The left-wing Washington Post criticizes Harris's approach to price gouging

Even the Washington Post is unconvinced by Vice President Kamala Harris' plans to impose socialist price controls on food.

The long-standing left-leaning paper – owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos – published a scathing editorial attacking the Democratic presidential candidate for claiming that price gouging causes inflation and for offering only “populist gimmicks” instead of a legitimate plan to solve the problem.

During the Biden-Harris administration, food prices nationwide have risen by more than 20 percent. At a rally in North Carolina on Friday, Harris outlined the economic policies she plans to implement in her first 100 days as president, including enforcing government price controls on food.

Instead of “Level[ing] Arguing that “inflation rose so sharply in 2021 largely because the pandemic disrupted supply chains and that Federal Reserve policies supported by the Biden-Harris administration are aimed at slowing them,” the vice president “chose a less direct approach: blaming big corporations,” the newspaper wrote.

Bezos, a supporter of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, bought the newspaper in 2013 but began taking a more active role in its leadership last year.

The billionaire's portfolio – which includes e-commerce king Amazon and grocery chain Whole Foods Market – would likely be affected by Harris's pro-communism policy ideas. For example, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) could enforce a nationwide ban on price gouging that would also include heavy penalties for companies that set exorbitant prices.

“Ms Harris says she will target companies that make 'excessive' profits, whatever that means,” the editorial barked.

However, her idea of ​​providing first-time home buyers with a $25,000 down payment has been sharply criticized as it “risks putting upward pressure on prices.”

“Fortunately, this move by Ms. Harris was met with skepticism almost immediately. Many critics point to President Richard M. Nixon's failed price controls of the 1970s. Whether Harris' proposal will convince voters remains to be seen, but if sound economic analysis still matters, it won't.”

The editorial board was more positive about Harris' housing plan, saying it was “built on a somewhat firmer foundation” and calling her tax incentives “clever.”

“Such a measure might make sense if Ms. Harris were to finance it by eliminating other demand-side housing subsidies, such as the mortgage interest deduction, a roughly $30 billion annual drain on federal revenue that benefits many wealthy Americans – but she is not doing that,” the newspaper wrote.

It went on to say that Harris' “strongest foundation” was her proposal to increase the child tax credit from $2,000 to $3,600 per child and to provide other tax relief.

The Harris campaign team did not immediately respond to messages.