Instead Of Raising The Minimum Wage, Progressives Should Push For A Universal Basic Income

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday February 26, 2014 · 7:00 AM PST

2014/02/26 · 07:00

As we head deeper into this election year, the big issue that is up for debate among politicians is income inequality. In order to combat that, Democrats would like raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, or in some cases $15 an hour. Republicans (and some Democrats) meanwhile are opposed to the idea saying that it would hurt businesses or raise the white flag of surrender (whatever that means).

There's no doubt that raising the minimum wage is popular. A Washington Post poll found that 85% of Democrats and 65% of Independents support raising the minimum wage, while Republicans are split 50-45 on the issue. This issue, if put on the ballot would help turn out young people and minorities in November, which are key demographics for Democrats.

But while this issue is popular, should Progressives be fighting for more? Specifically, should Progressives be pushing politicians to consider a Universal Basic Income? This idea has gained more attention recently as activists in Switzerland recently collected enough signatures to put the idea on the ballot in their country, and if it passes it could be a model for all other countries to follow.

The idea is simple: a guaranteed income for all American citizens, that are currently not in prison and are 18 or older, and it would be paid to citizens regardless of their income or employment status. The amount paid to Americans is open for debate but a Universal Basic Income (or UBI) of $2900 (or $241 a month) would immediately cut the poverty rate in half while also being low enough to keep most people from quitting their jobs simply to live off a UBI.

A UBI could be paid for through a series of spending cuts in things like military and welfare programs (the latter of which Americans would need less of as a UBI would push many of them out of poverty), eliminating some tax deductions (most Americans would benefit more from a UBI than a home mortgage interest income deduction, for example), and raising taxes on capital gains.

A UBI has been supported by those on the right including Milton Friedman, as well as those on the left such as Martin Luther King, and even libertarians such as Charles Murray.

Not only would a UBI be more cost-effective (you hear that conservatives?) than all of the programs we have in place now, but it could have the added benefit of reducing crime, poverty, and simply giving Americans a better piece of mind overall.

Robert Reich once said that Progressives must make Democrats listen to them by speaking up and not simply being submissive to the establishment and centrist wings of the party. If we started speaking up, couldn't a Universal Basic Income be a great idea for them to hear?

SC Gov. Nikki Haley backs bill allowing carrying guns without permits, training

GleninCA

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday February 14, 2014 · 7:00 AM PST

2014/02/14 · 07:00

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley recently signed a bill into law allowing guns into bars. That is clearly a horrible idea, but hey, if you're already on the crazy train why get off on the first stop?

Clearly Governor Haley isn't planning on getting off anytime soon as she recently stated that she now is in favor of a bill allowing anyone in South Carolina to carry a firearm without a permit or training. Because America.

According to Yahoo News:

The proposed Constitutional Carry Act (S. 115) would decriminalize carrying a firearm without a permit — effectively eliminating the need for a concealed weapons license and related training — and would allow people to carry firearms either concealed or out in the open.

In a statement on Tuesday supporting the bill, Governor Haley said:

“Criminals are dangerous and I think that every resident should be allowed to protect themselves from criminals."

However, the facts show that the fewer restrictions you have on guns, the more gun violence you have, which is clearly the opposite of what any sane governor would want. But when you're bought and paid for by the NRA, an organization whose main objective is to sell more guns for gun manufacturers, using things like facts and figures start to become a real nuisance.

Governor Haley is up for reelection this November against State Senator Vincent Sheheen, after barely beating him in 2010, so perhaps she's just doing this to fire up the fringe element of her party. But with extreme ideas like this, let's hope that the residents of South Carolina choose to send her packing come November.

Elizabeth Warren: Let Post Offices Replace Payday Lenders

GleninCA

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday February 04, 2014 · 7:00 AM PST

2014/02/04 · 07:00

A few days ago, a diary was posted explaining that the US Inspector General had recently endorsed the idea of the United States Post Office offering simple banking services in addition to its normal mail delivery service.

While this idea might seem foreign to many Americans, in the past the post office actually offered banking services for over 50 years. Per The New Republic, beginning in 1911:

"...the Postal Savings System allowed Americans to deposit cash with certain branch post offices, at 2 percent interest. By 1947, the system held deposits for over four million customers. Though dismantled in 1967 (after banks offered higher interest rates and eroded its market share), the post office continues to issue domestic and international money orders, including $22.4 billion worth in 2011, as well as prepaid debit cards through a deal with American Express."

Putting aside the sad fact that banks once offered 2% interest rates (and you would now be lucky to get even half a percent), today post offices could offer basic banking services such as check-cashing, saving accounts, and even small-dollar loans similar to payday lenders, yet at much lower interest rates which could potentially save low-income Americans thousands of dollars per household per year.

The idea is so good that Senator Elizabeth Warren has now endorsed the idea.

In an op-ed for The Huffington Post, Senator Warren explains that because of the exorbitant fees that payday lenders charge, low-income Americans spend roughly 10% of their income on things like checking cashing and short term loans, which is roughly the same amount that the average American spends on food.

Having grown up in a low-income family myself, I've experienced far too many times to recall when my single mother would go to one of these payday lenders for a short-term loan just to keep the lights at home from being shut off or to pay the rent and would quickly find herself in a vicious cycle of more loans, fees, and high interest rates.

Fortunately in my adult life I haven't had to endure that same hardship, but in today's world of stagnant wages and an increasing cost of living, many Americans still turn to these payday lenders as they struggle to stay in the middle class.

As Elizabeth Warren points out, this idea has been done in other countries around the world and has been proven successful. Furthermore, not only could it help millions of Americans but it could also prove beneficial to the postal service's bottom line at a time when USPS - which employs over half a million people - desperately needs it.

This idea could easily be adopted by the Postmaster General and begin without Congressional approval, but so far he has declined to endorse the Inspector General's recommendation. But hopefully now with people like Senator Warren endorsing the idea, public pressure will mount for this idea to become a reality.

GleninCA

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday January 30, 2014 · 2:43 PM PST

2014/01/30 · 14:43

Sandra Fluke, attorney and women's rights activist addresses the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., on Wednesday, Sept. 5, 2012. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

In news that is likely to make Rush Limbaugh's head explode, activist and lawyer Sandra Fluke is reportedly considering running for Congress this year. According to the Huffington Post, the former Georgetown Law student is weighing whether or not she will run for Congressman Henry Waxman's seat, who announced today that he will not be seeking another term in the House of Representatives.

Sandra first made national news after she testified in Congress on the need for affordable access to birth control via the Affordable Care Act. Radio host and Lady-Parts-Expert Rush Limbaugh quickly denounced her as being a slut because she needed so many birth control pills because she was having so much sex (because we all know, that's how birth control works, right?).

Fluke responded to today's news of her potential House run by saying:

"I’m flattered that I’m being discussed as a potential candidate, especially for Rep. Waxman's seat, considering his incredible legacy," Fluke said. "A number of folks I respect very deeply have reached out today and encouraged me to run. I am strongly considering running. I’ll be making my decision soon."

Waxman's district is a deep blue district but as California recently instituted a top-two primary system, the candidates on the November ballot could easily both be Democrats. So we'll see in the coming days and weeks which other Democratic contenders will be throwing their hat into the ring to succeed Congressman Waxman as well.

Obama: Marijuana No More Dangerous Than Alcohol

GleninCA

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday January 19, 2014 · 9:31 AM PST

2014/01/19 · 09:31

In an article by Slate, columnist Daniel Politi reported on a just released profile of President Obama written by The New Yorker’s David Remnick, and buried in the 17,000 word essay is President Obama's surprising response to Remnick's question about the legalization of marijuana.

“As has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life,” Obama said. “I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol.” When Remnick pressed on whether marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol, Obama thought about it for a while and said it was less dangerous “in terms of its impact on the individual consumer,” but emphasized that “it’s not something I encourage.” The president expressed particular concern with the disproportionate number of arrests for marijuana possession among minorities. “Middle-class kids don’t get locked up for smoking pot, and poor kids do,” he said, adding that individual users shouldn’t be locked up “for long stretches of jail time.”

The President didn't stop there as he expressed mild support for legalization in Colorado, saying that “it’s important for it to go forward.”

He did however caution that the legalization across the country would be a “challenge,” due to the slippery-slope argument that could arise:

“[W]hen it comes to harder drugs, the harm done to the user is profound and the social costs are profound. And you do start getting into some difficult line-drawing issues. If marijuana is fully legalized and at some point folks say, Well, we can come up with a negotiated dose of cocaine that we can show is not any more harmful than vodka, are we open to that? If somebody says, We’ve got a finely calibrated dose of meth, it isn’t going to kill you or rot your teeth, are we O.K. with that?”

A statement by a President not thoroughly denouncing pot as a vile, horrible drug would've been unheard of just a few years ago, but now we have a President brushing it off as simply being no worse than alcohol. Let's hope that we can look forward to hearing more statements like these from our nation's leaders in the near future.

Robert Reich: Fear Is Why Poor States Vote Against Their Economic Interest

GleninCA

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday January 15, 2014 · 9:36 AM PST

2014/01/15 · 09:36

Last week, there was a massive toxic spill in West Virginia leading to undrinkable water for hundreds of thousands of West Virginans and pictures of the disgustingly polluted water like the one above (Photo credit: @ashmarkee).

For years many Democrats have wondered why poor and middle class Americans vote for conservative politicians that don't share their economic interests, especially in our country's poorest states like West Virginia. Is it some twisted ideology? Something to do with race or religion? It could be all of those things, but oddly enough, jobs could also be a factor. Or more specifically, the fear of losing those jobs. In a Facebook post today, Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich explains:

Last week’s massive toxic chemical spill into West Virginia Elk River illustrates another benefit to the business class of high unemployment, economic insecurity, and a safety-net shot through with holes. Not only are employees docile, eager to accept whatever crumbs they can get. The public is also quiescent and unwilling to cause trouble.
The spill was the region’s third major chemical accident in five years, coming after two investigations by the federal Chemical Safety Board in the Kanawha Valley, also known as “Chemical Valley,” and repeated recommendations from federal regulators and environmental advocates that the state embrace tougher rules to better safeguard chemicals. But state and local lawmakers turned a deaf ear.

As Maya Nye, president of People Concerned About Chemical Safety, a citizen’s group formed after a 2008 explosion and fire killed workers at West Virginia’s Bayer CropScience plant in the state, told the Times: “We are so desperate for jobs in West Virginia we don’t want to do anything that pushes industry out.” Exactly.

For years political scientists have wondered why the citizens of West Virginia and other poorer states vote against their economic interests, hypothesizing it’s because economic issues have been preempted by others like guns, abortion, and race. But as wages keep sinking and economic security disappears, it’s also because people are so desperate for jobs they’ll vote whatever way industry wants them to. Bottom line: A strong and growing middle class is the best bulwark against corporate irresponsibility.

The State of the Union Wish List

GleninCA

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday December 26, 2013 · 7:00 AM PST

2013/12/26 · 07:00

A couple weeks ago, The White House officially booked the date of the State of the Union with Speaker John Boehner. With one of the most watched speeches of the year now officially set, it's time for the President and his speech writers to start preparing what he is going to say. But before they begin writing, I've prepared a short wish list that will not only help lay out a strong agenda for the White House in 2014, but this list can also help drive Democrats to the polls in a non-Presidential election year.

So this State of the Union, in no particular order President Obama should:

Remind Americans That Congress Needs to Work Harder To Fight Income Inequality
Similar to the way Bill de Blasio won the NYC mayoral race by telling the story of A Tale of Two Cities, the President should make the case that despite our economy's rebound from the Great Recession, stagnating wages and giveaways to the top 1% of Americans is hurting not just the middle class, but all of America. And please, Quote Pope Francis. After all, many times it's the most religious GOP members that are the ones least likely to fight against income inequality (cough, Paul Ryan).

Pledge To Sign An Executive Order Raising The Pay of Federal Contract Employees
Take this opportunity to remind Americans that working a full time job at minimum wage means you are living in poverty. So he should (once again) ask Congress to raise the minimum wage, but even more than that, he should tell Americans that the next day he is going to sign an executive order raising the minimum wage for federal contract employees to $10.10 an hour. He should then say, "If you work a full time job for the greatest country in the world, you should not also have to live in poverty."

Come Out In Favor Of Medical Marijuana
Similar to the way the President eventually came around to supporting marriage equality, the President needs to take a measured (but still strong) stance in support of marijuana. Despite recreational marijuana becoming more and more popular on a daily basis, that might be too large of a pill for some Americans to follow at this time. But stories like the 6 year old girl that was saved from her multiple seizures by medical marijuana might sway even the most conservative of Americans to support it. If the President can make an impassioned case for why our sickest Americans should have access to something that can ease their pain and potentially save their lives, he can both rally Americans around an extremely popular idea and bring a large number of Democrats out to the polls on election day.

Once Again, Push For Universal Preschool
Yes, President Obama already proposed this last year, but just because the GOP didn't go for it doesn't mean that it isn't popular. President Obama must remind Americans that we are in a global economy and if we are to compete, we must begin instilling a quality education for our kids at a younger age. Kids that are educated younger not only are more developed mentally, but are more likely to stay out of jail later in life, which benefits us all. Finally, having kids in school during the day allows parents to go out and work without having to pay for daycare, which saves them money.

Remind Americans Of The Benefits Of Immigration Reform
There is still a slight chance that Immigration reform could happen in 2014, but regardless of if it happens this year or not, the President needs to remind Americans who has been pushing for it this whole time. Immigration reform is growing more and more popular in the polls. And while there will always be a minority of Americans that oppose it, those people are unlikely to vote for Obama whether he supports or opposes it. So he should forget those haters and push for it hard. Remind Americans that bringing illegal immigrants out of the shadows and bringing helping keep skilled foreign workers in the US isn't just good for them, but it's good for the economy.

Push For Infrastructure Investments
It's no big secret that our infrastructure sucks. Both the average American and Washington politicians know that we should fix our crumbling roads and bridges. So the president should not only remind Americans that he wants more investment in our infrastructure, but he should challenge Republicans on why they oppose it as an issue. Furthermore, even after the State of the Union, he should make it a campaign issue and travel to states (and more importantly Republican districts) at least once a month where the infrastructure is crumbling. Give a speech in front of a recently condemned bridge. Have a rally in front of a pothole-ridden highway. Make the case that he and Democrats want to repair bridges and the Republicans only want to play politics. That's how you win over Democrats, Independents, and even some Republicans. But more importantly, that's how you can win back the House of Representatives.

That is my short but sweet wish list. Feel free to comment on it or add to the list in the comments section below!

Study: Rejecting Medicaid hurts states, costs them billions

GleninCA

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday December 05, 2013 · 9:00 AM PST

2013/12/05 · 09:00

In an article in USA Today, a new study shows that while most states have expanded or are considering expanding, there are 20 states that are not going to expand. And by opting out of the Medicaid expansion under the ACA, those states are going to get hurt big time:

By 2022, Texas could lose $9.2 billion by not expanding Medicaid as allowed under the Affordable Care Act, while Florida could lose $5 billion over that period, the study conducted by The Commonwealth Fund shows. Commonwealth was founded in 1918 to improve health services for Americans.
Also during that period, the study showed, Georgia could lose $2.9 billion, while Virginia could lose $2.8 billion.

And as if you didn't already know, all of these states are run by Republican governors. But it's not all bad for those 20 states. After all, I'm sure they'll gain something out of turning down the Medicaid expansion which pays for 100% of their Medicaid costs through 2016, and then 90% of the costs after that. Oh, what's that you say?

"There are no states where the taxpayers would actually gain by not expanding Medicaid," said Sherry Glied, lead author on the study. "Nobody wins."

Hmm. Well that might put a damper on things. If all states were to expand Medicaid, 21.3 million uninsured people would gain coverage. This would mean that not only would the state save billions which they could then spend on important things like education and infrastructure, but also doctors and hospitals would have fewer uncompensated costs which would mean lower insurance costs for everybody else.

So not expanding Medicaid, costs taxpayers money, and doesn't help the state at all.

You know, sooner or later, Democrats are really going to have to take that banner of being "the party of fiscal responsibility" away from the Republicans. 2014 seems like a good year for that.

Fox News Reporter Endorses Universal Basic Income (Video)

GleninCA

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday November 17, 2013 · 3:50 PM PST

2013/11/17 · 15:50

Last week I posted a diary about Switzerland's Universal Basic Income idea and how it could possibly work in America. A few days ago Fox Business anchor Stuart Varney discussed the same idea on his show and surprisingly, he found that he liked the idea as well (shocking, I know!).

Someone also created a White House petition for this idea as well. Obviously, such a simple and sane idea will never happen with the Republicans that we currently have trolling the halls of Congress, but it's good to know that at least some Republicans outside of Congress endorse the idea, and that more and more Americans are starting to like this idea as they hear about it.

Clinton/Castro 2016?

GleninCA

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday November 10, 2013 · 8:00 AM PST

2013/11/10 · 08:00

I hate speculation about elections that are years away....but that being said I saw this picture and totally had to speculate on it. This weekend, Hillary Clinton was in Los Angeles for a number of events, one of which included the Mexican American Leadership Initiative, where she was being honored for her role in inspiring the group's creation.

Also attending that event was San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, who at the age of 39 is a rising star in the Democratic party. He took the picture above and posted it to his Facebook page, which quickly garnered thousands of "likes."

It's widely speculated that Clinton will run in 2016, and if she does, will get the nomination. But if that does happen, could this be her VP nominee? Sure, he's only a mayor, but with a city population of 1.38 million people, San Antonio is not only the 7th largest city in the US, it also has a population bigger than 10 of the 50 states in the country.

So although it's just fun speculation for now, could this be the Dems' dream ticket in 2016?

How to Cut the Poverty Rate in Half: A Universal Income For All

GleninCA

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday November 07, 2013 · 12:24 PM PST

2013/11/07 · 12:24

When I first read the article in The Atlantic the other day about giving an annual income to every American every year as a way to reduce poverty, my first thought was that it was to brush it off as some pie-in-the-sky liberal fantasy that would never happen.

"Socialism!" Republicans would cry. "Benghazi!" they would then say (because why not?).

But the more I thought about the idea of a Universal Basic Income, the more I liked it. Think about it: roughly 15% of Americans live below the poverty line. That's 46 MILLION Americans. And for millions of Americans above the poverty line, we're just one emergency away from serious financial trouble.

As the article stated, the quickest way to get Americans out of poverty is to give them money. But how much do you give everyone? Per The Atlantic:

"Using the dataset from the latest Census poverty report, I determined that if we cut a $2,920 check to every single American—adults, children, and retirees—we could cut official poverty in half. Economists consider this sort of across-the-board payment a “universal basic income.” You can think of it as Social Security for all, not just the elderly."

The cost estimate for this program in 2012 would've been just over $900 billion, or just a little more than the stimulus of 2009. In order to silence the outcry from the right that this would increase the debt, this would need to be paid for.

"For starters, we could raises taxes, first on the rich, who would pay more in new taxes than they would receive in basic income, and then on lower-middle class and poor families, who would come out ahead. There is also plenty of room to cut tax expenditures on homeowners, personal retirement accounts, capital gains exclusions at death, and exclusions on annuity investment returns. This submerged welfare state for the affluent costs hundreds of billions of dollars each year. There is also the matter of the $700 billion military budget, which could take some trimming."

So it'd be paid for. Now how would it work?

"You get a check from the government every month no matter how much you make or how much you work. Maybe that will convince a few Americans work isn't worth it anymore—but the vast majority who will probably continue to work won't have to worry about losing their check as they move up the income ladder. That security might not just keep people out of poverty. It might let workers demand better wages and working conditions, because they know they always have something to fall back on. In other words, it could level the playing field for the bottom 99 percent."

With the advent of new technology in addition to job losses from outsourcing and the Great Recession, a very real threat industrial nations must face is the idea that with each passing year, full employment will become harder and harder to reach. Machines now check us out when we want to buy groceries, check in for flights, buy movie tickets, and they even help build our cars. These are all jobs people used to do and - for better or worse - aren't coming back.

We know from various studies that the lower the rate of poverty, the lower the crime rate, so this program might indirectly reduce the need for more police officers and prisons, saving some our tax dollars. Switzerland is putting this idea up for a vote after collecting over 100k signatures in favor of the plan. And in the past, even that liberal commie Richard Nixon proposed an idea similar to this.

A program like this has its political risks, so the best step might be to implement it on a small scale in a small, liberal state (ahem, Vermont or Hawaii) that could serve as a testing ground for it. But if successful, that state could be a model for a new American program that can both reduce poverty and give all Americans a financial peace of mind.

Robert Reich: Progressives must make Democrats listen to them

GleninCA

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday November 03, 2013 · 11:03 AM PST

2013/11/03 · 11:03

If you're not a fan of former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich on Facebook, I encourage you to like his fan page, because as a Progressive Democrat, Robert is known for posting status updates that are speak directly to the progressive cause in America.

Whether it be arguing for higher taxes on the wealthy, not going to war with Syria, or reducing income in equality in our country, Robert is well known for fighting for the little guy.

But Robert doesn't just want us to argue our case with Republicans. He also believes that Democrats have largely been ignoring Progressives in pursuit of compromise with Republicans (an effort that largely hasn't worked). Robert's post, which is below, argues that while we don't want to cause a civil war in the Democratic party like the one Republicans are facing with the Tea Party, we should speak up and offer rank-and-file Democrats a choice in the future when they go to the polls.

Check out the post and sound off in the comments below:

If you're a progressive or Democrat, or both, it's tempting to look at the Republican civil war -- the increasingly bitter struggle between the Tea Partiers and the GOP establishment -- with some satisfaction. The war is hurting their chances in 2014 and probably even 2016.
But at least the Tea Party right is giving establishment Republicans in board rooms and on Wall Street a reason to worry, and offering rank-and-file Republicans a real choice. Establishment Democrats, on the other hand, couldn't care less about the progressive left, which has been so submissive and quiet for so long its concerns are summarily dismissed.

What about single-payer or even public option? Resurrect Glass-Steagall and limit size of big banks? Exempt first $15K from Social Security tax and remove cap on income subject to it? A living wage? A carbon tax? Trade agreements with strict labor and environmental standards? Make it easy to form labor unions? Universal child care? Better schools? Free higher education? Paid family and medical leave? A new WPA for the long-term unemployed?

Pay for all this by cutting military spending, eliminating corporate welfare, and raising taxes on rich to rate they were before 1981. Reverse "Citizen's United" and get big money out of politics. Reverse the savage inequality of income and wealth in America.

Hello?

The Democratic establishment, chock full of corporate and Wall Street executives, won't hear of any of this. I'm not advocating a civil war in the Democratic Party, but isn't it time progressives gave establishment Democrats a reason to worry, and offered rank-and-file Democrats a real choice?

Newer
Older

RSS