By The Editorial Board
The key difference between the two presidential candidates is that Vice President Kamala Harris upholds democracy and the rule of law, while Donald Trump does not. This election fundamentally revolves around who possesses the suitable temperament and qualifications for the presidency, with the answer being quite clear.
Take Liz Cheney’s endorsement of Harris from last week, for example. The former Republican congresswoman backs the vice president despite holding differing views on numerous, if not most, of her policy stances. “As a conservative, and someone who values the Constitution, I’ve contemplated this thoroughly, and due to the peril Trump presents, I am not only refraining from voting for him but will choose Kamala Harris instead,” she stated. The following day, her father, Dick Cheney, a past vice president and lifelong conservative, echoed her sentiments.
However, policies also carry weight. Voters have expressed that their interests lean more toward governance issues impacting their daily lives rather than debates surrounding the future of democracy.
For numerous voters, the critical issue this election cycle is the soaring cost of living. They are infuriated by the escalating prices of everyday items at grocery stores. Their aspirations of homeownership have become increasingly unattainable. As Trump and Harris prepare to engage in a debate on Tuesday night, Americans will contemplate which of the two candidates is more likely to enhance their financial situation and opportunities.
Neither candidate can promptly enact substantial reductions in housing, food, gas, or any other major monthly expenditures faced by American households. Such a transformation is beyond the authority of the presidency. Nonetheless, the choice for voters remains straightforward: Harris has started to articulate well-considered plans aimed at helping American families better manage their essential needs and desires. In contrast, Trump has proposed unsound ideas and unfulfillable promises.
The candidates’ strategies to tackle housing prices, the largest expense for typical families, underscore their divergences. Harris has suggested a goal of constructing 3 million new homes and has outlined policies to achieve this target, including tax incentives for developers, financial assistance for buyers, and initiatives to encourage local governments to permit more housing development. Trump claims he will decrease costs by expelling immigrants residing in the country illegally — a proposal that disregards research indicating that reducing the immigrant population could paradoxically raise prices by limiting the availability of construction workers.
Harris’ housing strategy aligns with her broader economic framework. She envisions pairing increased taxes on large corporations with greater tax benefits for small enterprises. She aims to continue the Biden administration’s efforts to foster new industries, such as electric vehicle battery manufacturing, and to empower the government to regulate corporate influence within existing sectors. Moreover, she has suggested increased government assistance for families, including a $6,000 tax credit for new parents, that would help ease the strain caused by rising prices.
Conversely, Trump has persisted in his approach of making grand promises and hoping to evade responsibility for them.
He asserted he would “swiftly defeat inflation, rapidly reduce prices, and spark remarkable economic growth.” He specifically pledged to halve energy costs within his initial year by boosting domestic fossil fuel production. Under President Joe Biden, the nation’s oil output has hit the highest levels on record, and numerous experts argue that the government cannot substantially lower prices merely by increasing production.
Some of Trump’s additional commitments are even more ambiguous. When questioned after a recent speech about making child care more affordable, he promised he would, but failed to offer any coherent ideas during the subsequent two minutes.
In various other aspects, Trump has been more specific, though his plans would be counterproductive.
He has proposed a tariff of as much as 20% on imports from foreign nations, with an even steeper tariff on imports from China. This would ultimately fall on U.S. consumers in the form of elevated prices, regardless of how often or loudly Trump claims otherwise.
Furthermore, he suggests extending tax cuts for the wealthy and large corporations. Historical evidence over the past fifty years has shown that such tax policies do not lead to economic growth, do not trickle down benefits, and do not balance themselves out. They merely increase the wealth of the affluent.
Trump’s expansive tax reductions would significantly escalate federal borrowing compared to Harris’ suggested increases in federal spending. According to studies by the nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model at the University of Pennsylvania, Trump’s proposals might inflate federal deficits by $5.8 trillion over the next decade, while Harris’ plans could increase them by $1.2 trillion. A larger federal debt results in a higher proportion of federal revenue allocated toward interest payments to the wealthy, thus constraining funds available for programs benefiting the broader population.
For those voters focused on issues beyond the economy, the differences between the candidates remain just as pronounced. Yet, as highlighted by a New York Times/Siena College national survey conducted over the weekend, Harris must still make significant strides. Approximately 60% of likely voters indicated they felt America was heading in the wrong direction, and many sought further details from Harris regarding her plans — addressing immigration, climate change, foreign policy, and other critical concerns.
She should continue to demonstrate her recognition of the government’s power and obligation to enhance American lives. Citizens need and merit a president devoted to this mission.
