Voters Asked for Affordability. More Government Isn’t the Answer.

The 2026 campaign was supposed to be about affordability. Voters wanted relief from rising housing costs, expensive groceries and higher energy bills. Republicans had their own record to answer for, including tariffs that increased costs for American businesses and consumers and the economic fallout from the war with Iran. Meanwhile, many Democratic candidates offered an assortment of recycled economic ideas that would give the government more control over prices, investment and entire industries, all ideas that would ultimately limit supply and further raise prices for Americans.

The growing influence of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) helps explain why some of these ideas gained traction, with the organization endorsing roughly 150 candidates. From price controls and government-run health care to restrictions on private investment and energy development, candidates promised to lower prices while proposing burdens and restrictions that would make it harder for businesses to compete, invest and produce more of what Americans need. The affordability debate is centered on prices, but those prices reflect the costs of building, financing, producing and delivering the goods and services Americans depend on.

Price controls will not actually make life more affordable.

One of the more troubling trends of the campaign was the renewed enthusiasm for government price controls. During an October Senate debate⁠ in Michigan, there were calls for the federal government to consider price controls on domestically produced oil to address rising fuel costs.

In Texas, similar requests echoed, with remarks encouraging government intervention in credit markets, declaring that it was time to “cap sky-high credit card interest” and rein in credit card companies. California candidates also proposed freezing utility rates and home insurance premiums⁠.

Housing was another major focus of proposals to control prices. In Florida, there were calls for a national rent stabilization standard⁠, while New York City proposed freezing rents on roughly one million rent-stabilized apartments.

These proposals may sound appealing to families struggling with monthly bills. But putting a cap on prices does not eliminate underlying costs or increase supply. Interest rate caps can restrict access to credit, particularly for consumers with limited credit histories. Rent controls discourage housing construction and investment, while oil price controls reduce incentives to increase production.

Rather than addressing the causes of high prices, these policies risk limiting choices, discouraging investment and making affordability problems worse. The more durable answer is to increase supply, encourage competition and remove unnecessary barriers, including restrictive zoning and permitting delays that drive up housing costs.

More government control over your health care and businesses you rely on will not reduce costs.

Government-run health care was another recurring campaign promise, encouraging Medicare for All in states like Michigan, Maine, and Minnesota, with pledges to expand the program to cover every American without premiums, copays or deductibles.

But eliminating premiums and deductibles would not eliminate the underlying costs of health care. Medicare for All would require substantially greater federal spending while shifting more decisions about health care financing to Washington. Reducing the role of private insurance could also weaken competition, limit consumer choice and diminish incentives to improve services.

The push for greater government control extended beyond health care to some of the country’s most innovative industries, including artificial intelligence.

These proposals would expand government influence over investment and business decisions at the expense of competition and the private enterprise that helped develop America’s leading industries.

Restricting investments hurts communities most.

Others in Iowa called for driving private equity⁠ out of housing, health care and nursing homes, even as communities need more investment to expand housing supply and health care capacity.

Restrictions on investment and development also extended to the energy and technology sectors. Georgia candidates called for a statewide pause on new data center development, while Texas candidates campaigned on a moratorium on new data center approvals. Others advanced a federal AI data center moratorium proposal.

Meanwhile, some Democrats promoted the Green New Deal, while the DSA’s platform called for phasing out fossil fuels and expanding public ownership of energy infrastructure.

These proposals come as electricity demand is growing and America faces increasing competition for investment in AI and advanced manufacturing. The country needs more reliable energy, a stronger electric grid and a permitting system that allows critical infrastructure to be built.

Environmental reviews and appropriate safeguards are important. But those concerns should be addressed through clear standards and timely, predictable decisions, not blanket restrictions that discourage investment.

When government makes it harder to build and invest, the consequences eventually reach consumers through limited supply, fewer choices and higher costs.

A Better Approach to Affordability

There is a better path. Making life more affordable for Americans starts with these fundamentals:

• Increasing American competitiveness
• Fostering business investment and job creation
• Reducing red tape and unnecessary barriers

This is exactly what Americans for Free Markets stands for, and we’ll continue to highlight the proposals that expand opportunity and growth for Americans – and those that do not.

David Ibsen serves as the Executive Director of Americans for Free Markets.