Nick Corasaniti and Astead W. Herndon

His plan would eliminate the racial wealth gap, Booker promised voters, and “create a fairer playing field where everybody has a stake in this economy.” He has since embarked on a 15-day national tour where he touted numerous economic policies, including a broad rewriting and expansion of earned-income tax credits, a plan his campaign is calling the “Rise Credit.”

One of Booker’s main rivals, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., has touted her own plan to close the wealth gap, which she calls the “LIFT Act.” It would provide a refundable tax credit worth up to $6,000 for households.

As income inequality becomes an increasingly central issue in the Democratic primary, the plans offered by Booker and Harris are a microcosm of the larger competition between two Democrats who have long been vying for similar sources of support. As the leading African American candidates in the race, they are waging a primary within the primary for the right to claim a valuable prize: recognition as the consensus choice of black voters, donors and community leaders in a crowded Democratic field.

“I think they’ll both have strengths in the African American community, but to get the numbers that you need to get in a crowded field, they’ll both need to have crossover appeal,” said Stephen Benjamin, the mayor of Columbia, South Carolina. Benjamin has engaged with both candidates, but is waiting until it gets closer to his state’s primary in February 2020 to make an endorsement.

“So, yes, it’s a collision course between the two African American candidates, but they must also carve out their own lane,” he said.

Former Vice President Joe Biden has tried to position himself as the continuation of former President Barack Obama’s legacy since entering the race last week, and enjoys deep relationships with black leaders in the Democratic Party. In several national polls, which can provide an early reading of the electorate, Biden leads among all demographics, including black voters. Harris has slipped to single-digits in recent weeks after a strong opening month and Booker continues to languish.

For Harris and Booker, the path to the 2020 presidential race began more than a decade ago. At the Democratic National Convention in 2008, the two barrier-breaking black officials were featured during a luncheon for rising stars in a party that was already being reshaped in Obama’s image. Harris at the time was the San Francisco district attorney; Booker was in his first term as mayor of Newark, New Jersey.

Harris’ election to the Senate in 2016 raised her national profile and established her as a likely presidential contender. Booker won his Senate seat in 2013, cementing his national ascendence.

Since then, they have crossed paths repeatedly as they jockey for support from influential black leaders, and for top billing at a similar set of events. They have both shown up, for instance, at a 2017 weekend in the Hamptons for the Black Economic Alliance; at a race and criminal justice panel held by BET earlier this year; and for the NAACP Image Awards in March, where they presented together.

Both senators have faced skepticism from the party’s left at times during their career — Booker for his ties to Wall Street, his record on policing while mayor, and his embrace of charter schools, and Harris for her mixed record on criminal justice reform. And both have structured their presidential campaigns around an economic policy proposal aimed at reducing the wealth gap, while carefully avoiding the anti-Wall Street rhetoric associated with Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

Booker’s “baby bonds” proposal calls for every child born in the United States to be given a $1,000 savings account that the government would fund annually on a tiered basis, depending on family income. The lump sum is presented when the child turns 18 and can only be used for education, investing in a business or buying a home.

Conservatives and some economic experts say the proposal is a fantasy that could never be realized; Hillary Clinton was heavily criticized by Republicans when she proposed a similar idea in 2007 and quickly backed off the proposal.

But many on the left say it represents the kind of bold policy approach they are seeking, and experts like Kilolo Kijakazi, a fellow at the Urban Institute, have said it could directly narrow the racial wealth gap.

Harris’ policy, called LIFT the Middle Class Act, would provide lower-income families up to $500 in monthly payments, on top of existing tax credits and public benefits. It has been praised as a rare tangible benefit to the working poor, the kind seldom seen in Washington.

But some progressives view it as not bold enough — calling it an expansion of the earned-income tax credit by another name — and say it will not lift up the neediest Americans. Harris has also attempted to use the policy as a catchall description of her economic vision, reframing questions about the racial wealth gap and reparations, for instance, into a broader discussion of racial disparity.

Recently, some scholars who previously praised the policy have made sure to clarify it is not a panacea.

The LIFT Act “won’t do much for wealth concentration, and it won’t do much for altering the position of people with the lower end of the wealth distribution,” said Sandy Darity, a Duke University professor who is a leading scholar on reparations and the racial wealth gap.

The reactions to the two economic plans underscore not only the lingering skepticism about Harris’ progressive bona fides, but also the divergent strategies she and Booker are using to present their campaigns to voters.

In private conversations, Harris’ allies acknowledge they are making a different bet than Booker and other rivals like Warren and Sanders. Harris has leapt into the top tier of candidates — she was second to Sanders in first-quarter fundraising — with a less radical policy agenda. Her campaign’s first policy rollout was a federal investment in teacher pay, an almost universally supported idea among her Democratic colleagues.

Rather than trying to appease the party’s left wing with policies that focus on large-scale wealth redistribution and structural change, Harris has staked her bet on an incrementalism more reminiscent of Obama or Clinton.

Felicia Wong, president of the Roosevelt Institute, a liberal think tank, who has tried to push candidates to embrace bolder economic policies, said Booker has gone to greater lengths to match his policies with the progressive moment.

“It’s notable that Sen. Booker, for the last year, has focused on issues at the top of the economy, like corporate concentration of power, and he’s connected that with people’s daily lives,” Wong said. “In contrast, Sen. Harris’ policy pieces, while maybe good individually, don’t yet hang together.’’

Though he leans heavily into bolder policies, Booker has recently attempted to distance himself from unyielding candidates on the party’s left flank, like Sanders. “A real progressive movement does not hold progress for communities like mine hostage today for promises that perfection will come tomorrow,” he said recently at his hometown kickoff rally.

Still, there is no shortage of reasons Harris’ bet on pragmatic liberalism may work, and she currently enjoys a significant edge on Booker in early indicators such as fundraising, polling and national campaign apparatus.

In South Carolina, though Booker’s snagged the first endorsement from a state legislator, Harris recently earned the support of Bakari Sellers, a former state representative and one of the state’s most sought-after surrogates. In announcing his endorsement, Sellers praised Harris’ teacher pay plan in particular.

“These issues hit home for me, and Kamala has repeatedly offered clear solutions for each one, proving there is no problem or person too small to be heard,” Sellers said.

Both campaigns view the early South Carolina primary as essential to their prospects. Other contenders, particularly Biden, enjoy deep relationships among the black political class there. But Booker and Harris have already invested heavily in the state, in an attempt to secure staff and early endorsements.

Harris’ campaign has also raised eyebrows for a reluctance to engage presidential forums related to black voters.

Harris, for instance, has yet to agree to attend the Black Economic Alliance’s presidential forum on black wealth in South Carolina, though Booker and other presidential contenders have said yes. She the People, the advocacy group for women of color that hosted a presidential forum in Houston last week, announced a lineup that originally included almost every top presidential candidate besides Harris. “You have to ask her campaign,” said the group’s founder Aimee Allison, when asked about the absence.

Harris later reversed her decision and participated in the event.

Booker, who has spent years cultivating support from influential black leaders like the Rev. Al Sharpton, has also been reaching out to black pastors and the faith community. In South Carolina, he has visited six churches since announcing his candidacy and he spoke at the National Baptist Convention winter meeting last year.

Both campaigns are also counting on deep relationships within the Congressional Black Caucus, where they are the only two members who are senators. Though Booker has been a more frequent presence at the group’s Wednesday lunches, according to two former congressional aides, both candidates have been active in the caucus, and are counting on eventual support. So far, only members from each candidate’s home state have offered direct endorsements.

In South Carolina, the choice facing black voters was evident at a town hall held by Booker in Denmark, a small rural town not often visited by candidates.

Benjamin Jones, 69, said he liked both candidates and was looking to hear about policies that would address racial inequalities particularly in criminal justice reform.

“I’m still shopping around,” Jones said after the two-plus hour speech, panel and town hall event, “But, I think a lot of black people want to know, like Janet Jackson says, ‘What have you done for me lately?’”

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/cory-booker-kamala-harris-2020.html" id="e48540ae-5a6d-3fe5-af47-c3a8e09aad96">The New York Times</a>.

Harris and Booker, Courting Black Support, Pitch Differing Economic Plans

LONDONDERRY, N.H. — On his third trip to New Hampshire recently, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., had a new and very specific focus: his “baby bonds” proposal to combat income inequality by giving every child a government-funded savings account.

Harris, for instance, has yet to agree to attend the Black Economic Alliance’s presidential forum on black wealth in South Carolina, though Booker and other presidential contenders have said yes. She The People, the black women’s advocacy group that hosted a presidential forum in Houston last week, announced a lineup that originally included almost every top presidential candidate besides Harris. “You have to ask her campaign,” said the group’s founder Aimee Allison, when asked about the absence.

Booker and Harris Pitch Differing Economic Plans as They Court Black Support

Politics

Local

World

News

Celebrities

Music

Movies

Entertainment

Sports 

Fashion

Beauty & Health

Relationships & Weddings

Food & Travel

Lifestyle

Domestic

International 

Business

About

Highlights

Selection Criteria

Jury

Terms And Conditions

FAQs

Pulse Influencer Awards

Courses

Careers

Explore categories

Pulse Kenya is the most followed news and entertainment platform in Kenya. It informs and engages young Kenyans around the clock and provides updates by the hour.

Nick Corasaniti and Astead W. Herndon

Articles written by the author

Harris and Booker, Courting Black Support, Pitch Differing Economic Plans

Booker and Harris Pitch Differing Economic Plans as They Court Black Support