Mike Dunleavy, sitting on top of an oversized Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend check. Picture credit to: Anchorage Daily News.
Basic income yes, but not at any cost. The alarm comes from Alaska, where governor Mike Dunleavy has announced cutting his 2020 state budget by as much as $410 million, one-third of which will fall upon the University of Alaska. To the University, that represents 41 percent of its own annual budget, which means that, if applied, these cuts would render the state’s university unrecognizable. Dunleavy calls this move a “policy choice” linked to his professed promise to increase the Permanent Fund dividend Alaskans benefit each year.
Arguably, consequences for the Alaskan economy, and particularly for the state university, would be devastating.
The University President, James R. Johnsen, has stated that this “will strike an institutional and reputational blow from which we may likely never recover.” And the implications for the wider Alaskan economy and even throughout the world may be far reaching since research has shown that investing in universities has considerable positive effects on the economy, and also because the University of Alaska is a core centre of research for Arctic issues. This is particularly important these days, in the middle of a climate crisis).
These budget cuts from Dunleavy’s Office are, however, rooted in a deeper rationale and tradition. That is because politics in Alaska of late have been largely tied to oil money, and the collection of taxes has been scarce, or nonexistent.
Michael Howard, professor at the University of Maine and specialist in basic income related policies, has stated on Facebook:
“A better framing of the problem in Alaska would include Alaska’s lack of an income tax, reliance on oil revenue to fund state government, and the steady decline of the oil revenue. Alaskans don’t have to abandon the dividend in order to fund the University. They just need to pay income taxes like people in most other [US] states. However, this story does vividly illustrate that universal cash payments in practice always need to be evaluated in comparison to the competing policies for government spending and the budget constraints. Slashing the university budget by 41% ought not to be an option.”
All ten candidates at the Democratic Deabte for the United States Presidential elections.
“It is not left, it is not right, it is forward”. Andrew Yang drank from Scott Santens famous words, to finish off his contribution to the Democratic Debate to the United States Presidential elections in 2020. The political debate, held on June 27th 2019, featured all 10 Democratic Party candidates who qualified to be in the televised debate (more than 65000 donors). Yang’s Freedom Dividend was voiced, for the first time ever, on a US national debate stage, shortly described as a 1000 $/month for every adult citizen, unconditionally.
Although severely time restrained to hush in his ideas – he was only allowed 2 minutes and 50 seconds of speaking time, the lowest of all candidates present in the debate – Yang succeeded in the attempt to plant the seed of basic income among the American People. People are definitely interested in basic income, or at least the basic income as Andrew Yang conceives it, considering the spikes in views of his intervention clips, posted by NBC, which surpassed those of any other candidate. Soon after the debate, Google searches for “basic income” spiked to about 300% of the average search results for those terms.
In March, Yang’s candidacy had just surpassed the 65000-donor mark; now it has gone over 130000 donors, qualifying him to further debates, to be held in September and October this year. Also, his platform’s list of followers shows no signs of slowing down, having gained more than 100000 new followers, just for having participated in this debate. Whether or not Andrew Yang will become the next President of the United States, his candidacy has already been historical, by definitely sketching basic income on the public and political arena.
Yang’s contributions to the debate can be seen on this short video:
Tami L. Gouveia (left) and James B. Eldridge (right). Picture credit to Lusoamericano (Tami) and Wikipedia (James).
Although it is considered an unlikely pass, House Bill 1632, which would put in place a basic income pilot test in the state of Massachusetts, is being discussed at the local parliament. This pilot program would broadly consist on unconditionally dispensing 1000 $/month to 100 randomly selected citizens, for a three-year period of time. Random selection would occur from “three economically diverse cities or towns”, from which one would be a rural setting.
The presentation of the bill has spurred discussion among state lawmakers and politicians, initiated by Democrats Sen. James B. Eldridge and Rep. Tami L. Gouveia, with the support of the Department of Housing and Community Development. Under the referred bill, the latter would study the effects (e.g.: economic and institutional inequalities) of the rolled out basic income pilot test, and submit a final report after three years.
On June 18th, Maryland Delegate Gabriel Acevero was interviewed by the Basic Income Podcast, about his intention to create a social wealth fund in his state, created with revenue from medical cannabis (but not exclusively). These kinds of products can generate a great amount of revenue for the state (with Canada and the https://theherbcentre.net/product-category/bulk-weed/ options being a good example of this), so the logic is sound. The fund, also labelled “The Maryland People’s Fund”, is designed to eventually pay out to every citizen from the state a universal basic income (UBI). However, according to Acevero, first draws from this fund would go out to put in place a UBI pilot, a project focusing on “low-income families who are in urgent need of help”.
The bill proposed the creation of this fund, to be administered by the state treasurer, who oversees the management of other funds and “decides where state dollars are invested”. It would be created by the income of a 25% share on the proceeds from the medical and recreational cannabis taxation (on items such as the oil dab rigs online) accrued in the state. This depends on the level of investment giving to the cannabis industry since many cannabis businesses, whether recreational or medical, are quickly becoming the norm. Each business looks to different development facets, including the amount of investment they can obtain for their business. From cultivations (see Official Website here) to testing, and distribution, it all plays a part. However, unlike with other funds, this one would be exclusively dedicated to the distribution of the citizen’s dividend which, according to projections, would pay out a full UBI to all Marylanders in less than a decade.
Acevero transmits that the medical and recreational cannabis industry has mistreated communities of colour for a long time. According to him, it has “decimated communities of colour”, and was “intentionally done to disrupt” their way of life, in a clear reference to president Nixon’s drug policies back in his time in Office. As a consequence, the better-than-projected income to the state from taxing the cannabis industry (+90 M$ from last year alone, and only from medical cannabis) should be targeted first to benefit these communities. Actually, he defends, the “racial-equity” side of the policy “should be part of the legislating”.
As for funding sources, cannabis taxing revenue, be it from products like Blessed CBD oil or otherwise, is not the only income stream projected for the creation of the wealth fund. Simply raising taxes for the wealthy is one of those income streams, as obsolete tax codes still unfairly benefit wealthier individuals and corporations, not only in Maryland but across the United States.
The young black legislator is “a strong believer in evidence-based policy-making”, and so, in the presence of clear evidence showing how beneficial a would-be policy can be, public officials like himself have the “moral obligation” to write it into Law and implement those benefits in society. And, according to him, being able to cite success cases like the Alaska Permanent Fund and new basic income-style pilot programs like the one in Stockton is a clear indication that basic income-type of policies have plenty of “positive implications”. Plus, he believes this should not be something restricted to Maryland, but be spread out across the country, creating more wealth funds and distributing more benefits to the population.
The proposed bill, introduced to Maryland’s regional parliament, was done so in this year’s first trimester, but since it didn’t pass before de session was adjourned, it will need to be presented again. Acevero, far from being discouraged, is planning a state-wide educational campaign on the benefits of social wealth funds and UBI, so “an even larger coalition” can be built around these important matters. He believes that policies aiming at poverty alleviation and the promotion of social justice must logically include the opinions and preferences of those people they are trying to help, so he’s going far and wide speaking directly to people, spreading crucial information on UBI, social wealth funds and racial equity issues.
The National Academy of Social Insurance recently (April 2019) published a paper where the idea of implementing a relatively small basic income ($200-$400 per month, at least initially) has been explored by authors William Arnone, Peter Barnes, Renée Landers and Griffin Murphy, supported by the Economic Security Project. The paper goes into detail on potential mechanisms by which this basic income might be implemented in the USA.
This study intents to deliver information on how to fulfil the vision outlined in the historical document “Need for Security”, from 1935, where it was clearly summoned that “the one almost all-embracing measure of security is an assured income. A program of economic security, as we vision it, must have as its primary aim the assurance of an adequate income to each human being in childhood, youth, middle age, or old age—in sickness or in health.”
From the paper synopsis it can be read:
This concept paper examines the possibility of providing a base level of income to certain subsets of, and perhaps to all, U.S. citizens as a means to increasing their economic security. The authors begin by highlighting the extent of contemporary financial insecurity and continue with a discussion on how an assured income program might complement existing social insurance and social assistance programs. This is followed by an examination of past and present programs that share goals with the assured income concept described, and an exploration of how these programs might provide a basis for the Social Security Administration’s administering an assured income benefit.
More information at:
William Arnone, Peter Barnes, Renée Landers and Griffin Murphy, “Assured Income”, National Academy of Social Insurance, March 2019
