At a mid-August rally in Raleigh, North Carolina, Vice President Kamala Harris, who is the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee, made waves with her latest proposal to “build an opportunity economy.” While the speech itself was filled with the usual lofty promises, it was her proposal for a $25,000 subsidy to first-generation homebuyers that ignited a lively debate on Fox News’ *The Five*—and gave viewers a firsthand look at how far removed Democrats are from economic reality.
Harris’ remarks, delivered to a crowd that seemed eager to lap up government handouts, included a pledge to create “economic security, stability, and dignity” for the middle class by building 3 million new homes and rentals. As part of her plan, she proposed offering a hefty $25,000 downpayment subsidy to first-generation homebuyers, supposedly helping those whose parents aren’t homeowners to finally get a piece of the American Dream. On the surface, this may sound appealing, but like many Democrat policies, it raises serious questions about its feasibility—and its unintended consequences.
Fox News’ *The Five* wasted no time dissecting Harris’ proposal. As the show kicked off, liberal commentator Jessica Tarlov tried to defend the plan, claiming that it would provide a “return on investment” by helping people “get on the property ladder” and boost homeownership. Her argument seemed to gloss over the glaring problem of rising home prices—a market reality that’s only been worsened by government interference in the housing sector.
Predictably, Jesse Watters wasn’t buying it. When Tarlov insisted that the $25,000 subsidy would benefit both buyers and sellers, Watters hilariously quipped, “I wasn’t paying attention. What did you just say?” That light-hearted jab was enough to send Tarlov into a meltdown, snapping back with, “You’re really an incredible jerk sometimes.” The exchange highlighted not only the tension on the panel but the deep divide between the left’s wishful thinking and conservatives’ focus on practical solutions.
Greg Gutfeld, as usual, brought the conversation back to reality. He rightly pointed out that the $25,000 subsidy Harris is touting is nothing more than a drop in the bucket compared to the skyrocketing costs of homes across the country. “No bank lender will ever be affected by a $25,000 tax credit,” Gutfeld said, underscoring how ineffective this type of government aid would be in the real world. In a housing market where homes routinely cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, a $25,000 subsidy won’t make a dent—it might even exacerbate the problem by artificially inflating prices further.
Harris’ plan also raises deeper concerns about the role of government in creating economic opportunities. Instead of addressing the root causes of housing shortages—like burdensome regulations, zoning laws, and unchecked inflation—her plan simply throws taxpayer dollars at the problem, hoping it will go away. Conservatives understand that real economic security comes from free markets, personal responsibility, and limited government, not from government handouts that distort markets and make things worse.
The left may love Harris’ rhetoric, but her “opportunity economy” is just more of the same big-government overreach that has failed time and time again. Throwing money at housing without addressing the underlying problems is not a solution—it’s a Band-Aid on a broken system. And as *The Five* panel aptly demonstrated, no amount of subsidies can replace the common sense and market-driven policies that actually create lasting opportunities for Americans.
In the end, the debate on *The Five* was not just about a single housing proposal—it was about two competing visions for America’s future. On one side, you have the Democrats’ relentless push for government control and intervention, and on the other, the conservative belief in empowering individuals and unleashing the power of free enterprise. And if Harris’ plan is any indication, the choice in 2024 couldn’t be clearer.
