As the 2024 election season heats up, Vice President Kamala Harris is taking clear steps to distinguish herself and her platform. With a focus on progressive economic policies, she’s reaching back to her time as California’s attorney general to highlight her commitment to bold, decisive action. For those hoping she might distance herself from the Biden administration, however, they may be disappointed. Harris is leaning in, not away, from the policies and principles that have defined her time as vice president.
Key points
Harris’ Record as Attorney General
Harris’ emphasis on her years as California’s attorney general is telling. During this time, she had the authority to act unilaterally, making decisions that directly aligned with her priorities. As vice president, her role has been more circumscribed, acting largely under the directives of President Biden. This return to her past record signals a desire to remind voters of her capacity for leadership and independent action.
But don’t expect any sharp criticisms or repudiations of Biden’s policies. When asked how she might distance herself from the current administration, Biden himself responded that she wouldn’t—and so far, he’s been right. While her tone on certain issues, such as Israel’s military actions in Gaza, has been more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, these are rhetorical shifts rather than significant policy departures.
A Progressive Economic Agenda
Harris recently delivered one of her most detailed speeches on the economic policies she would prioritize if elected. The platform is a blend of progressive populism, aiming to address economic inequalities and support vulnerable communities. One proposal, in particular, has sparked intense debate: Harris’s call for the first-ever federal ban on price gouging in the food industry, coupled with efforts to make the market more competitive.
Her proposal is straightforward: introduce new penalties for companies that exploit crises to hike prices and offer support to smaller food businesses striving to compete fairly. It’s a populist move that targets a glaring issue—the rising cost of groceries since the Biden-Harris administration took office. With inflation and cost-of-living concerns top of mind for many voters, this policy is designed to resonate with those who feel squeezed by escalating prices.
Price Gouging: The Political and Economic Stakes
Price gouging occurs when sellers sharply raise prices in response to external shocks, like natural disasters. The challenge lies in defining what constitutes “excessive” price increases—a nebulous concept that can vary depending on circumstances. Economically, many experts caution against price controls, arguing they can lead to shortages, black markets, and other unintended consequences.
Critics have been quick to jump on Harris’s proposal, comparing it to government price-setting practices in countries like Venezuela and the former Soviet Union. Catherine Rampell, an economics columnist at The Washington Post, argued that such policies could backfire, leading to market distortions and reduced incentives for producers to supply goods. The lack of specific details in Harris’s proposal has only fueled these concerns, allowing critics to imagine worst-case scenarios.
The Reality of Enforcing Price Controls
Even if Harris’s proposal makes it through Congress—an uphill battle in itself—enforcement presents another challenge. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the agency Harris envisions overseeing this ban, would need to develop clear guidelines and enforcement mechanisms. Legal challenges are also a near certainty, raising questions about the proposal’s feasibility.
It’s important to note, however, that price controls aren’t unheard of in the United States. Many states, including Florida and Texas, have laws against price gouging, particularly during states of emergency. For instance, Florida’s law, which applies during emergencies, prohibits “unconscionable” price increases, though it stops short of defining what constitutes a “gross disparity” in pricing.
The Political Calculus
From a political standpoint, Harris’s proposal is shrewd. Few voters support price gouging, and with grocery prices having risen significantly over the past few years, targeting this issue can galvanize support. The policy appeals to those who feel left behind by the current economic system, positioning Harris as a champion of the average American against corporate greed.
But the proposal’s success will hinge on more than just political will. The economic realities of implementing and enforcing such a ban are complex and fraught with potential pitfalls. While the idea is unlikely to become law in its current form, it serves as a clear statement of Harris’s priorities: fighting for economic justice, even if the path is uncertain.
Looking Ahead
As Harris continues to define her platform in the lead-up to the 2024 election, expect her to emphasize her progressive credentials while remaining closely aligned with Biden’s broader agenda. Her push for a federal price-gouging ban, despite its challenges, signals a commitment to tackling economic issues head-on. Whether this approach will resonate with voters or raise further questions about its practicality remains to be seen.
In the coming months, Harris will likely continue to refine her message, balancing her progressive ambitions with the realities of governing in a divided political landscape. For now, her focus on economic justice and fairness offers a glimpse into the policies she would champion as president.
