Who Is the Real Kamala Harris? A Big Government Liberal.
Harris has flip-flopped on many issues, but she's been consistent on her desire to spend more of your money.

Who is Kamala Harris? What does she believe?
It's hard to know.
She won't take questions from reporters.
Instead, she reads from a teleprompter and gives the same speech again and again.
So, as she gets the nomination, my new video looks at who Harris really is.
She's eager to spend other people's money.
As the Biden administration spent America further into debt, Vice President Harris cast tie-breaking votes to spend more.
Last election, Stossel TV compared the candidates' proposed spending. We were surprised that the biggest spending plans came from Harris.
Trump proposed spending $267 billion more. Biden, $297 billion. The socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders wanted to spend an astonishing $3.976 trillion! But Harris was even worse! $4.162 trillion in new spending.
Biden's big spending ignited nasty inflation. Imagine how much prices would have increased had Democrats selected Harris back then.
Last week, in her first policy speech, she proposed $1.7 trillion in new spending.
At least that's not as bad as what she wanted during COVID: She thought government should give every American $2,000 a month. That would have cost taxpayers $21 trillion! Her love for big government dominates her thinking.
A few years ago, she endorsed eliminating private health insurance—having government take it over completely.
Now her campaign says she "no longer supports [entirely government-run] health care."
Who is the real Kamala Harris?
In 2019, she said she wanted to ban fracking.
Now that Harris needs votes in Pennsylvania, where fracking provides jobs, her campaign claims she won't ban fracking, and Republican claims that she would are "false…an obvious attempt to distract."
But what's false? She told CNN, "I'm in favor of banning fracking."
She also wanted to force gun owners to sell their guns to the government. Now, a Harris spokesperson says, "the vice president would no longer require this."
She used to brag about being a tough prosecutor, even taking pride in "prosecuting parents for truancy."
But then, when progressives criticized harsh policing, she flip-flopped. During the George Floyd riots, as people looted and set fires, Harris tweeted, "help post bail for those protesting."
Now the policing pendulum has swung back. Harris again brags about locking people up.
During a Democratic presidential debate in 2019, former U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard pointed out her hypocrisy: "She put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana."
Harris had no answer. Shortly after that, she dropped out of the presidential race.
Today, legacy media protect Harris, because they hate Trump so much.
For years, the supposedly "nonpartisan" website GovTrack ranked senators on a liberal/conservative scale. They labeled Harris the most liberal.
But once it looked like Harris would be the nominee, GovTrack deleted their page. They suddenly decided they didn't have sufficient data "to create a reliable portrait of the activity of legislators."
Harris needs this media cover, because she says radical things, like wanting "equity" over equality and equal opportunity.
"There's a big difference," she says in an animated video. "Equality suggests everyone should get the same amount. Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place."
Everyone must end up at the same place? So, we need even more government redistribution?
Harris is a big-government, flip-flopping opportunist.
It's upsetting that the main presidential contenders are a cackling, economically ignorant big spender and a crass, self-absorbed bully.
Even Trump supporter Ann Coulter calls him an "awful, awful man."
Although most of his policies would be better than hers…
The best news is that America's founders wisely created checks on executive power.
Foolish people often say the president "runs the country." Thankfully, that's not true.
We the people run the country.
The president runs only one of three branches of government. Each is designed to be able to stop the other from imposing tyranny.
The founders wanted limited government because they'd seen the damage oppressive rulers did.
If our next president must be Trump or Harris, I'm sure glad there are limits on their power.
COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
*Even Trump supporter Ann Coulter calls him an "awful, awful man."
Although most of his policies would be better than hers…*
I believe both of these statements to be true. Because I am capable of holding two thoughts in my head at the same time. Pity the other staff at Reason aren't. They spent the last year telling us the policies of both major parties / candidates were exactly the same level of bad.
I assume the sudden, blatant shift in tone is a reaction to the many people who, like myself, grew tired of the false equivalencies and stopped clicking on the stories.
That’s just false. Whenever anyone says that both parties suck, the strawman-slaying Trump defenders swoop in to accuse the person of saying that both parties are the exact same level of suck. Then they stab and beat and kick that strawman until there’s not even a toothpick left before jumping up and down on the remains and grinding them into the mud.
Poor tired desperate sarc. Your side is flailing, so desperate to throw shit.
The projection of others using strawman in your own strawman filled comment is the drunks kiss btw.
"strawman-slaying Trump defenders"
This very post of yours is a strawman. I have been here for a year now, and I've yet to see these people you are constantly talking about who defend everything literally everything trump says and does.
I don’t care what side a person might be on, if you’re whole shtick is: “no, you!” I ain’t listening.
The Tweedle Dee versus Tweedle Dum, uni party narrative is an essential belief amongst libertarians and has been a pretty accurate description of government for most of my lifetime. That began to change in my view in 2016 and after the tyranny of 2020 it should have been obvious to anyone that values liberty that the both sides argument is simply no longer accurate. The differences between the Democrats and Trump Republicans are stark. War versus peace. Economic opportunity versus servitude. Lockdowns versus freedom. Censorship versus open debate. As horrible as Trump may be, old school liberals like Musk and apparently RFK are openly endorsing him because the alternative is just too terrifying to contemplate. Protest votes for Ls are not only pointless they could very well be a vote for 4 more years of Obama/Biden/Harris tyranny. If Reason feels compelled to inject Orange Man Bad into every article about Harris to prove their "libertarian" bona fides have at it. But don't even think about publishing the libertarian case for Kamala if you have a shred of integrity left.
There is no libertarian case for Harris.
Kamala Harris will be Obama 2.0. And I mean that in the absolute worst way possible. Because the government was so sycophantically in love with that man, they memory-holed inconvenient movements like Code Pink. Had Edward Snowden released his files during a Republican Administration, he’d be a martyr to the left. But Obama purposely orchestrated his stranding in Russia so that he could be labeled a spy. “Fact Checkers” helped him by backing obvious lies like “You can keep your plan”, when any logical reading of the ACA proposals made it impossible to know otherwise.
Even worse, the media and government let him get away with unprecedented breaks in tradition and law. They did no more than grumble when he neutered the Press Room, requiring pre-screened questions. He turned financial companies on “unsavory” types, deplatforming them. He set up entire departments in the CIA, FBI and White House tasked with monitoring the speech of Americans and “suggesting” they be censored to big tech. He weaponized the Patriot Act to spy on his political rivals- an act that dwarfs Watergate. Not to mention that he orchestrated the federal government's takeover of nearly 50% of our economy (ACA and Dodd-Frank).
Kamala has the combination of liberal politics and intersectionality that makes her unassailable from the liberal media. They let her get away with these flip-flops without a shred of curiosity.
And now, there are signals that she is going to endorse an Unrealized Gains (a.k.a. Wealth) Tax.
https://www.semafor.com/article/08/19/2024/harris-camp-signals-it-backs-biden-bid-to-raise-taxes-on-wealthy-corporations
First, the fact that this has been suggested in Biden’s economic proposal is bad enough. The thought that a president of the US is putting this proposal on the table means that we are going to see it every year, unless any politician learns that it is as toxic an issue as gun control was for Al Gore.
But if Kamala Harris is able to pass this Wealth Tax, it will mean an absolute turning point in our country. I am not exaggerating when I say that It is the type of economic watershed moment that ruins countries. And the idea that the Media remains mum about this, or deflects away from it, is a travesty.
+
"Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place."
QFMFT.
The same place being all the haves become the have nots.
Poor Stossel, such good ideas but hamstrung by his naivety.
Today, legacy media protect Harris, because they hate Trump so much.
It is not so much they hate Trump. They do hate him, but he gets in the way of the fundemenatal transformation Obama started. That can not be tolerated. It is always forward toward communism for these asshats.
We the people run the country.
I hear you are a weathly man. Can I interest you in this ocean front property I have in Arizona?
definite marxist ... borderline islamist.
“A few years ago,
sheher fucking political party endorsed eliminating private health insurance—having government take it over completely.”Fixed it
"Public" is just a BS propaganda cover-up for Communism.
And Communism is just a BS propaganda cover-up for armed gov-gun theft.
Guns don't make sh*t.
The only way Harris can ?give? anything is by ENSLAVING the people at the end of a Gov-Gun.
Maybe the purpose of Gov-Guns was to ensure Individual Liberty and Justice for all??? Democrats would have you believe their purpose is to ENSLAVE others. The party-of-slavery in 1861 the party-of-slavery in 2024. The BS propaganda has changed the premise has not.
Harris lied to the American people for months (if not years) about Biden's mental decline. Why would anyone believe anything she says? Promises are cheap. Her record says she is a big government communist.
'Today, legacy media protect Harris, because they hate Trump so much.'
You forgot their Taylor Swift-like infatuation with DEI Harris. And their craving for nanny state coddling.
"Who Is the Real Kamala Harris? A Big Government Liberal."
You misspelled "fascist."