GREGORY RUSOVICH
Guest Writer
rusovich@lbknews.com
Now that Vice President Kamala Harris is the presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee, voters can assess and compare her policy positions and previous performance to that of former President Donald Trump. We are all intimately familiar with Trump’s policies on the border, the economy, energy, crime and other vital issues. He also can be judged by his four-year presidential record. Harris has an extensive record too, one which ultimately may prove problematic for her candidacy.
On the border…
It’s hard to imagine a more damaging issue to Harris than the border. Despite mainstream media’s cynical effort to rewrite her leadership role in the administration’s border policy, President Biden announced Harris’ designation shortly after taking office. On March 24, 2021, President Joe Biden proudly put Harris in charge of immigration policy. “She’s the most qualified person to lead on efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle,” proclaimed the president.
“Thank you, Mr. President, for having confidence in me — the work will not be easy, but it is important work,” responded a grateful Kamala Harris. Let’s assess the results of her “important work.”
Since Biden took office (and Harris assumed the primary border policy role shortly thereafter), there have been approximately 8 million migrant encounters at the Southwest border. Additionally, nearly 2 million known gotaways have evaded U.S. Border Patrol under this administration. Since Fiscal Year 2021, 362 aliens on the terrorist watchlist have been caught crossing our border illegally. Fatal drug overdoses (primarily from fentanyl smuggled through the Southwest border) hit a record 112,000 deaths last year. There also has been a spike of high profile violent criminal acts allegedly committed by illegal immigrants, which resulted in the deaths and rapes of numerous innocent Americans.
Harris certainly bears significant responsibility for the border collapse. Her instincts and statements on the subject are also disturbing. Through her 2019 Medicare for All plan, she has supported giving health care coverage to immigrants who are in the country illegally. When asked in 2020 about calls to abolish U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), she said, “There’s no question that we need to critically re-examine ICE, and its role…. It’s probably best that we think about starting from scratch.” When brave mounted agents attempted to corral a group of rushing migrants by swinging horse reins in the air, Harris compared them to slave masters whipping slaves. She snapped, “It also invoked images of some of the worst moments in our history where the kind of behavior has been used against the Indigenous people of our country, it has been used against African Americans during times of slavery.” So much for having the backs of law enforcement officers risking their lives to protect our territorial integrity.
Economic take
Turning to the economy, Harris’ previous Senate record is informative and alarming. In 2019, she was one of only 14 senators to co-sponsor the Green New Deal, the largest government-proposed takeover of the U.S. economy in decades. The plan calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 60% below 2010 levels by 2030, with the ultimate goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. It advocates “basic income” programs, a government jobs guarantee, universal health care, upgrades of all existing buildings in the United States, creation of a system of public banks, rebuilding of the electric grid, trillions in solar and wind development, and the transformation of U.S. agriculture, including an end to much of the cattle industry (with a focus on eliminating cow farts).
Harris was one of the Green New Deal’s strongest advocates. According to PolitiFact, in a Medium post published the day the Senate introduced its resolution, Harris said she was “proud” to have signed on as an original Senate co-sponsor. The then California senator had such conviction around the scheme that she told a CNN town hall on Sept. 4, 2019, that she would support ending the filibuster — the parliamentary maneuver that forces most legislative business to secure at least 60 out of the Senate’s 100 votes, rather than a simple majority — “to pass a Green New Deal.”
The estimated cost of the Green New Deal ranges from $6.6 trillion per year over 10 years (per the Bloomberg Opinion) to $93 trillion during its duration (American Action Forum). The Heritage Foundation has calculated expenses associated with the legislation and found that a family of four would have to spend nearly $8,000 more per year due to higher energy costs, rising consumer prices and foregone wages. The 20-year cost would total $165,000. During that same 20-year period, the tax would siphon off an average of 1.1 million jobs per year and diminish GDP by more than $15 trillion. Meanwhile, total U.S. debt has recently reached a perilous $35 trillion.
Harris’ backing of the Green New Deal is consistent with her longstanding opposition to fossil fuels. In the 2020 primary, she told CNN, “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking.” She then confirmed that she was talking not only about “public lands,” but also about per se “legislation” and reminded the audience that “I have a history of working on this issue.” Indeed. Offshore drilling would likely be banned as well under a Harris administration. But energy costs are connected primarily to classic supply-demand issues. Clamping down on fracking and drilling decrease supply, thereby increasing prices throughout the economy. Fracking is also essential for natural gas production, which can further bolster our nation’s energy independence and support our allies. While climate purists no doubt would flourish under a Harris administration, consumers may not appreciate the associated soaring energy prices.
Crime and Punishment
On crime, while Harris and legacy media promoters point to her prosecutorial background, her more recent statements and actions align with the “defund the police” movement. In a June 2020 radio interview, Harris said the movement “rightly” called out the amount of money spent on police departments. She added that U.S. cities were “militarizing police” but “defunding public schools.” In an interview a day earlier, Harris lauded Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti for his decision to slash $150 million from the police budget and move it into social services. During Harris’ 2020 failed presidential campaign, she backed a bail fund that helped free violent criminals from jail. “If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota,” Harris posted on X (then Twitter) back in 2020. The “defund the police” movement, as well as bail payments (carelessly donated by individuals), led to further violence and death, primarily in poorer communities. Both dangerous initiatives have been largely discredited since and share culpability for a nationwide shortage of cops and increased crime.
Harris may be able to skirt a substantive discussion of the most critical issues with help from the media and a sometimes mercurial opponent. She could ride the abortion issue and a veiled “threat to democracy” to a narrow win. But if the election turns to an actual focus on the most critical issues facing the nation, Harris will return to California as a private citizen. The deep blue state may be more welcoming than a center-right nation.
