This fall, a truck dumped eight million coins outside the Parliament building in Bern, one for every Swiss citizen. It was a publicity stunt for advocates of an audacious social policy that just might become reality in the tiny, rich country. Along with the coins, activists delivered 125,000 signatures — enough to trigger a Swiss public referendum, this time on providing a monthly income to every citizen, no strings attached. Every month, every Swiss person would receive a check from the government, no matter how rich or poor, how hardworking or lazy, how old or young. Poverty would disappear. Economists, needless to say, are sharply divided on what would reappear in its place — and whether such a basic-income scheme might have some appeal for other, less socialist countries too.
Imagine this if you will: No matter who you are or what you do, you’re guaranteed a minimum monthly income by the government.
Discuss.
As I suspect you can probably imagine, a similar proposal in this country would result in a far different debate than it would in a more progressive (and compassionate) European country like Switzerland. Most Europeans are used to social systems with a far higher level of benefits and services (and the accompanying tax burden), so the idea of a guaranteed minimum income might not seem so far-fetched. In American, though, one can almost hear the weeping and gnashing of teeth as good, God-fearing Conservative patriots debate the godless socialist evil about to befall our fair country. The chest- and bible-thumping emanating from the Far Right would indeed be epic. I suspect the ensuing righteous indignation would be highly entertaining, if not terribly productive. The cries of “SOCIALISM!!!” would be heard from coast to coast as those so inclined held forth of the evils of turning our backs on the ancient American tall tale tradition of “pulling oneself up by one’s own bootstraps.”
‘Course, it would be too easy and far too simplistic to limit discussion to how one small (but loud) segment of the population might react. I believe this idea has merit…as well as some obvious pitfalls and potential problems. My question is whether this proposal is something that might deserve serious consideration in this country. Does the idea of guaranteeing every American- regardless of circumstance, motivation, or anything else- a minimum monthly income warrant serious discussion? Though I know it would never fly in our current self-righteous, compassion-deficient, I-got-mine-you-can-damned-well-get-your-own political environment, why NOT guarantee every American a minimum monthly income? It wouldn’t have to be anything extravagant (no one should- or would- be able to satisfy caviar dreams in this manner), just enough to meet basic requirements- food, housing, etc. Or are we really OK with the idea of some Americans being hungry and homeless?
Not being an economist or social engineer, I’m limited to looking at this idea in rather simplistic terms. Without delving into ideological concerns, two very important possible impacts leap to mind. First, guaranteeing a minimum monthly income would seem to provide a recipe for curtailing, possibly even ending, homelessness. Of course, this wouldn’t begin to address the rampant mental health and drug abuse issues among the homeless population. The effect of this idea on that segment of the population is something that would certainly need to be addressed, but for our purposes now that’s another discussion for another time.
Second, I’d think this would be an excellent idea to reduce, if not virtually eliminate, hunger in America. A guaranteed monthly income would allow those who suffering from food insecurity to at least have the opportunity to feed themselves and their families, thus reducing the demand for food banks and similar programs.
I suspect the biggest obstacle to implementing the idea of a guaranteed monthly income will be cost. While Republicans in Congress and those on the Far Right will decry what they feel to be the enormous cost and (not insignificant) potential for abuse, there’s one obvious place plenty money could be found. Our military budget is bloated beyond comprehension, and I’d wager that a guaranteed monthly income could be instituted for a fraction of the cost of our far-flung wars and associated military activities. Do we really NEED bases in something like 150 countries? Do we NEED to be able to war two distant wars simultaneously and for a decade or more? Of course not. While the need to mount a solid defense is paramount, the spending to achieve that long ago passed out of control. We have the money to obliterate a village in Afghanistan, but not enough to pay for social programs here at home. That there’s something very, very wrong with that calculus shouldn’t be a matter of debate.
Yes, our priorities our horribly out of whack. We place a far higher value on guns than butter, even though we’re technically no longer at war. When do we recognize that charity begins at home, that being able to blow up a village from the comfort of an office in an Air Force base in Nevada is as wasteful as it is unnecessary? When do we recognize and admit that the tax dollars of Americans are best used meeting the needs of Americans? When do we begin demanding that the rest of the developed world begin paying their share of the cost of their defense? It shouldn’t be the responsibility of American taxpayers to underwrite the cost of defending western Europe…and yet that’s exactly what we’re doing.
Our current poisoned political climate being what it is, the idea of a guaranteed monthly income will never be seriously considered. That’s too bad, because I think it merits discussion. Perhaps it would take a form different than what Switzerland is considering, but shouldn’t our primary responsibility be taking care of our own? If we’d sooner obliterate a village in a remote Third World country than pay for a robust social safety net here at home, what does that say about our humanity?
Hint: it’s nothing good.
