WaPo Slams Kamala Harris’s Government Price Control Plan: ‘Hard to Exaggerate How Bad This Policy Is’

It is “hard to exaggerate how bad” Vice President Kamala Harris’s proposal to implement government-enforced price control on groceries is, according to a Washington Post essay slamming the plan as both vague and harmful, and cautioning those labeled “communist” by their opponents should think twice before pushing such radical economic policies.

In a piece published Thursday, titled “When your opponent calls you ‘communist,’ maybe don’t propose price controls?” Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell argues that it’s difficult to overstate just “how bad” Harris’s plan is.

“It’s not hard to figure out where this proposal came from,” the essay states. “Voters want to blame someone for high grocery bills, and the presidential candidates have apparently decided the choices are either the Biden administration or corporate greed.” 

“Harris has chosen the latter,” Rampell adds.

Promising a federal ban on price gouging during the first 100 days of her presidency, Harris’s plan to crack down on “excessive prices” and “excessive corporate profits” in the grocery sector is then criticized for its lack of clarity and potential to cause economic disruptions.

“What are these ‘clear rules of the road’ or the thresholds that determine when a price or profit level becomes ‘excessive’?” Rampell asks. “The memo doesn’t say, and the campaign did not answer questions I sent seeking clarification.”

According to the essay, the most likely model for Harris’s proposal is a recent bill from Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren, which similarly lacked clear definitions and gave broad enforcement power to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

“Warren’s bill would ban any ‘grossly excessive price’ during any ‘atypical disruption’ of a market,” the piece suggests. “Alas, no definition was provided for these terms, either; rather, the bill would empower the Federal Trade Commission to enforce bans using any metric it deems appropriate.”

Calling it “in all but name, a sweeping set of government-enforced price controls across every industry, not only food,” Rampell insists it is “hard to exaggerate how bad” such a policy is. 

“Supply and demand would no longer determine prices or profit levels. Far-off Washington bureaucrats would,” she writes. “The FTC would be able to tell, say, a Kroger in Ohio the acceptable price it can charge for milk.”

Highlighting that the legislation would ban quantity discounts and force companies to disclose pricing data, risking collusion, Rampell warned that the plan could “lead to shortages, black markets and hoarding, among other distortions seen previous times countries tried to limit price growth by fiat,” and may even “accidentally raise prices.”

Noting that the bill mandates public companies to disclose detailed internal data on costs, margins, and future pricing strategies, she states that “Posting cost and pricing plans publicly is a fantastic way for companies to collude to keep prices higher — all facilitated by the government.”

She continues by explaining that price-fixing is “already illegal,” as Harris herself highlighted in her anti-“price gouging” agenda.

However, Rampell suggests, Harris’s advisers seem unable to distinguish between actual cartel behavior and temporary price spikes caused by high demand or supply-chain issues.

“Harris’s economic advisers are either too confused or lazy to tell the difference,” she writes. “They don’t seem to know the history of these kinds of policies and apparently haven’t thought very hard about what would make markets more competitive or improve the lives of voters.”

In light of a recent report showing that grocery prices rose just one percent over the past year, a fact the White House itself boasted of, the Post essay questions the premise of Harris’s campaign. 

“They don’t even seem terribly familiar with what’s happening to grocery prices, where the battle against inflation has, believe it not, pretty much already been won,” Rampell writes, noting that profit margins in the grocery industry remain “notoriously thin,” challenging the narrative of “excessive corporate profits.” 

Explaining that grocery inflation actually rose due to high demand and supply disruptions and then cooled as those factors subsided, she insists that “These are the kinds of facts the Harris campaign should be explaining to consumers, not exploiting for demagogic gain because push-polling suggests people are mad about ‘greed.’”

The essay concludes by arguing that Harris’s plan risks confirming critics’ long-standing accusations.

“If your opponent claims you’re a ‘communist,’ maybe don’t start with an economic agenda that can (accurately) be labeled as federal price controls,” she writes. “We already have plenty of economic gibberish coming from the Republican presidential ticket. Do we really need more from the other side, too?”

The matter comes as Harris plans to introduce Soviet-style price controls on groceries Friday, marking her first major policy speech since becoming the Democratic nominee as she continues to face criticism for lacking policy direction.