At the outset let me make clear that I am voting for Kamala Harris because she’s better than Trump. Trump is yesterday’s bubblegum with a severe case of flop sweat. But this voting decision did not render me unconscious.
In the 1932 election, in the midst of the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt often cited his opponent Herbert Hoover’s 1928 campaign literature promising Americans the proverbial “chicken in every pot,” a phrase Hoover resuscitated to promise economic security in a land of plenty. FDR pointed out that it didn’t work out that way. Hoover lost.
Based on claims of both the Trump and Harris campaigns last week we are back to the proverbial projected chicken in a land of plenty.
Trump’s “plan” would leave tips (battleground Nevada) and social security benefits (elderly) untaxed in a bid for votes from voters benefitting therefrom. Tariffs on imported goods would be at 20% in a move to push his America First agenda with nary a word about the fact that importers would pass these costs on to consumers thus increasing costs. Trump’s tax cuts benefitting the wealthy would be renewed. His plan would cost $1.6 trillion over ten years paid for by_______________.
Harris proposes termination of supermarket “gouging” through legislation imposing corrective action against greedy supermarkets for “gouging.” What is “gouging?” Hello United States District Judge Jane Doe!
Her plan does not mention that the grocery business has to buy what it sells from presumably greedy suppliers to make the traditional margin of 1 to 2% of sales. Presumably, under her plan something or somebody would require a lowering of “gouged” prices with unintended consequence of less or nothing on supermarket shelves.
Further, Ms. Harris’s plan includes the following tasty chicken (among others): government money for first-time home buyers; tax credits for children; a cap on medical expenses for all Americans (not just Medicare); lowered drug costs for all Americans (not just Medicare). Harris’s plan would cost $1.7 trillion over ten years (she beats Trump there!) paid for by_________________.
Both “plans” aren’t really detailed economic proposals. They are just campaign wish-fors. Both campaigns say that the details are coming later. May I sell you a bridge?
******
On a completely different matter, please note that I have referred to the Democratic candidate as “Ms. Harris” which is her name. The campaign likes to refer to her as “Kamala.” The problem is that ballots by mail and on voting machines will list her as HARRIS (in big type) with her first name Kamala (in small type.) There will be no reference to her as vice president.
The Harris campaign should consider the possibility that voters may not be able to find “Harris” on ballots because they rarely if ever hear that name. In fairness, Harris is on signs at rallies. This is something for it to consider along with their announcement this week of the approval of nine (9) pronouns.
Just trying to be helpful!