DEAR EDITOR:

While Kamala Harris herself does not identify as a socialist, her policies are a problem that threatens individual freedom, economic stability and long-term national prosperity.

Here’s why Kamala Harris’s approach is harmful:

First, expansion of government power, with the expansion of government intervention in both the economy and private lives. Proposals such as universal healthcare, free college tuition, and large-scale climate action plans like the Green New Deal are seen as steps toward a more centrally planned economy. Critics argue that such policies erode individual freedom and autonomy, shifting decision-making power from individuals and businesses to bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. For example, Medicare for All.

Second, the burden on taxpayers. Her policies come with a hefty price tag, which would require significant tax increases. Corporations will pass these increased taxes on to the middle class and they will ultimately bear the brunt of the financial burden. For example, student loan forgiveness programs that would disproportionately affect taxpayers who either didn’t attend college or have already paid off their student loans, effectively redistributing wealth from one segment of the population to another. Additionally, progressive taxation policies often discourage investment and entrepreneurship, reducing economic growth. High-income individuals and businesses may move their assets or operations to more tax-friendly jurisdictions, undermining job creation and stifling innovation in the U.S.

Third, discouraging individual responsibility. Harris wants the expansion of social welfare programs, such as expanded unemployment benefits, rent relief and food assistance, all aimed at alleviating poverty and economic inequality. These programs provide short-term relief, they also create a culture of dependency on the government. Rather than incentivizing work and personal responsibility, expanded welfare programs can trap individuals in cycles of poverty, with fewer incentives to seek employment or pursue higher education and skills development.

Finally, impact on free market dynamics. Harris’ policies would distort free market dynamics. Policies that increase regulations, raise corporate taxes or heavily subsidize certain industries (like clean energy) are viewed as undermining market efficiency. By tilting the playing field in favor of government-chosen industries and sectors, this will stifle innovation and lead to higher consumer prices or reduced job opportunities. In return, businesses facing high regulatory and tax burdens are less likely to invest and expand, reducing opportunities for workers and stifling economic growth.

In conclusion, her policies aimed at promoting equity and improving the social safety net would do more harm than good for America. In a world where economic stability and innovation are key to long-term prosperity, Harris’ policies will ultimately undermine the very goals they aim to achieve.

LARRY YORK

Warren