for this debate segment; thus her statements reflect what she intended to convey regarding economic policy. A closer examination reveals several inconsistencies:
While it’s true that Harris has middle-class roots in Oakland and spent part of her youth in Canada, claiming sole ownership over an economic plan aimed at supporting working individuals is misleading—Trump also has proposals targeting similar demographics.
Harris’s strategy largely revolves around government assistance designed to offset rising costs—a method some critics argue exacerbates inflation rather than alleviating it. For instance, while discussing housing affordability initiatives without explicitly mentioning direct financial aid for first-time homebuyers (which could amount up to $25,000), such measures may inadvertently fuel price increases within an already strained market.
Furthermore, when introducing her child tax credit proposal—which aims higher than Trump’s suggested increase—it remains unclear how much would be refundable or beneficial overall given existing critiques about its effectiveness from various economists who argue against broad-based financial support without targeted strategies.
Additionally noteworthy is her mention of enhancing earned income tax credits (EITC), which have faced scrutiny due to high rates of fraud—estimated losses reached approximately $22 billion last year alone due to erroneous payments associated with this program.
Harris’s proposed small business deduction appears less impactful upon further investigation; current laws already allow new entrepreneurs considerable deductions on early expenses incurred before formal registration—a fact highlighted by experts who suggest this proposal primarily benefits larger startups rather than grassroots initiatives seeking support during their formative stages.
A Missed Opportunity?
Ultimately, after delivering what seemed like rehearsed talking points regarding her policies on economics during this critical exchange with Trump—and failing under scrutiny—the most glaring omission remained unaddressed: Did Americans feel better off now compared with four years prior?
For countless individuals grappling with daily financial pressures amid rising living costs—the answer remains decidedly negative.
Given these circumstances surrounding such crucial dialogue early in one of America’s most consequential debates—it’s no surprise some undecided voters expressed skepticism towards Harris’s performance compared against prevailing media narratives celebrating it instead. How can anyone rally behind responses lacking clarity or conviction when faced directly with pressing questions affecting their lives?
Graduated from University of Denver, Residing in Dallas, Texas. Political observer and a Conservative. Follow on Twitter for more.
