Presidential Race: Harris vs. Trump on Antipoverty Policies

The upcoming presidential election presents a critical confrontation between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump, highlighting stark differences in their approaches to antipoverty policy. This contest could profoundly influence the economic security of millions of low-income Americans.

When the pandemic struck in early 2020, threatening to unravel the economy, Mr. Trump enacted a significant stimulus package aimed at providing extensive support for those in need. Following the transition of power in January 2021, President Biden and Ms. Harris advocated for expansive aid measures as part of their pandemic recovery strategy, which further contributed to a decline in the poverty rate.

Although both candidates’ responses to the pandemic shared some similarities, the lessons they derived from this unprecedented period diverged dramatically.

• Kamala Harris’s Perspective:
  • Ms. Harris and fellow Democrats emerged from the pandemic-era programs with a reinforced belief in the government’s capacity to alleviate hardship.
  • If elected, she aims to preserve or enhance many of these initiatives, which include:
  • Subsidies for food
  • Healthcare assistance
  • Affordable housing options
  • A revival of the child tax credit, designed to provide a guaranteed income for families with children.
  • These policies were instrumental in temporarily reducing the poverty rate by over 50% from levels seen prior to the pandemic.
  • She advocates for a $15 federal minimum wage, a stance that has met resistance from Republicans.
  • Additionally, she supports initiatives such as subsidized childcare and paid family leave, which are intended to help individuals balance their work and family responsibilities.
• Donald Trump’s Approach:
  • In contrast, Mr. Trump has largely downplayed his involvement in pandemic-related poverty programs, which many in the Republican Party criticize as excessive and riddled with fraud.
  • Instead, he emphasizes the tax cuts implemented in 2017, which he claims spurred economic growth and led to a historic low in poverty rates before the pandemic.
  • He has pledged to maintain these tax cuts when they are set to expire next year, despite the fact that the majority of their benefits accrued to corporations and wealthier individuals.

This electoral battle is not merely a contest of personalities, but a fundamental debate over the role of government in addressing poverty and supporting the most vulnerable members of society.