Harvard Kennedy School Economist Jason Furman clarified that Kamala Harris’ economic plan is good and that Donald Trump’s is risky, explodes the deficit, and causes inflation.
Kamala Harris’ economic plan is better.
Podcasts (Video — Audio)
In a world where economic policies can either stabilize or destabilize a nation’s financial health, the contrasting plans of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump come under scrutiny. Jason Furman, President Obama’s former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, sheds light on these differences. Furman’s evaluation of Harris’ economic plan versus Trump’s provides a compelling case that the latter’s approach, far from benefiting the American public, risks inflation and a ballooning deficit. The interview highlights Furman’s critique of Trump’s proposals, from reckless tariffs to unsustainable deficit spending. It also touches on the unique challenges Harris faces, including deeply ingrained gender biases and misconceptions about Democratic economic policies.
Furman’s commentary underscores the risky nature of Trump’s economic plan. Trump’s proposal to impose sweeping tariffs, potentially up to 20%, on all imports worldwide would have disastrous consequences. These tariffs would affect allies and disrupt markets, raising prices on goods not produced domestically, further fueling inflation. As Furman explains, there seems to be no reasonable economic justification for these tariffs other than to appeal to a protectionist base. However, the implications of such policies are severe. Trump’s tariff plans could lead to an inflationary spiral by driving up consumer prices without offering domestic alternatives. This would hurt the middle and working classes most, as their wages lag behind the rising costs of goods.
In contrast, Harris’ economic platform reflects a more measured and pragmatic approach. While she advocates for higher taxes on capital gains and the wealthiest Americans, her proposals align with mainstream economic thinking. Furman points out that raising capital gains taxes to a level comparable to those under President Reagan’s administration is hardly radical. Yet, Republicans and many in the media paint Harris’ tax policies as socialist or extreme, reinforcing gendered and partisan misconceptions. This mischaracterization distracts from the fact that Harris’ economic policies are designed to reduce inequality while avoiding the reckless inflationary risks of Trump’s proposals.
The debate over deficits further reveals the contrasting philosophies of Harris and Trump. As Furman indicates, Trump’s plan would lead to massive increases in the national deficit, largely driven by tax cuts for the wealthy and increased government spending without the necessary revenue to balance it. Trump’s presidency has already seen a significant deficit expansion, and a second term would likely exacerbate this trend. By contrast, Harris’ plan emphasizes responsible fiscal policies, aiming to fund social programs and infrastructure through targeted tax increases on the wealthy, which would help to stabilize the deficit rather than explode it.
This brings us to a fundamental question: why do so many Americans still believe that Trump is better for the economy than Harris? One can partially attribute it to the influence of sexism and patriarchal assumptions. The belief that men are inherently more capable of handling economic matters is still pervasive, even in an era where female leaders have demonstrated their prowess on the global stage. Figures like Margaret Thatcher and Jacinda Ardern have proven that women can steer economies with strength and pragmatism. Yet, Harris must confront these biases in the United States, often compounded by a general distrust of Democratic economic policies.
The persistent myth that Republicans are better stewards of the economy is rooted in decades of rhetoric rather than fact. Historically, the economy has performed better under Democratic presidents. Data shows that Democratic administrations, on average, have seen higher job growth, stronger GDP performance, and more equitable income distribution than their Republican counterparts. The assumption that Trump’s brash business persona translates into sound economic policy ignores these facts and overlooks the real consequences of his policies. As Furman highlights, the media and Wall Street often focus on short-term gains, such as tax cuts, while ignoring the long-term economic risks of Trump’s deficit spending and inflationary policies.
On the other hand, Kamala Harris faces the challenge of communicating her economic vision in a way that resonates with the public. While she has the facts on her side, the battle is one of perception. To win the confidence of both the American people and the financial markets, Harris must continue to articulate how her policies will promote sustainable growth, reduce inequality, and manage the deficit responsibly. As Furman suggests, this task is made more difficult by the deeply ingrained biases and misconceptions that favor male leaders and Republican rhetoric.
Ultimately, Furman’s analysis leaves little doubt: Trump’s economic plan is reckless, inflationary, and fiscally irresponsible. In contrast, Harris offers a path forward grounded in economic realities, focused on fairness, and committed to long-term stability. The challenge for Harris—and progressives more broadly—is to cut through the noise and help the public see that her policies represent a safer and more prosperous future for all Americans.
This battle of economic ideologies will be a defining issue as the country heads into the next election, with voters weighing the real-world impacts of both plans on their daily lives. As Furman’s analysis makes clear, the choice is between a future of fiscal prudence and one of economic peril.
Viewers are encouraged to subscribe and join the conversation for more insightful commentary and to support progressive messages. Together, we can populate the internet with progressive messages that represent the true aspirations of most Americans.
