In an interview on CNN International’s Amanpour aired Thursday, Professor Jason Furman, a leading economist and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Obama, shared significant concerns over Vice President Kamala Harris's proposed $25,000 first-time homebuyer credit. The credit, a major plank of Harris’s 2024 presidential campaign, has raised questions from both conservative and bipartisan voices alike, as many worry it will unintentionally increase home prices and ultimately benefit current homeowners more than aspiring buyers.
Furman didn’t mince words on the implications of Harris’s proposal. While the $25,000 credit may sound appealing to those struggling to buy their first home, Furman argues that it misses the mark by not addressing the core issue plaguing the housing market: supply. Without a considerable increase in the supply of homes, Furman says, adding financial incentives for buyers will only result in increased demand, which is almost certain to push housing prices higher.
“[The credit] sounds great, but you’re going to see a lot of homes go up in price, maybe even by the full 25,000,” Furman explained. “So, you’re handing money to homeowners, not homebuyers.” For conservatives, Furman’s critique highlights a critical flaw in Harris’s strategy: a policy intended to help struggling Americans buy homes may ironically serve as a windfall for current homeowners. This disconnect between intent and outcome has long been a hallmark of progressive economic policies, critics argue.
One of Furman’s strongest criticisms of Harris’s proposal is that it diverts resources away from more urgent priorities, especially given America’s ballooning national debt. He notes that the nation’s budget deficit is already large and that adding more to it for an initiative that doesn’t address housing supply seems reckless. “Our scarce resources, I think, are poorly spent with something that’s a transfer to existing homeowners, just not something we can afford, given all the many priorities we need to put ahead of that,” he argued.
For Americans, the pushback from a respected Democratic economist underscores a pattern of fiscal irresponsibility from progressive leaders who attempt to patch economic challenges with spending sprees rather than sustainable solutions. Today, the U.S. national debt is nearing $34 trillion, and entitlement spending is forecast to increase exponentially. Proposals like Harris’s homebuyer credit ignore these pressing issues and may inadvertently exacerbate the fiscal crisis.
Harris’s plan does include a $40 billion fund to incentivize cities to streamline zoning laws and regulations that hinder new construction. While Furman supports this part of her plan, he remains skeptical about the proposed credits. Americans also recognize the need to cut through regulatory red tape, but many are doubtful that Harris’s approach to merely incentivize cities will be enough to yield real change. Instead, an American approach would advocate for significant deregulatory measures on a federal level, giving states and cities greater freedom to develop housing markets that respond more effectively to demand.
The $25,000 homebuyer credit highlights a pattern among left-leaning leaders: create policies that sound appealing in the short term but fail to deliver long-term benefits. America’s economic future depends on fiscal discipline, and prioritizing funding for strategic needs rather than unsustainable subsidies should be paramount.
Furthermore, critics worry that the first-time homebuyer credit could introduce another economic bubble. History has shown that unchecked government intervention in the housing market can lead to devastating consequences, as seen in the 2008 financial crisis.
The conservative approach to housing policy emphasizes free-market principles that encourage innovation, flexibility, and affordability. Rather than injecting artificial demand through credits and subsidies, a conservative solution would prioritize reducing regulatory barriers that limit housing supply.
In Texas and Florida, for instance, looser zoning laws and minimal government interference have led to more affordable housing prices and steady growth in housing supply. These states offer a sharp contrast to areas like California and New York, where strict zoning laws, rent controls, and high taxes have pushed housing prices through the roof, effectively pricing out middle-class families.
Finally, the critique of Harris’s housing proposal by a high-profile Democratic economist underscores the need for greater fiscal responsibility and a focus on sustainable solutions. Harris’s proposal, while well-intentioned, may worsen the problem it seeks to solve, driving up prices and increasing the deficit without providing real help to those most in need. As conservatives see it, American families deserve solutions that foster financial independence and long-term stability.
Furman’s comments have reignited the debate over what truly constitutes effective, responsible policy. For Americans, the path forward is clear: prioritize sound economic principles over temporary political gain. By respecting the balance of supply and demand, scaling back excessive regulation, and exercising fiscal prudence, America can work toward a future where every citizen has the opportunity to achieve the dream of homeownership without compromising the country’s financial future.
Comments