Staff Reports
The Democrat establishment continues to surprise with its flair for authoritarianism and self-importance, often resulting in a spectacle that is equal parts hilarious and horrifying. Recently, the vice president and aspiring 2024 presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, reached new heights of absurdity by proposing a federal ban on price gouging for food and groceries—yes, you read that correctly. In a stunning display of economic ignorance, she seems determined to convince the nation that the best way to fight inflation is to unleash bureaucratic overlords upon American grocery stores.
In a gallant moment of clarity amid the sea of partisan drivel, a Washington Post columnist took aim at Harris’s ridiculous proposal, branding it as a “sweeping set of government-enforced price controls.” One can only imagine the faces of those who heard this revelation—because a proposal like this would have felt right at home in the Soviet Union, where price controls were all the rage and led to empty shelves and black markets. The reality that instead of letting supply and demand dictate prices, Harris would leave it up to far-away Washington bureaucrats to set price caps, raises eyebrows and blood pressure alike.
Harris was gearing up for a grand announcement in Raleigh, North Carolina, as if she’s a stimulus package about to drop from the sky, but one wonders if internal backlash might lead to a sudden change of plans. She has mastered the art of optics, constantly hiding from scrutiny while maintaining a public persona that relishes in the public-relations exercises rather than serious policy discussions. The odds are she may adjust her grand plans for greater public approval—after all, it’s a game of PR for her.
Harris’s proposal doesn’t just evoke skepticism; it summons memories of historical failures in economic governance. Observers from even the most liberal corners have expressed concern over the potential consequences of her plan, predicting shortages and a host of issues that come with government intervention in markets. In this sense, it serves as a stark reminder that the establishment is not united; in fact, they may increasingly feel the need to cannibalize unsound proposals from within their ranks.
Western Journal: Even WaPo Can't Defend Kamala: You're Already Called Communist, 'Maybe Don't Propose Price Controls?' https://t.co/AOhdNxKXUv
— Ian’s Newsfeed 🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@IanHNewsFeed) August 16, 2024
This isn’t just a simple case of a poorly thought-out plan running aground; it’s indicative of a broader pattern where ambitious politicians, like Harris, lean heavily into government control while others in their party scramble to distance themselves. This divergence reflects a rift between those who advocate for heavy-handed government solutions and those who recognize the dangers of such interventions and the economic chaos they bring. At this point, it’s really just a comedy of errors—watching Harris tries to impose price controls while others roll their eyes and quietly resist.
In the end, the so-called experts and lawyers disguised as policymakers need to put down their overpriced lattes and listen to the fundamentals of a functioning economy: too much government interference leads to disaster. While the vice president may earn some feigned applause from her fellow bureaucrats, the rest of the country remains skeptical and ready to watch the inevitable fallout of this economic folly unfold. The establishment may be battling among themselves, but the real winners here are the people who see through the charade and refuse to endorse a path leading us closer to government overreach.
