Vice President Kamala Harris has sparked a wave of criticism with her recent proposal to impose federal price controls on food and groceries, a move that has been blasted by both conservative and liberal commentators as economically disastrous.
Among the most vocal critics is liberal economist and Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell, who didn’t mince words when discussing the plan’s potential fallout, comparing it to failed experiments in countries like Venezuela, Argentina, and the Soviet Union.
Appearing on CNN, Rampell labeled the proposal “totally unworkable,” arguing that it would strip the free market of its fundamental mechanisms. “It‘s not going to be markets, it‘s not going to be supply and demand that’s determining how much your grocery store charges you for milk or for eggs,” Rampell stated, “it‘s going to be some bureaucrat in D.C., which seems like totally unworkable.” Her assessment casts a shadow over the policy’s feasibility, particularly in a country that prides itself on market-driven solutions.
Rampell’s critique didn’t stop at logistics. She questioned the very foundation of the proposal, pointing out the vagueness of terms like “price gouging” and “excessive profit margins.” According to Rampell, these concepts are inherently subjective and difficult to define in a way that could be consistently enforced. “Nobody can explain what price gouging means,” she argued, noting that determining what constitutes an “excessive” price or profit margin is nearly impossible without clear, objective standards.
The economic commentator also took aim at a piece of legislation in the Senate, backed by prominent Democrats such as Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bob Casey, which she believes could serve as a blueprint for Harris’ plan. Rampell described the legislation as “especially bad” because of its broad and ambiguous language. “It just bans excessive prices, grossly excessive prices, grossly excessive profit margins,” Rampell said, adding that the bill would empower the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to determine what those terms mean. She questioned the practicality of having the FTC decide how much companies like Kroger should charge for basic goods like eggs, especially across diverse markets.
The parallels Rampell drew between Harris’ proposal and the failed economic policies of socialist and communist regimes should serve as a stark warning. “We’ve seen this kind of thing tried in lots of other countries before,” she said, listing Venezuela, Argentina, and the Soviet Union as examples. According to Rampell, these countries experienced severe shortages and the emergence of black markets as a result of government-imposed price controls. She cautioned that the U.S. could face a similar fate if Harris’ plan is implemented.
Moreover, Rampell warned that the proposal could backfire and actually drive prices up. She pointed to provisions in the Senate legislation that would require public companies to disclose their pricing strategies in quarterly earnings reports. Such transparency, she argued, could inadvertently facilitate collusion among companies, leading to higher prices—precisely the opposite of what the policy intends to achieve.
The stakes are high, and Rampell’s analysis raises serious concerns about the potential consequences of Harris’ plan. She predicted that if any legislation incorporating these ideas were to pass, it would “at best do nothing, at worst cause a lot of harm.” Her comments reflect a broader unease among economists and financial experts, many of whom view the proposal as a misguided attempt to address inflationary pressures by centralizing control over the economy.
The Harris campaign has yet to respond to the growing criticism, including inquiries from Fox News Digital. However, the controversy surrounding the proposal is unlikely to dissipate any time soon, especially as more experts weigh in on its potential impact.
Announced on Wednesday, Harris’ plan would authorize the FTC to impose “harsh penalties” on companies found guilty of setting excessively high prices on food and groceries. While the proposal is framed as a response to rising living costs, particularly for lower-income Americans, its reception has been anything but warm. Even some left-leaning economists have expressed skepticism, with Rampell leading the charge against what she sees as a dangerously misguided policy.
In a scathing op-ed for the Washington Post, Rampell laid out her objections in detail. “It’s hard to exaggerate how bad this policy is,” she wrote. “It is, in all but name, a sweeping set of government-enforced price controls across every industry, not only food. Supply and demand would no longer determine prices or profit levels. Far-off Washington bureaucrats would.”
Rampell’s criticism serves as a stark reminder that good intentions do not always lead to good policy. As the debate over Harris’ proposal continues, Americans would do well to remember the lessons of history—lessons that show time and again that when the government tries to control prices, it often leads to economic disaster.
