There are of course a variety of reasons unrelated to economic policy to choose between Kamala Harris, Donald Trump, and other candidates running for President of the United States. But as an economist …
It would be nice to vote for someone who acknowledges that the US budgets and the accumulating US debt are a problem, and has a serious proposal to address it. Proposals for additional tax cuts and spending are not an arithmetically likely solutions.
It would be nice to vote for someone who recognizes that Social Security and Medicare are facing real and severe solvency problems in the not-too-distant future, and offers some proposals to address them. Reducing taxes on Social Security benefits or increasing benefits for those with low incomes, whatever the justifications for such policies, will not help the solvency problem.
It would be nice to vote for someone who sees “inflation” as what happens when too much demand is chasing too few goods, not as an upsurge of greedy sellers nor as something where interfering with the Federal Reserve is a useful approach.
It would be nice to vote for someone who doesn’t think that government controls over prices–whether for rent or credit card interest rates or prescription drugs or groceries–are more than a temporary and dysfunctional band-aid. Also, it would be nice to vote for someone who has a plan for slowing the rise in US health care costs, without pretending that price controls are the answer.
It would be nice to vote for someone who has a specific plan to dramatically increase the quantity of housing being built across the United States while working within the constraints of local control over zoning and building codes, rather than focusing on handing out subsidies to potential buyers for the existing housing and potential builders of new housing, and hoping for the best.
it would be nice to vote for someone who emphasizes that the role of government in encouraging economic growth should be to focus on an educational system that provides a stream of skilled workers, support for research and development, and ensuring that competing firms have a chance to grow, and not on handing out big subsidies to favored industries (say, semiconductors or green energy).
It would be nice to vote for someone who makes a point of emphasizing that the US needs a much more “active labor market policy” for the unemployed: that is, a policy of government support for active job search, job training, and mobility between jobs, not just paying unemployment benefits.
It would be nice to vote for someone who emphasizes the potential gains to the US economy from a rise in skilled and legal immigration–and focuses on this issue separately from questions of border enforcement.
It would be nice to vote for someone who doesn’t believe that the problem of carbon emissions can be solved with ever-expanding subsidies, and is willing to support putting a price on carbon. It would also be nice to vote for someone who has an actual plan for dealing with the fact that more than half of all global carbon emissions come from countries in the Asia/Pacific region, with China alone accounting for nearly one-third of global carbon emissions.
It would be nice to vote for someone who cares a lot about professional day-to-day administration and oversight of government programs–spending, taxes, and regulations–and not just giving speeches about the goals of such programs.
Of course, I am aware that when Harris and Trump occasionally bump into these issues as they carom along the campaign trail, they do not offer identical verbiage. I am also aware that these kinds of issues are mentioned in policy papers hidden away on campaign websites, which I assume are unread by anyone, including the candidates. I am personally familiar with the practical need to vote for a “less bad” candidate, rather than a one I can wholeheartedly support. But still, it is disconcerting to me that the campaign discussion of so many major economic issues seems to me evasive at best, and misguided at worst.
