McManus: Economy may be race’s key

Harris has been gradually revealing an economic plan that can be described as Biden 2.0. It’s mostly a grab bag of targeted subsidies for parents of small children, first-time homebuyers, small businesses, manufacturing and technology. In an echo of her unmentioned boss, she summarized it as a plan to help families “not just get by, but be able to get ahead. … When the middle class is strong, America is strong.”

“I am a capitalist,” she added, presumably to reassure moderate voters who have heard Trump caricature her as a “radical Marxist lunatic.”

Reviews have been mixed. Republicans predictably dismissed the plan as warmed-over Bidenomics (although, with the economy growing smartly, “Bidenomics” may not have the sting it once did). Democrats praised it on the record, but some added — under cover of anonymity — that they weren’t sure a clear overall message emerged.

Still, Harris’ plan is head and shoulders above the grandiose but gaseous promises Trump has offered. The former president claims he will deliver faster growth, lower prices and massive tax cuts, but has offered no realistic blueprint for how he’d get there.

“Prices will come down and come down dramatically and come down fast,” he pledged. But when a reporter for the conservative Sinclair Broadcast Group asked how he would make prices drop, Trump’s response was an untethered excursion into magical thinking.

“They come down with energy and they come down with interest rates,” he said. “We’re going to get energy down by 50 percent in 12 months. We’re gonna have it. It’s gonna be a major smash on energy.”

That’s not a plan, it’s a pipe dream. A president has no power to make energy prices drop by 50 percent. Trump has promised to deregulate the oil and gas industry and open more federal land to drilling. But economists say it’s unrealistic to expect those steps to produce major price drops in a global energy economy.

A president has no power to make interest rates go down, either. Those rates are set by the Federal Reserve, which was designed to be independent from political pressure.

Trump has offered conflicting specifics about one piece of his vision: high tariffs on imports. He’s mused about tariffs ranging from 10 percent on imports from everywhere to 60 percent on China; details seem to change depending on his mood.

Most economists say those are terrible ideas. Tariffs almost always produce higher prices for both imported and domestically made goods, fueling inflation. And most foreign countries hit by tariffs retaliate by slapping tariffs on U.S.-made goods, reducing American exports. But presidents have wide power to impose tariffs, so this may be one economic promise Trump can deliver.

Trump has also promised tax cuts to just about everybody. He has never bothered to say how he would pay for the resulting cuts to federal revenue beyond his magical “major smash.”

Who’s winning this asymmetrical debate? Like the overall campaign, it may be turning into a draw.

Voters who are focused on abortion have already made up their minds. So have voters who are focused on immigration.

But voters who are focused on the economy and inflation are still in play. That’s where the last remaining movable votes are. That’s why the economic debate will be the last, and perhaps decisive, battle of this campaign.