Commentary: Big Tent Ideas

JAMES PINKERTON: Harris’ Price Gouging Plan Could Be Campaign Stunt, Or A Slide Toward Venezuelan-Style Socialism

Vice President Kamala Harris talking about her economic policy in Raleigh, N.C., Aug. 16, 2024. (Screen Capture/CSPAN)

The best thing that can be said about Vice President Kamala Harris’ price-control gouging plan is that it could be just a campaign stunt. After all, the Biden-Harris administration has presided over high inflation, so now candidate Harris needs to be seen as doing something about high prices. So, this plan is the campaign’s bright shiny object.

The second-best thing that can be said is that the idea is so bad that it’s unlikely to pass muster on Capitol Hill next year, even if the Democrats are in command of the 119th Congress.

For an early indicator, we can look to analysis — as opposed to cheerleading campaign-trail headlines — in the Main Stream Media.

The New York Times, a hotbed of Harris-ism, was nonetheless guarded: “The economic argument over the issue is complicated.” Pointing to low interest rates and big deficits, the Times allowed: “Most economists say those forces are far more responsible than corporate behavior for the rise in prices in that period.” The article ended with a quote from Jason Furman, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Obama White House: “This is not sensible policy, and I think the biggest hope is that it ends up being a lot of rhetoric and no reality. There’s no upside here, and there is some downside.”

The Washington Post, hardly hostile to Harris, ran a stinging opinion piece headlined: “When your opponent calls you ‘communist,’ maybe don’t propose price controls? It’s hard to exaggerate how bad Kamala Harris’s price-gouging proposal is.” Columnist Catherine Rampell tried to suss out the details: “What are these ‘clear rules of the road’ or the thresholds that determine when a price or profit level becomes ‘excessive’?” But, she lamented: “The campaign did not answer questions I sent seeking clarification.”

If we want more insight into the price plan, Rampell continued, we can examine a current bill put forth by far-left Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. Rampell recalled that just four years ago, then-Sen. Harris had co-sponsored similar Warren legislation.

Okay, so those are the good things about the Harris plan: Even if she wins this November, it could just evaporate.

Now to the bad things. First, a hypothetical President Harris could be a regulatory activist, wielding a self-declared legal scythe. She could operate outside of Congress — with “a pen and a phone,” as President Barack Obama did a decade ago — sallying forth without congressional advice and consent.

Harris could mobilize the Justice Department, the Federal Trade Commission and other heavy hitting agencies on behalf of her scheme. A president bent on scapegoating others can do a lot of damage.

Would the Supreme Court ultimately block Harris? Perhaps. But as we know, the current administration has a plan for packing the court with new loyalists. If such court-packing were ever to happen, demagoguery, with teeth, could bite down hard.

Secondly, price controls — and let’s not kid ourselves, government monitoring of price “gouging” is, in and of itself, price fixing — are a proven road to depressed innovation and economic stagnation.

You see, the government just is not very competent at most things, including fine-tuned economic management. As wits have said: “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.”

Yes, it is strange: At a time when Venezuela reminds us that statism and socialism can kick a rich country down a slippery slope into poverty, and when Argentina reminds us that free markets are a wealth-creating uplift, one of the major parties is embracing Venezuela and not Argentina.

Maybe the other party should embrace Argentina, thereby sharpening the contrast in the voters’ minds on Election Day.

James P. Pinkerton, a former White House domestic policy aide to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, is a former Fox News contributor.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

(Featured image credit: Screen Capture/CSPAN)