The Kamala Harris agenda:
So many.
So complicated.
So many things to like or dislike.
I hope she can boil this down to three or four very simple ideas.
We are already hearing misinformation about the Harris proposal to address the economic concerns of average Americans. JD Vance claims it gives $25,000 to immigrants who come here illegally. The Wall Street Journal predicts empty store shelves. Trump calls it socialism and communism.
Here is a four-page description of her proposals, issued by
the Harris/Walz campaign:
Click Here |
I did my best to read the proposal and not start skimming. I urge readers to give it a shot. It was what pundits said she had to do: give some specifics. She did it. So now, it is okay to change back.
I had a single, big takeaway when I read the proposal: This is a complicated set of laws that will have eligibility rules, qualifications and disqualifications, hoops to jump through. I was reminded of the red tape that made the ACA so unpopular for its first five years. In the effort to target money to specific situations, it becomes complex. It feels like "big government."
Meanwhile, Trump says he will fix everything with "a big tax cut," a 10 percent tariff the foreigners have to pay us, and kicking out of the country people who came here illegally to freeload. There is a simple, "cut through the Gordian knot" feel to Trump's message.
There is a rhetorical solution to this: Be as simple and clear as Trump. The meta message of the two campaigns is that Harris is new and lacks the baggage that manic, nasty, tiresome Trump carries. She is the generic, generally acceptable Democrat, so we are not stuck with Trump.
What can Harris say about the child tax credits and the newborn tax credit? Maybe something that appeals to young voters and addresses the suggestion that Democrats are anti-baby and anti-family:
We need to make it affordable for young families to have babies and raise kids. I love babie. I propose a $300/month, $3,600 a year, tax credit for every young child, and a $6,000 one time tax credit for that newborn's first year.
Stop with that. I can remember that message: Babies are good, and money will go to young families. That sounds reasonable to me.
A second issue affects older people more than younger ones, but Harris can emphasize the generational turn of attention by saying this:
We are going to cut costs to seniors and taxpayers by letting Medicare negotiate the best prices for prescription drugs. Republicans have fought that. We will cap the cost of prescription drugs to $2,000/year per person for everyone, young and old, not just seniors.
Okay. $2,000 max.
Farmers have complained about middlemen since the beginning of agriculture. The villains are the railroads, the meat packers, the grain elevators, the commodity traders -- always that someone between the farmer and the consumer. I did not see enough praise of farmers to suit me. There are farmers in battleground states. How about she just praise farmers and criticize grocery chain consolidations. Less is more.
My own sense is that voters perhaps have mental shelf space for one more item. Housing takes up far more of a family's budget than it did in the past. Therefore, something like:
America needs far more new housing to make starter homes accessable. I support tax incentives for homebuilders who build starter homes. I oppose hedge funds and other bulk investors who scoop up homes in some markets, take them off the market for purchase, and then raise rental rates on people who would rather buy and build equity.
Stop with that.
Trump is the central issue of the 2024 campaign. Does America want him back, or does America want an acceptable alternative? If the details of the proposals are the issue, then Harris loses, because there is always something to dislike about specific proposals. If the issue is Trump, then Trump loses. There are ample things to dislike about Trump, and a majority of people have already made up their minds about that.
[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]
6 comments:
Sometimes I think Peter should be in the DNC. He makes more sense than them sometimes.
I’m not seeing anything in Harris’ agenda that comes close to being as obnoxious as Project 25, the blueprint for Trump’s next effort to turn the U.S. into an autocracy.
K.I.S.S. is an acronym too seldom applied in Political discourse. I'm pretty sure readers of this Blog know what it means, but for those who don't know:
Keep It Simple, Stupid !
I gave up on reading all the argle bargle details in the Harris proposals, thinking " This is why people disliked Hillary Clinton,"
I agree, if they had listened to him in 3015, we might have avoided the Orange Catastrophe.
I agree with Peter's assessment:
Perceptions of Trump/Vance and Harris/Walz.
Few if any will dig below the surface. Few will make efforts to read about their platforms.
Even worse, some who dig in a read, will have a tough time comprehending what is even being promised, let alone what can actually be implemented or achieved.
This will drive the political experts nuts, as there will be so many utterances of "woulda, shoulda, coulda".
It is unfortunate that our voting majority rarely understands the consequences of their votes.
With the negativity that highlights the campaigns, it truly is a never-Trump vs, a now never-Harris (ne never-Biden).
I’ll express it again, policy isn’t all that important. People who read this blog might care, but most don’t really pay attention to much. How could you tell who won the debate with the sound turned off if policy mattered?
Post a Comment