Deregulation expert Clyde Wayne Crews with the Competitive Enterprise Institute said her plan aimed at “buying votes” would force black-owned businesses to take federal projects and then keep them on the government’s payroll by making them “favored firms.”

“While it offers increased funding and what it dubs opportunities through federal subsidies and contracts, it simultaneously deepens regulatory entanglements,” Crews said on his CEI blog. “The newly proposed ‘Opportunity Agenda’ is just the latest example of the tendency of policymakers to pursue a disturbing fusion of business and government.”

In his analysis, Crews brushed aside the candy offered by Harris in her agenda, including eased-up marijuana rules and access to cryptocurrency.

.@wayne_crews writes about Kamala’s opportunity agenda for black men. The newly proposed “Opportunity Agenda” is just the latest example of the tendency of policymakers to pursue a disturbing fusion of business and government. @Forbes https://t.co/zdcykKXH4N

— Competitive Enterprise Institute (@ceidotorg) October 22, 2024

He focused on her plan to boost black-owned small businesses and offer “forgivable loans.” What he found was that her plan would tie takers to the federal government and its rules as part of a broader plan by the Biden-Harris administration to expand federal regulation and involvement in all corners of private business.

“Federal ‘investments’ in the form of contracts, taxpayer-backed loans, and government-favored initiatives increasingly are what shape the future of small business — not the competitive marketplace. The Harris plan would aggravate this unwelcome turmoil,” said Crews, CEI’s Fred L. Smith fellow in regulatory studies.

He listed examples.

First, Crews said the plan would use contracts to lure small businesses into accepting jobs that boost the Biden-Harris agenda on infrastructure and climate. “Instead of being champions of competition and innovation, small businesses are increasingly drawn into the government’s push for large-scale infrastructure and climate programs. These initiatives may not align with independently conceived needs of small businesses, but they most assuredly will serve as magnets furthering goals of those in power,” he wrote.

Next, he said the plan would force small businesses to depend on Uncle Sam instead of fighting regulations and supporting independent projects.

Third, he said it would make those businesses that take contracts “favored firms,” stuck with relying on government jobs. “As small businesses become intertwined in these seductive ‘opportunity agenda’ webs, they lose their independence and members of the public suffer in their roles as both taxpayers and consumers,” Crews said.

Finally, he warned that by accepting the Harris plan, small firms become pushers of the administration’s liberal agenda. “Buying votes in so brazen a manner is shocking, and these promises to redistribute wealth come at a cost — both for taxpayers and the broader small business community. Equity-focused programs expose taxpayers to the politicized creation of markets that depend on government handouts rather than consumer demand,” Crews wrote.

SEE THE LATEST POLITICAL NEWS AND BUZZ FROM WASHINGTON SECRETS

A better plan, Crews said, and one pushed by former President Donald Trump is to cut regulations to allow small businesses to operate freely.

“The Biden-Harris administration’s approach to small business and economic health generally is awash with contradictions. While it offers increased funding and what it dubs opportunities through federal subsidies and contracts, it simultaneously deepens regulatory entanglements,” Crews wrote, adding, “Easing regulatory burdens remains the best lubricant for true entrepreneurship, letting businesses to flourish on their own merits.”