Daily Digest - August 29: A Rising Minimum Wage Lifts All Boats

Aug 29, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

There will not be a new Daily Digest on Monday, September 1, in observance of Labor Day. The Daily Digest will return on Tuesday, September 2.

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Who Stands to Benefit from San Diego’s Minimum Wage Hike (Voice of San Diego)

There will not be a new Daily Digest on Monday, September 1, in observance of Labor Day. The Daily Digest will return on Tuesday, September 2.

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Who Stands to Benefit from San Diego’s Minimum Wage Hike (Voice of San Diego)

Lisa Halverstadt speaks to Roosevelt Institute Fellow Annette Bernhardt about her research team's estimate that 172,000 workers could get a raise from San Diego's minimum wage hike.

The Biggest Tax Scam Ever (Rolling Stone)

Tim Dickinson looks at the range of multinational tax avoidance strategies in use today, from inversions to offshoring. It's all legal, he says, but the law itself is broken.

De Blasio Zeroes in on Expanding Living Wage (Capital New York)

New York City's mayor looks to require more businesses, including retail tenants of subsidized developments, to pay a living wage, report Dana Rubinstein and Sally Goldenberg.

Market Basket's Popular CEO Arthur T Goes Rogue and Wins – Now What? (The Guardian)

After months of employee protests on his behalf, Market Basket's former CEO has bought out his cousins to regain control. Jana Kasperkevic says he'll face new challenges from shareholders.

AFL-CIO’s Trumka: Democrats Need New Economic Team in 2016 (WSJ)

The labor union president wants 2016 candidates to avoid economics advisors who have participated in the revolving door of government and Wall Street, reports Eric Morath.

Americans Foresee Unending Economic Doom (Vox)

Danielle Kurtzleben looks at a new study from Rutgers which shows that a growing number of Americans believe the last recession permanently scarred the economy and that government can't help.

Pregnant Women Just Earned More Workplace Rights in Illinois (The Nation)

The new law establishes civil rights protections for pregnant workers, which will help them to stay in the workplace if they want to, writes Michelle Chen.

Share This

Daily Digest - August 26: Corporations Shouldn't Get a Free Pass on Tax-Dodging

Aug 26, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Cutting the Corporate Tax Would Make Other Problems Grow (NYT)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Cutting the Corporate Tax Would Make Other Problems Grow (NYT)

Jared Bernstein counters recent suggestions for eliminating the U.S. corporate income tax by pointing out the extreme difficulty of capturing that revenue through personal income taxes.

  • Roosevelt Take: Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz proposes more viable reforms to the corporate income tax.

Stigmatizing Poor Kids in Our Public Schools (PolicyShop)

Matt Bruenig suggests that free lunch at school is the target of so much ire because it's seen as a "poor people thing," even though public schools are themselves a welfare program.

When Workplace Training Programs Actually Hinder Workers (The Nation)

The low-structure, free-choice-based model of the Workforce Investment Act limits its effectiveness, writes Michelle Chen, since it doesn't allow for prioritizing funding for the best training programs.

Another GOP State May Be Signing up for Medicaid, and the Reason is Obvious (LA Times)

Michael Hiltzik says the money being left on the table is finally proving enough to get Republican governors like Wyoming's to push for Medicaid expansion even though it's part of Obamacare.

Back to School, and to Widening Inequality (Robert Reich)

Kids who live in poor neighborhoods are at a disadvantage when it comes to school funding, writes Robert Reich, so economic inequality hobbles these students from an early age.

Central Banks to Lawmakers: You Try Growing the Economy (WaPo)

Ylan Q. Mui reports that the general attitude coming out of the annual Jackson Hole gathering was that monetary policy can only do so much, and legislatures need to step it up.

Cities Can Ease Homelessness With Storage Units (City Lab)

Kriston Capps looks at an innovative program in San Diego that creates stability by providing homeless people with transitional storage where they can safely leave their belongings each day.

Share This

Daily Digest - August 22: Sunshine the Cure for Tax Avoidance?

Aug 22, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Shareholders, Public Deserve Tax Transparency (WaPo)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Shareholders, Public Deserve Tax Transparency (WaPo)

Catherine Rampell argues that requiring publicly traded companies to make their tax returns public would cause companies, over time, to invest fewer resources in tax avoidance.

Homeowner Help Remains Elusive in $16.5bn Bank of America Fine (The Guardian)

David Dayen says homeowners shouldn't count on relief from bank settlements: banks will choose to "pay" as much of the penalty as permitted without helping homeowners.

Injustice in Ferguson, Long Before Michael Brown (Bloomberg Businessweek)

Peter Coy looks at how the frequently racist origins of the St. Louis area's municipal fragmentation created the inequalities that people in Ferguson are protesting today.

How a Part-Time Pay Penalty Hits Working Mothers (NYT)

Claire Cain Miller looks at a new analysis from Harvard economist Claudia Goldin, which shows that across the board, working fewer hours leads to a lower wage in the same job.

Obama Alums Accused of Selling Out (MSNBC)

Many Democrats are particularly concerned by influential Obama campaign staff working in roles that are not supportive of unions, writes Alex Seitz-Ward.

Low-Paid Jobs Now Pay Even Worse Than Before The Recovery Began (ThinkProgress)

Bryce Covert writes that the worst of the declining wages lie in particular sectors like food service, home and care workers, and retail, which employ many low-wage workers.

New on Next New Deal

Campus Network Looks Ahead for Policy Engagement

Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network National Director Joelle Gamble considers the Network's nine years of successes, and lays out some of the goals for the year ahead.

Share This

Daily Digest - August 21: Time to Consider the Mortgage Deduction?

Aug 21, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

How a Widely Beloved Tax Deduction Really Just Benefits the Well-Off and Exacerbates Inequality (TAP)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

How a Widely Beloved Tax Deduction Really Just Benefits the Well-Off and Exacerbates Inequality (TAP)

The mortgage interest deduction primarily benefits those who make at least $100,000 a year, and dwarfs funding for housing programs for the poor, writes Alex Ulam.

  • Roosevelt Take: In his latest white paper on tax reform, Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz suggests changes to the mortgage interest deduction that would make it more equitable.

What Would Real Economic Justice Look Like in Ferguson? (The Nation)

Michelle Chen reports on organized labor's involvement in Ferguson, MO, where a millennial labor group called Future Fighters is asking protesters want they want their community to look like.

Fed Dissenters Increasingly Vocal About Inflation Fears (NYT)

The newly released minutes from the Federal Reserve's July meeting show that some Fed officials feel the central bank has done all it can to improve the economy, writes Binyamin Appelbaum.

CEOs are Dumb When it Comes to This (MarketWatch)

Simon Constable reports on a new study that shows that stock option compensation isn't really considered in dollars: CEOs tend to get the same number of options regardless of the stock's value.

Why Bank of America Probably Won’t End Up Actually Paying US$17B in Mortgage Securities Settlement (Financial Post)

Consumer relief as negotiated in this settlement and others rarely cost the banks much at all, says Jeff Horwitz. But with few other sources of consumer relief, advocates welcome this one.

The Latest Attack on Labor, From The Group That Brought Us ‘Harris v. Quinn’ (In These Times)

Moshe Marvit explains the National Right to Work Committee's latest tactic, which aims to end exclusive representation in public sector unions and weaken collective bargaining.

New on Next New Deal

Mean and Lean Local Government

In his video speculation for the Next American Economy project, Stefaan Verlhurst, Co-Founder of GovLab, projects how municipal governments might shift tactics to take advantage of broader resources.

Share This

Stefaan Verlhurst: Mean and Lean Local Government

Aug 21, 2014

The Next American Economy project brought together 30 experts from various disciplines to envision tomorrow's economic and political challenges and develop today's solutions. Their assignment: be bold, and leave the conventional wisdom -- and their own opinions -- behind. In today's video, Stefaan Verhulst of GovLab speculates on future municipal policy that allows cities to do more with less.

The Next American Economy project brought together 30 experts from various disciplines to envision tomorrow's economic and political challenges and develop today's solutions. Their assignment: be bold, and leave the conventional wisdom -- and their own opinions -- behind. In today's video, Stefaan Verhulst of GovLab speculates on future municipal policy that allows cities to do more with less.

Stefaan Verhulst, Co-Founder and Chief Research and Development Officer of GovLab, speculates on future municipal policy that allows cities to do more with less. Combining open-source data with crowd-sourcing networks, city government will be able to connect experts with public problems more efficiently. An enlightened municipal agenda can help battle the recent governance deficit and lack of government trust rising in the US, Stefaan said.

Share This

Daily Digest - August 18: Looking for Strong Statements on Ferguson

Aug 18, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Did Obama’s Response to Ferguson Fall Short? (Melissa Harris-Perry)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Did Obama’s Response to Ferguson Fall Short? (Melissa Harris-Perry)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Dorian Warren questions why President Obama has avoided unequivocal language to condemn the police state in Ferguson. His segment begins at 6:40.

Why the Liberal Love for Rand Paul is Wrong (MSNBC)

Senator Paul blames big government for what he calls the "erosion" of Black civil liberties, but Dorian Warren counters that local governments do plenty to earn the distrust of the Black community.

Phony Capitalism (Harper's Magazine)

In this excerpt from his recent white paper, Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz suggests better tax policies could lead to a less economically stratified economy.

‘Slack’ in Job Market Hurts Wage Growth, Chicago Fed Paper Says (WSJ)

The paper notes that the slack labor market, with so many unemployed, has an even stronger impact on wage growth for those whose wages are already low, reports Pedro da Costa.

Paul Ryan’s Welfare Reform Ideas Are Even Worse Than You Think (The Nation)

Michelle Chen says that Ryan's proposal for welfare reform marks poor people as the problem in need of fixing, rather than the economic and social structures that hold up poverty.

20 Tax Dodgers: $240 Million for CEOs, Big Loss for the American People (The Fine Print)

Scott Klinger ties tax-deductible CEO pay to a USA Today list of companies that paid no federal income taxes last quarter, and says the combination highlights just how broken our tax system is today.

New on Next New Deal

Rioting Mainly for Fun and Profit: The Neoconservative Origins of Our Police Problem

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal ties increased use of police force to neoconservative notions of the "urban crisis" as a failure of liberalism to be targeted with harsh enforcement.

Suspensions are Keeping Students of Color from their Diplomas

Roosevelt Institute Summer Academy Fellow Bassem El Remesh argues that Minnesota needs to adopt stricter rules for when suspensions are permitted due to the impact on graduation rates.

Share This

Daily Digest - August 8: The Man with the Misguided Anti-Poverty Plan

Aug 8, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Paul Ryan’s Magical Thinking (The Baffler)

Paul Ryan's belief that poverty is rooted in personal failure isn't the only problem with his anti-poverty plan, writes Ned Resnikoff. It's also impractical to implement and too easily abused.

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Paul Ryan’s Magical Thinking (The Baffler)

Paul Ryan's belief that poverty is rooted in personal failure isn't the only problem with his anti-poverty plan, writes Ned Resnikoff. It's also impractical to implement and too easily abused.

An Interview With the President (The Economist)

While discussing corporate responsibility in this wide-ranging interview, President Obama points out that companies profess to care about social issues, but only lobby for their tax breaks.

Let's Do It! Let's Bring Back Earmarks! (HuffPo)

Ending earmarks has done nothing to reduce American cynicism about government's motives, and has contributed to congressional gridlock, writes Jason Linkins.

When U.S. Companies Skip the Country to Dodge Taxes, Their Shareholders Can Foot the Bill (Quartz)

Since shareholders are hit with a capital gains tax bill when companies use inversion (merging with a foreign company) to avoid taxes, Tim Fernholz says raising those rates could slow the problem.

These 7 Charts Show Why the Rent Is Too Damn High (MoJo)

Erika Eichelberger and AJ Vicens lay out the data explaining shifts in rental housing. They say that reducing government's role in housing finance could direct funds toward affordable rental housing.

New on Next New Deal

Without Public Investment, the U.S. Will Fall Into Chaos

In her video speculation for the Next American Economy project, Sarah Burd-Sharps, Co-Director of Measure for America, predicts that fiscal moderates will push public investment out of fear of a more costly future.

The Pragmatic Libertarian Case for a Basic Income Doesn't Add Up

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal says that Matt Zwolinski's case for a basic income guarantee makes faulty assumptions about what government is already providing through welfare.

Share This

The Pragmatic Libertarian Case for a Basic Income Doesn't Add Up

Aug 8, 2014Mike Konczal

Cato Unbound has a symposium on the “pragmatic libertarian case” for a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG), as argued by Matt Zwolinski. What makes it pragmatic? Because it would be a better alternative to the welfare state we now have. It would be a smaller, easier, cheaper (or at least no more expensive) version of what we already do, but have much better results.

Fair enough. But for the pragmatic case to work, it has to be founded on an accurate understanding of the current welfare state. And here I think Zwolinski is wrong in his description in three major ways.

He describes a welfare state where there are over a hundred programs, each with their own bureaucracy that overwhelms and suffocates the individual. This bureaucracy is so large and wasteful that simply removing it and replacing it with a basic income can save a ton of money. And we can get a BIG by simply shuffling around the already existing welfare state. Each of these assertions are misleading if not outright wrong.

Obviously, in an essay like this, it is normal to exaggerate various aspects of the reality in order to convince skeptics and make readers think in a new light. But these inaccuracies turn out to invalidate his argument. The case for a BIG will need to be built on a steadier footing.

Too Many Programs?

Zwolinski puts significant weight on the idea that there are, following a Cato report, 126 welfare programs spending nearly $660 billion dollars. That’s a lot of programs! Is that accurate?

Well, no. The programs Zwolinski describes can be broken down into three groups. First you have Medicaid, where the feds pay around $228 billion. Then you have the six big programs that act as “outdoor relief” welfare, providing cash, or cash-like compensation. These are the Earned Income Tax Credit, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Supplemental Security Income, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps), housing vouchers and the Child Tax Credit. Ballpark figure, that’s around $212 billion dollars.

So only 7 programs are what we properly think of as welfare, or cash payments for the poor. Perhaps we should condense those programs, but there aren't as many as we originally thought. What about the remaining 119 programs?

These are largely small grants to local institutions of civil society to provide for the common good. Quick examples involve $2.5 billion to facilitate adoption assistance, $500 million to help with homeless shelters, $250 million to help provide food for food shelters (and whose recent cuts were felt by those trying to fight food insecurity), or $10 million for low income taxpayer clinics.

These grants go largely to nonprofits who carry out a public purpose. State funding and delegation of public purpose has always characterized this “third sector” of civil institutions in the United States. Our rich civil society has always been built alongside the state. Perhaps these are good programs or perhaps they are bad, but the sheer number of programs have nothing to do with the state degrading the individual through deadening bureaucracy. If you are just going after the number of programs, you are as likely to bulldoze our nonprofit infrastructure that undergirds civil society as you are some sort of imagined totalitarian bureaucracy.

Inefficient, out-of-control bureaucracy?

But even if there aren’t that many programs, certainly there are efficiencies to reducing the seven programs that do exist. Zwolinski writes that “[e]liminating a large chunk of the federal bureaucracy would obviously...reduce the size and scope of government” and that “the relatively low cost of a BIG comes from the reduction of bureaucracy.”

So are these programs characterized by out of control spending? No. Here they are calculated by Robert Greenstein and CBPP Staff.

The major programs have administrative costs ranging between 1 percent (EITC) and 8.7 percent (housing vouchers), each proportionate to how much observation of recipients there is. Weighted, the average administrative cost is about 5 percent. To put this in perspective, compare it with private charity. According to estimates by Givewell, their most favored charities spend 11 percent on administrative costs, significantly more than is spent on these programs.

More to the point, there isn’t a lot of fat here. If all the administrative costs were reduced to 1 percent, you’d save around $25 billion dollars. That’s not going to add enough cash to create a floor under poverty, much less a BIG, by any means.

Pays for Itself?

So there are relatively few programs and they are run at a decent administrative cost. In order to get a BIG, you’ll need some serious cash on the table. So how does Zwolinski argues that “a BIG could be considerably cheaper than the current welfare state, [or at least it] would not cost more than what we currently spend”?

Here we hit a wall with what we mean by the welfare state. Zwolinski quotes two example plans. The first is from Charles Murray. However, in addition to the seven welfare programs mentioned above, he also collapses Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and social insurance more broadly into his basic income. If I recall correctly, it actually does cost more to get to the basic income he wants when he wrote the book in 2006, but said that it was justified because Medicare spending was projected to skyrocket a decade out, much faster than the basic income.

His other example is a plan by Ed Dolan. Dolan doesn’t touch health care spending, and for our purposes doesn’t really touch Social Security. How does he get to his basic income? By wiping out tax expenditures without lowering tax rates. He zeros out tax expenditures like the mortgage interest deduction, charitable giving, and the personal exemption, and turns the increased revenue into a basic income.

We have three distinct things here. We have the seven programs above that are traditionally understood as welfare programs of outdoor relief, or cash assistance to the poor. We have social insurance, programs designed to combat the Four Horsemen of “accident, illness, old age, loss of a job” through society-wide insurance. And we have tax expenditures, the system that creates an individualized welfare state through the tax code.

Zwolinski is able to make it seem like we can get a BIG conflict-free by blurring each of these three things together. But social insurance isn’t outdoor relief. People getting Social Security don’t think that they are on welfare or a public form of charity. Voters definitely don’t like the idea of scratching Medicare and replacing it with (a lot less) cash, understanding them as two different things. And social insurance, like all insurance, is able to get a lot of bang for the buck by having everyone contribute but only take out when necessary, for example they are too old to work. Public social insurance, through its massive scale, has an efficiency that beats out private options. If Zwolinski wants to go this route, he needs to make the full case against the innovation of social insurance itself.

Removing tax expenditures, which tend to go to those at the top of the income distribution, certainly seems like a good way to fund a BIG. However we’ll be raising taxes if we go this route. Now, of course, the idea that there is no distribution of income independent of the state is common sense, so the word “redistribution” is just a question-begging exercise. However the top 20 percent of income earners will certainly believe their tax bill is going up and react accordingly.

So?

Zwolinski is trying to make it seem like we can largely accomplish a BIG by shuffling around the things that state does, because the state does them poorly. But the numbers simply won’t add up. Or his plan will hit a wall when social insurance is on the chopping block, or when the rich revolt when their taxes go up.

The case for the BIG needs to be made from firmer ground. Perhaps it is because the effects of poverty are like a poison. Or maybe it will provide real freedom for all by ensuring people can pursue their individual goals. Maybe it is because the economy won’t produce jobs in the capital-intensive robot age of the future, and a basic income will help ensure legitimacy for this creatively destructive economy. Heck, maybe it just compensates for the private appropriation of common, natural resources.

But what won’t make the case is the idea that the government already does this, just badly. When push comes to shove, the numbers won’t be there.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

Cato Unbound has a symposium on the “pragmatic libertarian case” for a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG), as argued by Matt Zwolinski. What makes it pragmatic? Because it would be a better alternative to the welfare state we now have. It would be a smaller, easier, cheaper (or at least no more expensive) version of what we already do, but have much better results.

Fair enough. But for the pragmatic case to work, it has to be founded on an accurate understanding of the current welfare state. And here I think Zwolinski is wrong in his description in three major ways.

He describes a welfare state where there are over a hundred programs, each with their own bureaucracy that overwhelms and suffocates the individual. This bureaucracy is so large and wasteful that simply removing it and replacing it with a basic income can save a ton of money. And we can get a BIG by simply shuffling around the already existing welfare state. Each of these assertions are misleading if not outright wrong.

Obviously, in an essay like this, it is normal to exaggerate various aspects of the reality in order to convince skeptics and make readers think in a new light. But these inaccuracies turn out to invalidate his argument. The case for a BIG will need to be built on a steadier footing.

Too Many Programs?

Zwolinski puts significant weight on the idea that there are, following a Cato report, 126 welfare programs spending nearly $660 billion dollars. That’s a lot of programs! Is that accurate?

Well, no. The programs Zwolinski describes can be broken down into three groups. First you have Medicaid, where the feds pay around $228 billion. Then you have the six big programs that act as “outdoor relief” welfare, providing cash, or cash-like compensation. These are the Earned Income Tax Credit, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Supplemental Security Income, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps), housing vouchers and the Child Tax Credit. Ballpark figure, that’s around $212 billion dollars.

So only 7 programs are what we properly think of as welfare, or cash payments for the poor. Perhaps we should condense those programs, but there aren't as many as we originally thought. What about the remaining 119 programs?

These are largely small grants to local institutions of civil society to provide for the common good. Quick examples involve $2.5 billion to facilitate adoption assistance, $500 million to help with homeless shelters, $250 million to help provide food for food shelters (and whose recent cuts were felt by those trying to fight food insecurity), or $10 million for low income taxpayer clinics.

These grants go largely to nonprofits who carry out a public purpose. State funding and delegation of public purpose has always characterized this “third sector” of civil institutions in the United States. Our rich civil society has always been built alongside the state. Perhaps these are good programs or perhaps they are bad, but the sheer number of programs have nothing to do with the state degrading the individual through deadening bureaucracy. If you are just going after the number of programs, you are as likely to bulldoze our nonprofit infrastructure that undergirds civil society as you are some sort of imagined totalitarian bureaucracy.

Inefficient, out-of-control bureaucracy?

But even if there aren’t that many programs, certainly there are efficiencies to reducing the seven programs that do exist. Zwolinski writes that “[e]liminating a large chunk of the federal bureaucracy would obviously...reduce the size and scope of government” and that “the relatively low cost of a BIG comes from the reduction of bureaucracy.”

So are these programs characterized by out of control spending? No. Here they are calculated by Robert Greenstein and CBPP Staff.

The major programs have administrative costs ranging between 1 percent (EITC) and 8.7 percent (housing vouchers), each proportionate to how much observation of recipients there is. Weighted, the average administrative cost is about 5 percent. To put this in perspective, compare it with private charity. According to estimates by Givewell, their most favored charities spend 11 percent on administrative costs, significantly more than is spent on these programs.

More to the point, there isn’t a lot of fat here. If all the administrative costs were reduced to 1 percent, you’d save around $25 billion dollars. That’s not going to add enough cash to create a floor under poverty, much less a BIG, by any means.

Pays for Itself?

So there are relatively few programs and they are run at a decent administrative cost. In order to get a BIG, you’ll need some serious cash on the table. So how does Zwolinski argues that “a BIG could be considerably cheaper than the current welfare state, [or at least it] would not cost more than what we currently spend”?

Here we hit a wall with what we mean by the welfare state. Zwolinski quotes two example plans. The first is from Charles Murray. However, in addition to the seven welfare programs mentioned above, he also collapses Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and social insurance more broadly into his basic income. If I recall correctly, it actually does cost more to get to the basic income he wants when he wrote the book in 2006, but said that it was justified because Medicare spending was projected to skyrocket a decade out, much faster than the basic income.

His other example is a plan by Ed Dolan. Dolan doesn’t touch health care spending, and for our purposes doesn’t really touch Social Security. How does he get to his basic income? By wiping out tax expenditures without lowering tax rates. He zeros out tax expenditures like the mortgage interest deduction, charitable giving, and the personal exemption, and turns the increased revenue into a basic income.

We have three distinct things here. We have the seven programs above that are traditionally understood as welfare programs of outdoor relief, or cash assistance to the poor. We have social insurance, programs designed to combat the Four Horsemen of “accident, illness, old age, loss of a job” through society-wide insurance. And we have tax expenditures, the system that creates an individualized welfare state through the tax code.

Zwolinski is able to make it seem like we can get a BIG conflict-free by blurring each of these three things together. But social insurance isn’t outdoor relief. People getting Social Security don’t think that they are on welfare or a public form of charity. Voters definitely don’t like the idea of scratching Medicare and replacing it with (a lot less) cash, understanding them as two different things. And social insurance, like all insurance, is able to get a lot of bang for the buck by having everyone contribute but only take out when necessary, for example they are too old to work. Public social insurance, through its massive scale, has an efficiency that beats out private options. If Zwolinski wants to go this route, he needs to make the full case against the innovation of social insurance itself.

Removing tax expenditures, which tend to go to those at the top of the income distribution, certainly seems like a good way to fund a BIG. However we’ll be raising taxes if we go this route. Now, of course, the idea that there is no distribution of income independent of the state is common sense, so the word “redistribution” is just a question-begging exercise. However the top 20 percent of income earners will certainly believe their tax bill is going up and react accordingly.

So?

Zwolinski is trying to make it seem like we can largely accomplish a BIG by shuffling around the things that state does, because the state does them poorly. But the numbers simply won’t add up. Or his plan will hit a wall when social insurance is on the chopping block, or when the rich revolt when their taxes go up.

The case for the BIG needs to be made from firmer ground. Perhaps it is because the effects of poverty are like a poison. Or maybe it will provide real freedom for all by ensuring people can pursue their individual goals. Maybe it is because the economy won’t produce jobs in the capital-intensive robot age of the future, and a basic income will help ensure legitimacy for this creatively destructive economy. Heck, maybe it just compensates for the private appropriation of common, natural resources.

But what won’t make the case is the idea that the government already does this, just badly. When push comes to shove, the numbers won’t be there.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

Share This

Daily Digest - August 1: Too Big to Fail vs. Too Small to Matter

Aug 1, 2014

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

An In-Depth Look at Campaign Finance Reform (MSNBC)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

An In-Depth Look at Campaign Finance Reform (MSNBC)

In this extended online segment, Roosevelt Institute Fellow Dorian Warren speaks with Zephyr Teachout about using multiple matching funds as a tool to increase the power of small donors.

Playing the ‘Who’s the Boss?’ Game with Employees (WaPo)

The National Labor Relations Board ruling that McDonald's can be held accountable for franchise labor violations sheds light on the ways employers try to dodge responsibility, writes Catherine Rampell.

  • Roosevelt Take: Roosevelt Institute President and CEO Felicia Wong and Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch commented on the NLRB decision earlier this week.

‘Pension Smoothing’: The Gimmick Both Parties in Congress Love (NYT)

Josh Barro says pension smoothing, which increases revenues by allowing smaller pension contributions, and other gimmicks provide funding on too-short timelines, requiring another hunt for funds soon after.

Feds Say Big Banks Are Still Too Big to Fail (MoJo)

Despite Dodd-Frank's financial regulations, a new Government Accountability Office report says investors still expect bailouts if the largest banks fail, giving those banks advantages over smaller ones, writes Erika Eichelberger.

Hope Springs Eternal, But The Data Is Actually Pretty Mixed About Whether Or Not Recovery Is Accelerating (Working Economics)

Josh Bivens cautions against excitement about GDP and job growth as signs of a speedier recovery. The data isn't actually that strong, and he sees the potential for job growth to slow.

New on Next New Deal

Let's Hope the GAO Report Ends the Too-Big-to-Fail Subsidy Distraction

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal writes that the existence of a too-big-to-fail subsidy isn't as important or potentially destructive as the systemic problems of the financial system.

Education Left Behind

Edyta Obrzut, the Campus Network's NextGen Illinois Research Fellow, examines the challenges facing education policy in Illinois today, and the potential solutions put forward by NextGen caucuses.

Share This

Daily Digest - July 28: Work Shouldn't Be a Threat to Working Families

Jul 28, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Poor Parents Need Work-Life Balance Too (The Nation)

Michelle Chen says that without the flexibility of scheduling offered by white-collar jobs, workers in the service industries face volatile schedules that disrupt family lives.

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Poor Parents Need Work-Life Balance Too (The Nation)

Michelle Chen says that without the flexibility of scheduling offered by white-collar jobs, workers in the service industries face volatile schedules that disrupt family lives.

Fast-Food Workers Intensify Fight for $15 an Hour (NYT)

At the largest convention of fast-food workers, Steven Greenhouse reports that workers approved escalated tactics, drawing on the nonviolent civil disobedience of the Civil Rights Movement.

Close the Tax Loophole on Inversions (WaPo)

Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew explains the need for immediate action to reform the tax code to limit companies' ability to avoid taxes by merging with foreign companies.

Fed’s Targeting of Asset Bubbles Leads to Contradictions (AJAM)

Bubbles might be necessary to obtain full employment, writes Philip Pilkington, but limiting bubbles is among the Federal Reserve's goals. Higher deficits or lower inequality could help.

New on Next New Deal

Two Tiers of College Tuition? Not on This Campus

Mohanned Abdelhameed, Vice President of the San Bernardino Valley Community College chapter of the Campus Network, explains why students rejected two-tiered tuition pricing models.

Inequality Could Spark a Second Civil War

In his speculation for the Next American Economy initiative, Roosevelt Institute Fellow Dorian Warren imagines a future in which national cohesion has disintegrated and a one-party civil oligarchy has taken control.

Quick Thoughts on Ryan's Poverty Plan: What Are the Risks?

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal says that Paul Ryan's wholesale adoption of the President's plan for the Earned Income Tax Credit shows the value of pushing further to the left.

Share This

Pages