Vice President Kamala Harris will unveil her populist economic agenda at a campaign rally in North Carolina on Friday.

The highly anticipated plan is Harris’ first detailed vision of her economic policy and includes proposals that prioritize “lowering costs for American families,” going beyond President Joe Biden’s campaign platform, the Washington Post reported.

Although the Democrats do not always base their arguments on economics, some experts say they are increasingly relying on populist economic policies to win the November election. Numerous polls have shown that concerns about the economy and inflation are among the most important issues for voters. Polls also show that cracking down on corporate price gouging is a positive thing.

Harris’ proposal includes, among other things, the elimination of medical debt for millions of Americans; the “first-in-a-generation” ban on corporate price gouging on food and groceries; a cap on prescription drug costs; a child tax credit that gives families $6,000 per child in a baby’s first year; and a $25,000 grant for first-time homebuyers – an extension of Biden’s grant for first-generation homebuyers.

The Democratic nominee’s economic policy position comes just days before the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Harris was largely surrounded by former Biden aides, and her announcement Friday – contrary to the centrist approach business leaders were likely hoping for – appears to build heavily on Biden’s push for aggressive government intervention in the economy in the areas of industry, labor and antitrust.

“Harris has made a series of policy decisions in recent weeks that make clear that the Democratic Party is committed to a pro-working-family agenda. The days of saying, ‘What’s good for the free market is good for America,’ are over,” Felicia Wong, president of a left-leaning think tank called Roosevelt Forward, told the Washington Post.

Two outside advisers familiar with the matter told The Washington Post that the vice president’s campaign also considered some more moderate measures in the weeks before her announcement, such as supporting income tax cuts for middle-class households or tax breaks for small businesses. These were not included in her final package of measures but could be released later.

Some of Harris’ plans were less clear and remained ambiguous, such as the allusion to cutting “red tape” and reducing the deficit. Some economic experts considered some of the vice president’s ideas unrealistic and harmful to the U.S. economy in the long run.

For example, Marc Goldwein, senior vice president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, claimed that Harris’s call for an additional $6,000 tax credit for newborns would most likely cost an additional $100 billion over 10 years. That cost is in addition to the estimated $1.1 trillion she would need to raise over 10 years to restore Biden’s original tax credit, which gives most children $3,000. Policy experts also criticized Harris’s promise not to raise taxes on Americans earning less than $400,000 a year.

A campaign spokesperson told Salon that any additional costs beyond the Biden administration’s budget proposal would be offset by higher taxes on corporations and top earners.

Harris’ price gouging proposal is another example of a half-baked plan, experts say. While food prices – which have risen 26% since 2019 – have become a top concern for voters, it is also true that mandatory price setting will lead to shortages as companies lose the incentive to produce supplies. On the other hand, Biden’s advisers deny that government intervention is needed to restore balance in the interests of consumers.

“Vice President Harris faces a dilemma: On the one hand, America is on a fiscally unsustainable path, and if we are to tackle some of the more ambitious programs she wants to pursue, we need higher revenues,” Daniel Hemel, a tax policy expert at New York University School of Law, told the Post.

“On the other hand,” he added, “democracy is in danger, and this crisis feels more immediate – and is – than the budget crisis, and I think she made the right assessment that it is worth making fiscal sacrifices for a few hundred thousand middle-class voters in the swing states.”