Universal Basic Income and the Pandemic Income Crisis
Until recently, the big argument for a universal basic income (UBI) used to be that it would reduce income inequality. Nobody took it seriously
Commentary
“Rising income inequality is why we need Universal Basic Income [UBI] in America,” Andrew Yang proclaimed during his “barely there” presidential campaign.
And, artificial intelligence and robotics, we were told, are also big reasons why UBI is necessary. New innovations in automation threaten to make many millions of human beings obsolete.
That’s still true, by the way.
U.S. Economy on Life Support
But considering that tens of millions or more Americans are out of work—or will soon be—having any income is the compelling reason for UBI at this very difficult moment.
The invisible CCP virus is the driving force behind UBI becoming a part of our lives in the very near future. Undoubtedly, some stripe of UBI will be a part of the $2 trillion-plus relief package that will eventually get passed in the Senate.
Specifically, let’s look at the prospects of giving every adult citizen a monthly income that they could use as they please. That’s the idea behind UBI, which is now back in vogue in a big way with thinkers on both the left and the right.
It sounds like just one more entitlement program, right? But there’s more to UBI than meets the eye.
First, whatever one thinks about UBI, it’s not as much of a far out, leftwing idea as you might think it is. It’s actually a very old idea, and a distinctly American one, too. More on that in a moment.
More to the point, however, is the fact that the economy is crashing before our very eyes. The Federal Reserve just announced that they expect unemployment to reach up to 30 percent. That would put the United States in worse shape than it was in the Great Depression.
The Looming Income Gap
Second, income inequality is at its highest in 50 years, and the gap will continue to widen if the current trend becomes the new normal. Income disparity is normal; but extreme income disparity, where the middle class is becoming the lower class, has social disruption written all over it. Adding UBI would help to close that gap. Putting cash in the hands of consumers will also stimulate the economy, which is definitely what is needed right now.
Third, the advent of the artificial intelligence, machine learning, and robotics era is a very real threat to millions of jobs. In a recent study by consultants McKinsey and Company, about half of the world’s jobs—amounting to about $15 trillion-worth of human-performed labor—could be replaced today by automation.
Looking forward, there’s little doubt that manufacturers of all kinds and sizes will continue to seek to grow their margins by replacing human labor with cheaper, automated technologies. That means more people will be out of work from jobs that will not be coming back.
How many of those displaced workers will get the retraining necessary? Not enough of them. That means more strain on social benefits.
That said, how many workers laid off in the course of the pandemic will find their jobs have disappeared when the virus has?
A Solution to Welfare Failure?
Thus, the idea behind UBI is that more people will be willing and able to better themselves, regardless of how the economy changes. Americans would earn more and pay more in taxes. Both individuals and society as a whole, it is believed, would benefit.
Furthermore, enthusiasts insist that UBI wouldn’t be just another welfare program wrapped in clever terminology—at least that’s the current narrative. To an unknown extent, a UBI program would either reduce or replace welfare transfer payments and other entitlements.
Critics, however, fear that no UBI program would end up that way. Seeing how politically manipulated, bloated, and wasteful these programs have become, the part about minimizing or even eliminating other welfare programs is, for many, a bridge too far.
An Old Idea—and an American One
Still, UBI does have its allure. As noted above, former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang built his campaign around a $1,000 per month UBI for every American adult. And on the political right, Michael Tanner, a senior fellow with the conservative CATO Institute, is also a fan of it.
In fact, you could say that UBI is a very American idea since it was proposed by none other than Thomas Paine, one of America’s leading Founding Fathers. Paine advocated for a “national fund,” which would pay every adult 15 pounds upon reaching age 21, and an annual payment of 10 pounds to everyone over 50 years of age. In his book, “Agrarian Justice” (1796), Paine described these payments as “justice” and “a right.”
But the idea of a UBI has been around even longer than America has. The root concept goes back to at least 16th century Europe. When hard economic times hit, the masses found themselves living on the streets. Civic leaders saw the wisdom in preventing widespread revolts by doling out a few coins to every adult.
That rings uncomfortably true today, does it not?
In more modern times in the United States, a form of UBI or benefits has been a part of the American economy. The GI Bill for veterans coming home after World War II, for instance, let U.S. veterans attend college tuition-free, letting them gain better jobs as a result.
The costs of the GI Bill were recovered many times over in income taxes and wealth produced. Later, zero-down mortgages (VA loans) were provided to U.S. veterans, enabling many to qualify for a mortgage they otherwise could not. Zero-down VA loans remain in place to this day.
Then, in the 1970s, the negative income tax was proposed by President Richard Nixon. That proposal sought to pay citizens earning below the lowest tax threshold additional money to bring them up to the minimum tax rate level. Libertarian economic luminary Milton Friedman liked the idea, as well as a thousand other economists, but the bill never made it through Congress.
The fact that some on both the left and the right regard it as a valid option means there is a certain economic logic to the idea that transcends ideology. The UBI payment could be just enough to allow displaced workers the freedom or opportunity to re-educate themselves, start a business, or engage in other productive activities.
What’s more, the stigma of receiving welfare, if it indeed still exists, would be gone, since every American—even the wealthiest of citizens—would be receiving the same basic income.
Finally, it may be much more efficient than welfare.
Politics Get in the Way
But are welfare, unemployment, and other entitlement cutbacks realistic?
The short answer is “No.” Cutting the programs would mean eliminating much of the bloated bureaucracy supporting them, which would put hundreds of thousands of federal employees out of work—a political impossibility.
It would also introduce an uncertainty among those who benefit from the current system, either personally or politically. That is, the most resistance against the UBI plan may well be entrenched political interests, not the economic viability of the program per se.
Also, a UBI payment would have to be for citizens only. Enforcing that, however, would likely be next to impossible. A national UBI plan—which no one yet agrees on—would attract the entire world to our shores. We have yet to display the political will to control our borders as it is. The magnet of a UBI program would only magnify the problem.
And that’s the essence of the problem with any UBI plan. The temptation for political and economic abuse is enormous, just as it has been for most other transfer plans. Welfare fraud is an industry in itself in the United States—millions of our own citizens game the system to get more than their share. Millions more of illegal immigrants do the exact same thing.
Adding a significant cash incentive without realistic safeguards just doesn’t seem like the right approach. Of course, shutting down the country for weeks or months at a time doesn’t seem like a good idea, either.
But here we are.
James Gorrie is a writer and speaker based in Southern California. He is the author of “The China Crisis.”
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi Confirms that Phase 3 Relief Bill is Nearing Finish Line
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday morning that the revised Phase 3 relief package to combat the economic effect of the pandemic is much closer to what the Democrats want and will likely be finalized after review.
Pelosi said that the bipartisan legislation is much closer to “meeting the needs of the American people.”
She praised the House Democrats for their unity and tenacity in reaching a compromise. She said while the bill did not go as far as the Democrat’s Take Responsibility for Workers and Families Act, it gets much closer to Democrat’s targets than the original Phase 3 bill.
CCP VIRUS SPECIAL COVERAGE
“America is facing a grave health crisis with a serious impact on our economy. I salute the strong leadership of Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats. I especially thank our House Democratic Committee Chairmen, who worked hard to move the Republican proposal from corporations-focused to workers-first and who will now review the legislative text of this agreement with our Caucus.”
Meanwhile, the Republican Senate Leader also sent out a hopeful message late last night about the CCP virus relief Phase 3 bill being closer to the finish line.
“At last, we have a deal. After days of intense discussions, the Senate has reached a bipartisan agreement on a historic relief package for this pandemic. We’re going to pass this legislation later today,” Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a tweet early Wednesday night.
The new package would give direct payments of up to $3,000 to most U.S. families and provide some $367 billion to a program for small-business loans to help them keep making payroll as workers are forced to stay home due to orders in several states across the country.
The package also includes a $500 billion
fund for guaranteed, subsidized loans to
help larger industries, $250 billion for
expanded unemployment aid, and $75
billion for hospitals.
Democrats twice blocked the $2 trillion package prior to the agreement. They argued that the package did not do enough for small businesses or the American workers, and gave too much to big corporations.
“What we need to do is be focusing on the people that have really been affected. That’s the people on small businesses front lines that are sent home with no hope whatsoever and no unemployment compensation. I’m just not in favor of bailing out for the sake of bailing out people that got the greatest tax breaks in the world.” Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said last Thursday.
The Speaker highlighted five amendments to the latest Phase 3 bill she was most pleased with; the large investments in hospitals, securing an increase in unemployment insurance benefits for both laid-off and furloughed workers, large relief for small businesses, emergency education and loan repayment funding, and accountability and oversight for bailouts.
“House Democrats will now review the final provisions and legislative text of the agreement to determine a course of action,” Pelosi said.
The Epoch Times refers to the novel coronavirus, which causes the disease COVID-19, as the CCP virus because the Chinese Communist Party’s coverup and mismanagement allowed the virus to spread throughout China and create a global
The pandemic has killed more than 800 people in the United States and infected more than 55,000 to date, according to figures from Johns Hopkins University.
Why the rich favor the Democrats
Democrats: The Party of
Big Labor, Big Government...and Big Business
Why the rich favor the Democrats
There's little doubt that
today's Democrat Party is the party of the rich. Actually, that's an
understatement. Far more than billionaires are involved. A better
expression of reality would be to say a fundamental core of Democrat coalition
is the managerial class, also known as the elite. These are the
people who run the media, Hollywood and the entertainment industry, the big
corporations, the universities and schools, the investment banks, and Wall
Street. They populate the upper levels of government
bureaucracies. These are the East and West Coasters.
The alliance of the
affluent with the Democrat Party can be seen in the widely disproportionate
share of hefty political donations from the well-to-do going to Democrats and a
bevy of left-wing causes. It's also why forty-one out of the fifty
wealthiest congressional districts are represented by Democrats.
BLOG: DEMS LOVE SOCIALISM
FOR ILLEGALS TO KEEP THEM COMING AND BREEDING ANCHOR BABIES FOR WELFARE AND
SOCIALISM FOR BANKS. TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF IT!
Bernie Sanders is
an exception. But he's an anomaly viewed as dangerous to the party,
which is why he's being crushed by the Democrat establishment.
Why do the wealthy align
with the Democrats? The answer may seem counter-intuitive, but it is
really quite simple. It's surely not ideals or high-minded
principles. Nor is it ignorance. Rather, it boils down to
raw self-interest.
In his book, The Age of
Entitlement: America Since the Sixties, Christopher Caldwell notes
that rich Americans think themselves to be as vulnerable as
blacks. They are a relatively small minority of the
population. They fear being resented for their wealth and power and
of having much of that taken from them. Accordingly, the wealthy
seek to protect what is theirs by preventing strong majorities from forming by
using the divide and conquer principle.
As R.R. Reno writes when reviewing
Caldwell's book: "Therefore, the richest and most
powerful people in America have strong incentives
to support an anti-majoritarian political system." He goes
on: "Wealthy individuals shovel donations into elite institutions that
incubate identity politics, which further fragments the nation and prevents the
formation of majorities."
Some of the rotten
fruit of the wealthy taking this approach include multiculturalism,
massive immigration of diverse people, resistance to encouraging
assimilation, racial strife, trying to turn white males into pariahs,
and the promotion of gender confusion. Through it all, society
is bombarded with the Orwellian mantra that "diversity is
strength," as if repeating it often enough can make it so. It
is also why patriotism and a common American culture are so disparaged
today. Those from the upper strata of society project the idea that
if you're a flag-waving American, you must be some kind of retrograde
mouth-breathing yokel.
The wealthy as a groups
are content to dissolve the glue that holds the U.S. together. And
it is all done to enhance and preserve their power, wealth, and influence. This
is why they so hate Donald Trump. He strives to unite people
and the country, although you'd never know that that is what the president is
doing if you live in the media bubble. Trump's MAGA agenda
is an anathema to the managerial class.
To quote Reno one final
time:
The next decade will not
be easy. But it will not be about what preoccupied us in the
sixties, and which Caldwell describes so well. Rather than the
perils of discrimination we are increasingly concerned with the problem of
disintegration — or in Charles Murray's terms, the problem of "coming
apart."
Trump and the GOP he is
molding are the vehicles to restore and strengthen national
solidarity. Trump said at the Daytona 500,
"No matter who wins, what matters most is God, family, and
country." That is not the Democrat agenda. As
seen in Democrat politicians, their policies, and the behavior of their major
contributors, the aim is to further weaken the social and national bonds in
America. There is a lot at stake here. If solidarity
wins, the Republic can survive and prosper. If the Democrats
and their wealthy cohorts do, then the middle class withers, the Republic
dies, and the rich and their managerial class get to rule the
roost. That is what it comes down to.
ALL BILLIONAIRES ARE DEMOCRATS. ALL BILLIONAIRES WANT WIDER OPEN
BORDERS, AMNESTY AND HELL NO TO E-VERIFY!
In addition, establishment Republicans are no better than
Democrats at stemming the flow of illegal immigration because big
businesses reap the benefits of this cheap labor without incurring any of the
social costs.
Democrats: The Party of
Big Labor, Big Government...and Big Business
There is a widespread perception that the
Democrat Party is the party the working class and the Republican Party is the party
of big business. Even though Republicans on average received
slightly more from corporate employees prior to 2002, the overall difference
between both parties from 1990 to 2020 is statistically insignificant (Table
1). In fact,
Democrat reliance on big labor gradually shifted toward big business following
the involvement of solidly Democrat corporate giants in 2002, and from 2014 to
2020, Democrats consistently surpassed Republicans in corporate donations
(Tables 1 & 2).
Based on data compiled by Open Secrets,
Soros Fund Management, Fahr LLC (Tom Steyer), and Bloomberg LP ranked among the
top ten for political contributions that gave over 90% to
Democrats. In sharp contrast, the right-leaning Koch Industries made
the top ten only in 2014. In nearly all other years, Koch ranked
well below the top twenty.
Whether or not this trend is long-term,
there is no denying that large corporations on average no longer lean
right. But what does it mean to be "the party of big
business"? Donations are not definitive evidence. What
ultimately matters is what politicians do once they get elected.
Many liberals believe that big government
is needed to "rein in" big business and that in the absence of
federal intervention, corporations will "run roughshod" over the average
American. Many liberals also believe that corporations are the main
beneficiaries of laissez-faire economics and that free-market conservatives who
want to scale back regulations are somehow "in the pocket" of big
business.
In reality, the opposite is true: big
business and big government
go hand in hand because government
meddling in the economy
for the lobbyists. This crony
capitalism grew exponentially as
during the 1930s. Establishment
politicians and well
connected corporations are
beneficiaries of the myth that big
government and big business are adversaries
because it hides
their unholy alliance.
In all fairness, neither party has had a
monopoly on the dispensation of corporate welfare: the TARP funds that propped
up financial institutions deemed "too big to fail" during the Great
Recession were released by the Bush administration. In addition, establishment Republicans are
no better than Democrats at stemming the flow of illegal immigration because
big businesses reap the benefits of this cheap labor without incurring any of the
social costs.
If both parties are playing this game,
what is the basis for labeling the Democrat party "the party of big
business"? What policies from Republicans support small
business?
Free-market conservatism benefits small
businesses because the government does not pick the winners and losers by means
of subsidies, tax breaks, and cumbersome regulations. You will not
see policies like these coming from Washington in a major way because proposals
for shrinking the federal government rarely see the light of day in Congress.
Based on data collected by Gallup and
Thumbtack, red states far outscore blue states in small business friendliness
(Table 3). This may be why less affluent Americans are fleeing
states that score abysmally like California, Illinois, New York, and Hawaii. This might also be why small business–owners are more
likely to vote Republican.
The Trump administration has been good for
businesses of all sizes mainly due to the unprecedented rate at which it scaled
back stifling regulations. This may be why some of the president's highest approval ratings now come from small businesses.
Donald Trump set himself apart from the
ruling class when he latched onto the third-rail issue of illegal immigration
and called out the corporate darling Jeb Bush (AKA "Low Energy Jeb") for his
lack of grassroots support. This may explain in part why Bain
Capital, the firm co-founded by Mitt Romney, switched teams and
contributed solidly Democrat in 2018. In 2012, Democrats accused
Bain Capital of destroying jobs by systematically dismantling the companies it
bought off. Times have changed...
Small businesses generate well over half
of all new jobs. Most importantly, many are family-owned, have strong
ties to their communities, and provide upward mobility for millions of
Americans who never attended college. The Democrats' undermining of
this quintessentially American institution is shameful and disqualifies it as
the "party of the working class." Contributions from big
labor do not count toward "labor-friendliness" because mega-unions
care more about recruitment than about the welfare of working
Americans. This is
why the SEIU supports blanket amnesty for illegal aliens.
Democrats fed up with the corporate status
quo are now choosing their own anti-establishment candidate, not realizing that
socialism is just a more impoverished version of the crony capitalism they are
rejecting. Many Sanders-supporters are also morally shallow because
they want to harness the power of the state to muscle in on the wealth of
Americans who borrowed responsibly and worked hard to pay their bills.
After the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin said,
"This Constitution ... is likely to be well administered for a course of
years, and can only end in despotism ... when the people shall become so
corrupted as to need despotic government." If Democrats
implement the dystopian policies of California on a national level, their
corporate allies will do fine. It is small business–owners and
working-class Americans with nowhere to flee who have the most to lose. Be
careful what you wish for.
To view the tables below, click the links.
*The red lettering highlights a funding
advantage for Republicans. The blue lettering highlights a funding
disadvantage for Republicans.
**Based on a T-test, the difference is
insignificant at P = 0.46
Table 2: Top ten contributors to Democrats and Republicans by category
(union, corporate, and ideological) as compiled by Open Secrets:
*In 2008 Goldman Sachs donated 74% to
Democrats. All other groups in this column donated between 40 and
69% to both parties. This column does not differentiate between
giving equally to both parties and giving 70–79% to Democrats or Republicans.
**This number includes the "City of
New York." Although it is officially listed as
"other" by Open Secrets (not corporate, union, or ideological), I was
personally informed by someone from the organization that Michael Bloomberg was
the main source of this funding.
Table 3: Small business scores states scored by Thumbtack ranked
according to their Democratic advantage by Gallup:
*GPA scores are based on the following
numerical equivalents: A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1, F = 0, A+ = 4.3, A- = 3.7,
etc.
** Not scored.
***Mean GPA ± standard error. Based on a
T-test, the difference is significant at P = 0.00001.
THE OBAMA –
BIDEN BANKSTERS CON JOB STARTED BEFORE HIS FIRST DAY IN OFFICE!
GET THIS
BOOK!
Obamanomics:
How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends,
Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses
BY TIMOTHY P
CARNEY
Editorial
Reviews
Obama Is
Making You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?
Goldman Sachs, GE, Pfizer, the United Auto Workers—the same
“special interests” Barack Obama was supposed to chase from the temple—are
profiting handsomely from Obama’s Big Government policies that crush taxpayers,
small businesses, and consumers. In Obamanomics, investigative reporter Timothy
P. Carney digs up the dirt the mainstream media ignores and the White House wishes
you wouldn’t see. Rather than Hope and Change, Obama is delivering corporate
socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling corporate America. It’s
corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s Obamanomics.
Congressman Ron Paul says, “Every libertarian and free-market
conservative needs to read Obamanomics.” And Johan Goldberg, columnist and
bestselling author says, “Obamanomics is conservative muckraking at its best
and an indispensable field guide to the Obama years.”
If you’ve wondered what’s happening to America, as the
federal government swallows up the financial sector, the auto industry, and
healthcare, and enacts deficit exploding “stimulus packages,” this book makes
it all clear—it’s a big scam. Ultimately, Obamanomics boils down to this: every
time government gets bigger, somebody’s getting rich, and those somebodies are
friends of Barack. This book names the names—and it will make your blood boil.
Investigative reporter Timothy P. Carney digs up the dirt the
mainstream media ignores and the White House wishes you wouldn’t see. Rather
than Hope and Change, Obama is delivering corporate socialism to America, all
while claiming he’s battling corporate America. It’s corporate welfare and
regulatory robbery—it’s Obamanomics. In this explosive book, Carney reveals:
* The Great
Health Care Scam—Obama’s backroom deals with drug companies spell corporate
profits and more government control
* The Global
Warming Hoax—Obama has bought off industries with a pork-filled bill that will
drain your wallet for Al Gore’s agenda
* Obama and
Wall Street—“Change” means more bailouts and a heavy Goldman Sachs presence in
the West Wing (including Rahm Emanuel)
*
Stimulating K Street—The largest spending bill in history gave pork to the well-connected
and created a feeding frenzy for lobbyists
* How the
GOP needs to change its tune—drastically—to battle Obamanomics
Praise
for Obamanomics
“The notion that ‘big business’ is on the side of the free
market is one of progressivism’s most valuable myths. It allows them to
demonize corporations by day and get in bed with them by night. Obamanomics is
conservative muckraking at its best. It reveals how President Obama is
exploiting the big business mythology to undermine the free market and stick it
to entrepreneurs, taxpayers, and consumers. It’s an indispensable field guide
to the Obama years.”
—Jonha Goldberg, LA Times columnist and best-selling author
“‘Every time government gets bigger, somebody’s getting
rich.’ With this astute observation, Tim Carney begins his task of laying bare
the Obama administration’s corporatist governing strategy, hidden behind the
president’s populist veneer. This meticulously researched book is a must-read
for anyone who wants to understand how Washington really works.”
—David Freddoso, best-selling author of The Case Against
Barack Obama
“Every libertarian and free-market conservative who still
believes that large corporations are trusted allies in the battle for economic
liberty needs to read this book, as does every well-meaning liberal who
believes that expansions of the welfare-regulatory state are done to benefit
the common people.”
—Congressman Ron Paul
“It’s understandable for critics to condemn President Obama
for his ‘socialism.’ But as Tim Carney shows, the real situation is at once
more subtle and more sinister. Obamanomics favors big business while
disproportionately punishing everyone else. So-called progressives are too
clueless to notice, as usual, which is why we have Tim Carney and this book.”
—Thomas E. Woods, Jr., best-selling author of Meltdown and
The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to American History
*
• Hardcover: 256 pages
• Publisher: Regnery Press (November 30,
2009)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1596986123
• ISBN-13: 978-1596986121
No comments:
Post a Comment