It’s almost November; do we want to continue the path charted by the Biden-Harris administration, or embrace a more American vision for our country’s future?

For those who have felt the sting of soaring prices and dwindling economic prospects, the choice is clear. Donald Trump, who has proven his capability to address inflation and foster economic stability, stands in stark contrast to Kamala Harris and her policies.

Two years on, it’s time we rename the Inflation Reduction Act as the Inflation Expansion Act.

The Inflation Expansion Act (IEA), passed two years ago, marks a significant turning point in the economic policy of the United States. Spearheaded by Kamala Harris, whose decisive vote in the Senate enabled the bill’s passage, it has wreaked havoc on the American economy. Its effects are palpable: inflation has surged, energy prices have skyrocketed, and the cost of living has become increasingly unaffordable.

The Biden-Harris administration’s ironically-titled “Build Back Better” agenda, which underpins the IEA, has exacerbated these issues.

From an economic standpoint, the IEA’s purported goal was to reduce the deficit by $58 billion. Instead, it has resulted in an alarming deficit increase of over $796 billion. Financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs, have estimated that the tax credits alone will cost taxpayers a staggering $1.2 trillion, far exceeding initial projections. This miscalculation is a clear indication of the flawed economic assumptions underlying the law.

Moreover, the law’s focus on green energy and electric vehicle incentives has not only been costly, but has disproportionately benefited the wealthy. Tax credits intended to promote E.V.s and green technology have largely flowed to high-income earners and billion-dollar corporations, rather than supporting working-class Americans.

For example, the $7,500 E.V. tax credit alone is projected to cost $101 billion, a far cry from the original estimate of $14 billion. This form of corporate welfare represents a massive transfer of wealth from the general populace to the economically advantaged.

One of the most troubling aspects of the IEA is its impact on Medicare and health care. The legislation’s redesign of Medicare Part D has led to a significant increase in premiums for American seniors, with projections indicating a potential doubling of costs by 2025. The Act has also resulted in fewer Medicare drug plans and limited options for low-income Americans.

This shift has been exacerbated by price control measures, which have placed the government between patients and their medications.

The reduction in drug innovation is a particularly alarming consequence. The Act’s price controls have discouraged pharmaceutical companies from investing in new research, potentially stifling the development of life-saving treatments. Reports suggest that up to 130 new drugs could be impacted, and job losses in the pharmaceutical sector could reach nearly 700,000.

This chilling effect on innovation threatens not only the quality of health care but also the availability of new cures for debilitating diseases.

Kamala Harris’s role in passing the IEA has had broader economic repercussions. Inflation, which stood at a manageable 1.4% when Biden and Harris took office, has surged by 20.2% under their watch. This dramatic rise in inflation has led to an increase in the cost of living, with Americans spending an additional $13,000 annually to cover basic expenses. Real wages have declined, and average weekly earnings have dropped by 3.9% in inflation-adjusted terms.

This economic strain is particularly evident in the experiences of small-scale entrepreneurs like myself. During both the Trump and Biden-Harris administrations, I witnessed firsthand the impact of these policies on my business. The economic stability and tax policies implemented during Trump’s presidency fostered an environment in which small enterprises could thrive.

Under Trump, the U.S. saw significant economic achievements, like tax cuts that benefited businesses and individuals alike, and a reduction in regulatory burdens. These policies contributed to a robust economy with low unemployment and rising wages.

Trump’s economic policies were not only effective but also inclusive. His approach to tax reform, deregulation, and trade agreements fostered an environment in which both working-class Americans and business owners could succeed. The contrast between this record and the economic challenges brought about by the IEA could not be more pronounced.

Trump’s commitment to tackling inflation and supporting American businesses is exactly what the country needs to recover from the current economic malaise—he’s done it before and he will do it again.

Given the economic damage inflicted by the IEA and the broader Biden-Harris agenda, supporting Donald Trump in the upcoming election is not merely a matter of political preference but a necessity for economic recovery. Trump’s proven ability to manage the economy effectively, combined with his commitment to reducing inflation and fostering business growth, makes him the clear choice for voters concerned about their financial well-being.

The upcoming election offers Americans a chance to correct the course set by the current administration and to embrace a future where economic policies support rather than hinder progress.

Joseph Ford Cotto, 1st Baron Cotto, GCCCR (DBA) is the author of What Happened to America?: How—and Why—the American Dream Became a Nightmare. He holds a doctorate in business administration and hosts News Sight, an online program with a sharp focus on the current events that impact your life. During 2014, HLM King Kigeli V of Rwanda bestowed a hereditary knighthood upon him. It was followed by a barony the next year.

Image: Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0, Wikimedia Commons, unaltered.