UBI Politics Masterfile.docx - LINKS UBI Popular...

This preview shows page 1 out of 183 pages.

Unformatted text preview: LINKS UBI Popular Plan’s popular – 2 warrants. Zogby, John. “Do Americans Want a Universal Basic Income?” Newsmax, Newsmax Inc. Newsmax Inc., 7 Nov. 2017, . ~Brackets for clarity~ UBI is most popular, not surprisingly, with those who earn less than $35K annually. A slight majority are in favor (51 percent), leaving 23 percent, not in favor of and 26 percent not sure. While considerably lower, still, one-third (33 percent) of $75K+ Regarding income, income earners are in favor of the idea whereas 46 percent are not. The middle-income bracket ($35K-$75K) are pretty evenly split with 37 percent lending support, 35 percent not in favor of, and 28 percent not sure. Younger Millennials (18-24 years of age) are the least likely to support with only 27 percent in favor. The highest support for this variation of a Universal Basic Income (51 percent) comes from older millennials (25-34 years of age). Understandable since older millennials launched their careers amidst the Great Recession. Those aged 35-54 (mostly Gen X) sustain fairly high support coming in at 43 percent, while support drops with the two oldest cohorts, those aged 55-69 and 70+, both at 34 percent. Looking at party, almost three in five (59 percent) Democrats are in favor compared to about one in five (19 percent) Republicans, and nearly four in ten (38 As long as the trend of wealth concentrate[es]ion in fewer hands continues, support for far-reaching measures such as Universal Basic Income has real potential to gain further steam; perhaps even the percent) from those who identified as “Other” party. purest form of it calling for supplementary income for all citizens regardless of income. While supporters of UBI believe it can help alleviate poverty by creating a guaranteed safety net, critics point to past and current examples of welfare programs, arguing it tends to create generational dependency and increased poverty. In the final analysis, Universal Basic Income remains up in the air due to an almost even split. More importantly, a quarter of the public is not sure, either because of a lack knowledge of what it is or its overall effectiveness. Which side is likely to sway the undecided and form majority support on the issue of Universal Basic Income? And which variation of it is likely to be debated in the U.S.? Outweighs your warrants on specificity – 1] Older millennials are the largest voting base which means they’re the ones effect elections results. 2] Overall majority is also in favor – supercharges the existing voter base, which swamps your internal link. Plan’s popular with Trump – president’s authority outweighs all your warrants. Wellee 2017 , Chris. “Basic income experts say Trump could be the radical change America needs.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 23 Jan. 2017, . For many Americans, President Trump's appeal lies in his radical departure from how traditional politics is done. For advocates of universal basic income, a form of income distribution that seeks to end poverty by paying everyone a standard salary just for being alive, it might just be the radical change America needs. Basic income's biggest selling point — at least in theory — is that it could directly lift people out of poverty. Since people would no longer struggle to cover basic expenses like food, clothes, and home repairs, they'd have more money to stay active members of society, whether they worked or not. Now that Trump is president, advocates wonder what kind of administration Trump will run: Will he kill any momentum basic income proponents helped build over the last couple years, or will he embrace huge, sweeping reform? "People feel uncertain and anxious about the future," Jim Pugh, CEO of Share Progress and co-founder of the Universal Income Project, tells Business Insider. He adds that if Trump plays his cards right, he could actually use that uncertainty to his advantage by embracing basic income, saying that people are "hungry for big solutions right now." "Enacting a national basic income is still a ways off, but I expect we'll see grassroots support for the idea grow more quickly in the months ahead," he says. Not all advocates are as optimistic. "The election of Trump as president is probably no good news for the basic income movement," Rutger Bregman, Dutch basic income expert and author of "Utopia for Realists," tells Business Insider. Bregman's skepticism is partly rooted in Trump's commitment to creating jobs. The president has stayed silent on the looming threat of automation, one of the key topics at this year's World Economic Forum. As economists have noted, millions of jobs could get displaced in the coming decades, leaving old-school thinkers searching for solutions. To Pugh's mind, that's precisely why Trump[‘s] has every incentive to cozy up to basic income. His fan base has serious fears about the future of the economy. "Enacting basic income would help to revitalize parts of the country hit hardest by outsourcing and automation by spurring entrepreneurship in those areas." Basic income is good for business." Santens adds that Trump's maximalist attitude might make basic income more appealing. The president is no incrementalist. "Trump likes to think big," Santens tells Business Insider. And even by its initials, he says, a basic income guarantee is a "BIG" idea. "So maybe, just maybe, he might embrace it." If Trump doesn't embrace it, however, and his administration confirms the fears democrats across the US have right now, Santens predicts whoever runs in the next election could stand an even greater chance at getting basic income on the ballot. "There's a good chance that after four Or as writer and basic income advocate Scott Santens put it, " years of Trump, the US may just be ready to embrace that vision," he says. "And it may just include many of those who just voted for Trump if Trump is unable to increase their incomes, and therefore their perception of prosperity, in the next four years." UBI Bipartisan Support Bipartisan support for UBI Andy Stern, 2016, Raising the Floor: How a Universal Basic Income Can Renew Our Economy and Rebuild the American Dream, Andrew L. "Andy" Ster is the former president of the then 2.2.million member Service Employees International Union (SEIU). He is now President Emeritus of SEIU, which grew by more than 1.2 million workers during his tenure, p. supporters from both the right and the left have turned to a basic income because it offers the clearest and simplest path to creating a floor that keeps people out of poverty . Conservatives see it as a means of eliminating costly and inefficient welfare programs . Libertarians view it as a way to encourage greater individualism and personal choice . As you might suspect , my main reason for supporting UBI is its potential to deliver economic justice and security at a time when globalization and technological progress make it harder for Americans to find jobs that pay a living wage . More recently , UBI = Increase PC UBI gets co-opted by Trump – it’s spun as a Republican victory and gives him PC. Rahn 2/3, Will. “Commentary: Would Trump ever propose a universal basic income?” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 3 Feb. 2017, . Pet theory: Not today, and not tomorrow, but somewhere down the line, Donald Trump might set out on a radical economic reform. In short, it wouldn’t be surprising to see him try and give Americans, whether they’re employed or not, a monthly infusion of free money in the form of a universal basic income (UBI). A UBI is an idea that the left loves and conservatives, predictably enough, have mixed feelings about. The central (and very simplified) gist of the idea involves giving people taxpayer dollars, either in lieu of, or more usually in addition to, whatever benefits they might already receive from the federal government. And they can do what they please with that money: save it, spend it, waste it, whatever. There are various UBI proposals that have been kicked around by wonks, and there are many disagreements about how such a policy should be implemented. The UBI has been getting more attention recently, however, due to a Finnish pilot program that’s giving money to a select group of Finns in order to see how it would work in practice. The merits of a UBI program can be debated, and indeed have already been debated, at great length. Some on the left see it as a great way to severely reduce poverty. Critics on the right, meanwhile, worry that it there’s something about a UBI that seems rather Trumpian. The president is not exactly a policy wonk, but the idea of just giving Americans cash, with little bureaucratic oversight or interference, would mesh well with his populist message. Looking ahead to 2020, it also would allow Trump to visit the downwardly-mobile Americans who voted for him and remind them that he literally put would remove more people from the work force, which they argue would produce negative social effects. Putting all that aside, cash in their bank accounts. Or at least will have tried to. There is probably a way to get congressional Republicans to sign onto a UBI proposal assuming a) the White House was all for it and b) it was coupled with a slash in benefits. Then again, those cuts to programs they’d demand in exchange might be unpopular enough to doom the whole effort from getting off the ground. But let’s take a step back and remember that Trump’s top strategic advisor, Steve Bannon, has made it abundantly clear that he’s a big-government guy. Last week, Mike Flynn described his ideas as “more left than right.” Bannon himself doesn’t make much effort to hide this: “The conservatives are going to go crazy. I’m the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan,” he told Michael Wolff just after the election. The UBI would seem to fit snugly in a worldview like that, particularly as we start to see more and more jobs losses due to automation in the coming years. And there’s an easy social conservative argument for UBI, which is that it would allow parents, particularly mothers, to spend more time raising their children. It has the potential to reduce the great atomizing of society, increasingly a fixation of conservative intellectuals. What the proposal would look like is obviously the big issue here – who would get the money, how much, how do you But if Trump’s polling numbers stay low for much longer, or dip even further, some sort of UBI proposal might start looking more and more attractive to the White House, if only as a Hail Mary somewhere down the line. Trump, a natural showman, knows that you need to shake up the plot when the ratings start to sag, and a UBI proposal would do that. It would put the left in a bit of a pickle – how do you resist a redistribution initiative from the right? – while at the same pay for it, etc. time bolstering his populist cred with voters. It would make some sense, is what I’m saying, even if it sounds bizarrely counterintuitive. Trump’s detractors would no doubt argue that a plutocrat given what we know of Trump’s lack of any ideological mooring and his sense of theatre, I’d argue there’s at least a chance it happens. And sold the right way by a Republican president, [UBI] might even become reality. like him would never stick his neck out for what’s really a lefty idea, and they might be right. But from a purely political standpoint, Plan Popular – Universal vs Means Testing Political backlash makes universal programs far more acceptable The Lancet, world's leading general medical journal, 2008 (November 8, 2008 – November 14, 2008, “The role of welfare state principles and generosity in social policy programmes for public health: an international comparative study”, Lexis) Our results imply that generosity as well as the principles and design of social policies matter. A common feature of successful programmes seems to be that they cover all members of the relevant population (parents, people older than 65). This finding suggests that universal policies, rather than means-tested targeted ones, might be better for the poorer segments of society. Any outcome is dependent not just on the redistribution profile but also on the amount Universal programmes, incorporating the middle classes, tend to have greater support, including a higher willingness to pay the taxes needed. A higher degree of coverage and generosity can therefore be seen as both a precondition for the sustainability of these programmes and a feature that is generating more resources for the poorer segments of society. to be redistributed.6 UBI = Partisan Battles The plan spurs partisan battles – this is an impact magnifier. SOJO 3 (Christian Newspaper, 11/5, “Partisan fighting or fighting poverty?”, ? action=sojomail.display&issue=031105, Aly) legislation to provide some modest assistance for people in poverty has passed both houses of Congress. But a conference committee to reconcile the Senate's Charity Aid, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act with the House After nearly two years, Charitable Giving Act is being held hostage by partisan politics. Despite being approved earlier this year by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of the Senate, and despite Democratic Leader Tom Daschle's expressed support for the bill, partisanship has placed the CARE Act in jeopardy - and with it, the needs of poor people. Democrats are preventing the CARE Act from going to conference with the House in protest against their systematic exclusion from conferences this year. In a break with congressional tradition, conferences have become Republicanonly affairs, with no chance for substantive input from Democrats. Their complaint is valid, but this should not be the bill on which to make a stand. Unless this stance changes, provisions in the CARE Act to spur private charitable giving, fund programs to promote economic self-sufficiency for low-income families, help smaller social services providers be more successful, reduce barriers facing faith-based groups, and provide This situation is symbolic of how both parties have derailed efforts to reduce poverty because of political priorities. This summer, House federal funding for important social service programs will remain stalled. Republicans prevented legislation to provide child tax credits to low-income families from being approved. The Democratic Party fought hard for the child tax credit, which would make a dent in poverty. However, the same Democratic leaders are now derailing the CARE Act, which also aims to meet needs of poor people. Even small programs spur controversy – the plan’s budget is 200 times the CARE act – the impact is unimaginable. UBI not politically given the perceived financing – it is more controversial other third rail programs David Noonan, July 18, 2017, Is Guaranteed Income for All the Answer to Joblessness and Poverty? Experts disagree, but a number of experiments could offer insight, Robert Greenstein, founder and president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank in Washington, D.C., admires the work GiveDirectly is doing and does not oppose the concept of UBI. “My whole life’s work has at its core been trying to provide income floors and shore up income-type assistance for people in the United States who have too little,” says Greenstein, who has worked with presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and directed federal food assistance programs under Pres. Jimmy Carter. But, he says, whereas UBI might be feasible in some other countries, it is simply not going to fly in the U.S. “I think it is likely to prove highly quixotic here,” he says. “I don’t think it’s likely to happen, not in the next few years and not 20 or 30 years down the road.” The cost is simply too great, in his view, and the political divide is too wide. “I just can’t see at all that we’re going to raise taxes so much,” Greenstein says, “especially at the top, that we’re going to address both Social Security and Medicare shortfalls, crumbling infrastructure, improved education systems and UBI, which costs several trillion dollars a year—when the entire federal budget is only four trillion itself.” UBI lacks bipartisan support due to disagreement about implementation Dylan Matthews, July 17, 2017, A basic income really could end poverty forever But to become a reality, it needs to get detailed and stop being oversold, should be careful of the illusion of bipartisan agreement on the issue, even among its advocates,” Tanner notes. “Free market advocates see the UBI as a replacement for the existing welfare state. Many on the left call for a UBI as an additional benefit on top of existing programs, funded through new taxes on carbon, natural resources, businesses, or ‘the rich.’ Bridging those differences will likely be much harder than advocates on both sides may believe.” I would go further than Tanner: I think those differences are basically unbridgeable. There might be limited agreement between principled libertarians and anti-poverty advocates on making, “We say, food stamps into a cash program so that families using it have more flexibility. But if real-world political experience is any indication, elected Republicans will oppose any effort to make food stamps more flexible and instead push for work requirements and restrictions on what kind of food they can purchase. UBI bipartisan is unachievable given the confused interpretation of UBI Dylan Matthews, July 17, 2017, A basic income really could end poverty forever But to become a reality, it needs to get detailed and stop being oversold, You can’t assume away politics, though. And when you take a look under the hood of major plans from basic income advocates, the politics begin to look daunting. The coalition between left and right evaporates, the idea’s economic inevitability looks fanciful, and the promise that the plan could end poverty forever looks more dependent on technical details than you might think. In part that’s due to disagreement about what basic income is for. I think it’s a useful tool for eliminating or dramatically reducing poverty in both poor and rich countries. But a lot of basic income advocates embrace it for other reasons, like responding to automation’s threat to jobs, or dismantling the welfare state. These purposes are often confused and contradictory, and lead to plans that differ widely and won’t get the same kind of bipartisan buy-in that the general concept does. UBI kills Trumps PC A UBI would sap PC from Trump—neither side is interested in compromis Matthews 16 (Chris, 1967 graduate of the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, and did graduate work in Economics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “Comrade Bill Gross Says the Federal Reserve Should Pay Your Rent,” May 05, 2016, ) Of course, the chances of something like UBI passing in a political climate like we have today aren’t all that great. UBI boosters like to say that it’s an idea that both sides of the aisle can get behind, but the reasons why they can get behind it are so diametrically opposed as to make this agreement moot. The Democratic Party is getting pulled to the left on issues of entitlement spending and the minimum wage. The Republican Party (outside of Donald Trump) believes that we must cut or at least cap transfer spending. And neither party seems particularly interested in compromising, which makes the idea that they will set aside their differences to focus instead on the delivery method of these transfer payments a bit far fetched .Wonks like to talk about issues like UBI, because it allows them to discuss policy without taking political stand on what level of redistribu-tion is fair. But politicians and voters care much more about big moral issues like what level of wealth inequality is just. And Congress isn’t going to waste the political capital on a major reform that may be palatable for everyone but doesn’t address these larger questions. UBI Target Swamp = Unp...
View Full Document

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture