The Washington Post's liberal editorial board has a critical view of Harris' economic plan, labeling it as "populist gimmicks."

The Washington Post editorial board criticized Vice President Kamala Harris' economic proposals, stating that instead of presenting a comprehensive plan, she resorted to using populist stunts.

The Post editorial board criticized Harris for not being transparent with voters about the reasons for high prices, instead blaming big business for inflation.

"The editorial board scoffed at Ms. Harris's statement that she will target companies with "excessive" profits, as the meaning of this term is unclear. Critics have cited President Richard M. Nixon's failed price controls from the 1970s as an example of this approach's potential failure. While the success of Ms. Harris's proposal remains uncertain, sound economic analysis suggests it won't succeed."

The editorial board praised Harris' housing plan, stating that it has a stronger foundation and her tax incentives are smart. However, they criticized her $25,000 offer to new homeowners, arguing that it could increase housing prices.

The paper argued that if Ms. Harris were to pay for such a measure by eliminating other demand-side housing subsidies, such as the mortgage interest deduction, which costs the federal government approximately $30 billion annually and benefits many wealthy Americans, it would make sense. However, the paper noted that Ms. Harris does not plan to do this.

The piece maintained that Harris' strongest stance was on her plan to raise the child tax credit from $2,000 to $3,600, along with other tax breaks.

"The editorial board expressed skepticism about Kamala Harris's plan to hold to President Biden's pledge not to raise taxes on households earning $400,000 or less annually, as it would cost money and exclude 80 percent of taxable income. The Harris campaign claims to have a plan to raise revenue to cover these costs, but did not provide specific offsets in its economic plan rollout. As a result, Ms. Harris's full plan would add $1.7 trillion to federal deficits over a decade, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan budget watchdog."

The editorial board stated that every campaign makes expensive promises that will never be fulfilled, especially with a divided Congress. They pointed out Mr. Biden's promise to make community college free and noted that Ms. Harris's speech on Friday fell short of expectations.

Planet Chronicle Digital's request for comment from the Harris campaign was not immediately responded to.

The Harris campaign introduced a new federal plan to regulate corporate prices, aiming to lower grocery and other daily expenses.

"The Harris campaign stated that there is a significant distinction between fair pricing in competitive markets and inflated prices that do not reflect the true costs of doing business. This is evident in the higher prices that Americans pay for groceries."

The Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general would be granted the authority to impose severe penalties on companies for charging exorbitant prices under the proposal.

Some economists and financial experts have questioned the effectiveness of Harris' plan, stating that corporations do not significantly contribute to rising grocery prices.

Catherine Rampell, a Washington Post columnist, strongly condemned the policy, stating, "This policy is incredibly poor."

Perhaps it's not wise to begin with an economic plan that can be classified as federal price controls if your opponent has accused you of being a communist, according to Rampell.

Planet Chronicle' Jeffrey Clark and Megan Henney contributed to this report.