A Guaranteed Income Would Be Better Than Our Corrupt Welfare System

[Geee]

The Federalist:

Charles Murray’s recent essay for the Wall Street Journal argues for a universal basic income, or UBI. Instead of the sprawling mess of welfare programs we have today, the idea is to end all social welfare programs and instead just cut everyone a check. In Murray’s reckoning, every American citizen age 21 and older would get $13,000 a year from Uncle Sam, deposited in monthly installments to a bank account.

 

At first glance, this appears to fly in the face of conservative notions about the growth of the welfare state and the responsibility of the individual. If the government starts cutting checks for everyone, won’t that further entrench government dependence and sap American work ethic? Doesn’t this rather European idea (even Switzerland rejected it) stand in direct contrast to the American ideal of hard work and self-reliance? Won’t it do what Murray says his detractors claim it will do, “foster idleness and vice”?

 

Maybe it will, for some people. But as Murray notes, that’s already the case. The real virtue of UBI is that it would break up the special interests and government-backed cartels that administer a welfare regime that now spends about a trillion taxpayer dollars per year.

 

Many Welfare Funds Go Directly To Special Interests

 

To understand Murray’s case for UBI, you have to appreciate the structural flaws of our corrupt welfare system. After all, Murray isn’t suggesting we tack on cash benefits to exiting welfare programs, he’s proposing that we replace “Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, housing subsidies, welfare for single women and every other kind of welfare and social-services program” with UBI.

[Valin]

Free money....what could possible go wrong.

[Chickadee]

The Swiss just voted this down by a large margin. Hope the US will find enough logical citizens to realize this won't work.

 

 

 

[Geee]

The fatal sickness of free stuff

 

 

The U.S. economy has been going nowhere for seven years, and there are increasing fears that it is going into a recession with only 38,000 jobs being created last month. At the same time, Venezuela, the country with the largest oil reserves on the planet, is sinking into economic chaos. None of this need happen. The disease is the same — only the fever is higher in Venezuela.

Politicians, at least going back to ancient Rome (with its bread and circuses), quickly understood that they could buy temporary support from the people if they were promised “free stuff.” As Margaret Thatcher famously said: “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” The Obama administration, realizing it could not get major tax and spending proposals through Congress, resorted to sleight of hand by lying about the true costs of many of their programs, notably Obamacare. They also used various regulations to enhance their control over the economy without doing serious cost-benefit analysis, which has resulted in a massive misallocation of resources. Some estimates now show the costs of regulations have exceeded the cost of the tax system. And perhaps most destructive of all, they followed near-zero interest rate policies (in part to disguise the true cost of the government debt) that hit savers with what is, in effect, a huge tax increase to finance this scheme. A saver who used to expect perhaps 3 percent on savings, above the rate of inflation, now receives less than the rate of inflation (which is the same as a tax increase). This again has resulted in a massive misallocation of resources from productive to less- or non-productive activities that destroy economic growth and job creation.

The amazing and disappointing fact is that every student or even casual observer of socialism knows that it always fails because it destroys the incentives for hard work, creativity and initiative. Most countries that have tried it end up as thuggish places because more and more coercion is required to control the people. Sixty years ago, Cuba and Venezuela were the richest counties on the Caribbean and were only exceeded by Argentina in per capita income in Latin America.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/6/richard-rahn-socialism-triggers-downward-spiral/

[Valin]

The Swiss just voted this down by a large margin. Hope the US will find enough logical citizens to realize this won't work.

 

 

 

 

 

Proof They Are

[Valin]

Universal Basic Income’s Growing Appeal
Veronique de Rugy
June 7, 2016

Speaker Ryan released the first part of his anti-poverty agenda this morning. If there ever was a consensus in this town, it is that the current welfare system is broken and needs to be reformed. The status quo is not acceptable anymore. The overall objective presented in the paper is the right one (work is important, put the state and local government at the center of the effort and demand accountability). But I am not sure how good the proposal really is since there aren’t much concrete details available yet (how many job training, housing, or income security programs will be cut? that is not very clear).

 

To be sure, the plan would be an improvement over the current system (how can it not be?). But I am afraid that it will continue to build on the current system more than it should and won’t be going as big as it should. After all, the plan proposes to “reduce duplication and overlap across programs” rather end all duplication and overlap. But who knows, I may be surprised in the end.

 

One thing is sure though, for better or worse, he isn’t going the Universal Basic Income route. Yet, judging by the number of articles on the issue published in the last few days​, UBI is definitely on many commentators’ and scholars’ list of options worth exploring.

 

(Snip)

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

I don't know what the answer is to the broken welfare system is, but this I do know Universal Basic Income ain't it!!!

[Valin]

Is Personal Responsibility Obsolete?: Part II
Thomas Sowell
Jun 07, 2016

Too many social problems are conceived of in terms of what "we" can do for "them." After decades of massive expansions of the welfare state, the answer seems to range from "not very much" to "making matters worse." Undaunted, people in a number of countries are coming up with new proposals that are variations on the theme of government-provided income -- which amounts to relieving people from personal responsibility.

Yet even some conservatives and libertarians are coming up with proposals for more "efficient" versions of the welfare state -- namely direct cash grants for life to virtually all adults, instead of the current hodgepodge of overlapping bureaucratic programs. Charles Murray recognizes that "some people will idle away their lives" under his proposal. "But that is already a problem," he says, and therefore is no valid objection to replacing the current welfare state with a less costly alternative.

Everyone recognizes that there are some people unable to provide for their own survival -- infants and the severely disabled, among others. But providing for such people is wholly different from a blanket guarantee for everybody that they need not lift a finger to feed, clothe or shelter themselves. The financial cost of providing such a guarantee, though huge, is not the worst of the problems. The history of what has actually happened in times and places where people were relieved from the challenge of survival by windfall gains is not encouraging.

 

(Snip)