Getting basic income right | Brookings Institution

Getting basic income right | Brookings Institution

" In today’s labor market, which is being transformed by digital

technologies, one of the most important features of a UBI is

portability. Indeed, to insist on greater labor-market flexibility,

without ensuring that workers, who face a constant need to adapt to

technological disruptions, can rely on continuous social-safety nets,

 is to advocate a lopsided world in which employers have all the

 flexibility and employees have very little."

this is one way to get the sharing of wealth right.  The people whose means of income has been disrupted by social and mechanical changes will still not be without support.  It is an idea whose time has come but it is not likely any time soon due to ideological problems.

Street Protests Won't Work?

Message To 'Resistors' From Occupy Co-Creator: Stop Protesting. Run For Office : NPR



This referenced  article from NPR directly contradicts the essay I published yesterday calling for active street presence.  One of the lessons that we can learn from the Occupy movement is that there was no central authority that could organize and take advantage of the visibility created by the bodies in the street.  Without organization that will convert the temporary advantage into permanent assets
there is no political need for the protest.  One has to take into account the sophistication that embodies campaigns these days where polling and opposition research dominate the direction campaigns will take.



This article does make a valid point in that there still must be candidates who will carry the passions of the protest into the political realm where they can be converted into reality.  That is where the organization comes in.  Political candidates must be able to see how the interests of the public can translate into votes or they will pay attention to someone else who can actually demonstrate how he can contribute to electability.



In some cases the protest may actually change a seasoned politician's path but most likely he or she already has assets in place that one would tend to not forgo.  It is important to try simply for the benefit of participation in the public marketplace but in reality the visibility created in the streets must be converted to political reality.

Who's The Boss?

The most recent effort to strip the country of the Affordable Care Act is over and TrumpCare or The Health Care for America has failed to take it's place. That is a blessing. What is not a blessing is that it was largely defeated by reactionary conservatives who thought that it didn't cut enough health care from poor people. We can gloat temporarily in that the Great Deal Maker couldn't put the deal together but we can't afford to become lackadaisical. They will be back and a little smarter next time. One of the things we can rejoice in is that the President discovered that you can't run the United States the same way he runs a business. There are people in Congress just as ruthless as he is. I honestly don't know what to expect out of this guy except that it won't be anything that I would approve of.

So the Affordable Care Act remains the law of the land despite concerted efforts to cut it to pieces in a profane display of disregard for the least of us. Those miscreants can still blame Barack Obama for the whole thing but he should be highly regarded for having the vision and the will to push forward when all of his advisors told him to pull back. He had the wisdom to know he had to do it early while

he still had the political capital to pull it off and as the Trump administration said in surprise, “this stuff is hard.” Yes, President Obama and those who did the heavy lifting discovered that in the two years spent negotiating with various interests and finding what kind of compromises would have to be accepted. That is the art of legislation, something that most of our legislators have decided to disdain. Somewhere John Boehnor is sipping a scotch and chuckling. Well, so is Barack Obama and if I were a drinking man I'd like to be with them.

The Congressmen and Congresswomen went home and found a lot of angry people who hadn't realized that the Affordable Care Act and ObamaCare were the same thing. They wised up when they

started hearing they could lose their health care. One woman who voted for Mr. Trump cried that she didn't think he would really do that. What can I say? He said he would. He also said that everyone would have health care and it would be better, way better, incredible in fact.

Having said all of that does not mean that I think the ACA is perfect. Far from it but there are only a few things that need fixing. Cost increases, choice of insurers and accessibility for those who aren't insured. The original bill had provisions in it to deal with these issues but the GOP went to court and got them thrown out by a conservative court. They had to be aware of the difficulties that would create but that was not their focus. Their focus was to destroy the ACA. There was a provision that tied Medicaid payments to the states to their expansion under the ACA. That would have made the ACA evenly applied coast to coast. Gone. There was a provision to reimburse insurance companies for unexpected costs incurred while initiating coverage due to the increased participation. This would have reduced the reasons for insurance companies withdrawing from markets due to unexpected losses. Then there was the Public Option which was designed to create a competitive environment in low participation areas. Gone. These provisions, when thrown out, have created every one of the problems that are foremost in most people's minds. Fix these and it fixes the Affordable Care Act. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

All so simple but that is not what the ideology championed by the GOP is designed for. It is designed for every one to pull himself or herself up by the bootstraps and become sufficiently prosperous to fork out at least 6K per year to buy insurance. I don't know about others but I found that impossible to do and went without insurance for almost 30 years. Call it luck if you will but I reached Medicare before the ACA went into effect. I actually paid for it out of pocket for 3 years. Now there are families making 50K per year who find insurance premiums to be out of reach even with the subsidies. That is outrageous but those provisions thrown out would have gone a long ways to allay that. But we argued all that stuff 5 years ago.

The election stunned most people however there is one guy to whom I own $100 on a bet I made on the election that I was not a bit afraid to make. But since then some people have awakened that could have made a difference and have found out that the President may have been using alternative facts when he said everyone would be covered. They are making a lot of noise but I would caution people to not become too comfortable. Yes, there have been some angry people at the town hall meetings. Solution:don't hold town halls. Yes, there have been a lot of phone calls. Solution: stop taking phone calls. Yes, there have been millions of cards and letters. To my knowledge the legislators have not figured out how to stop the U.S. Postal Service yet. They're trying.

My Take is keep your powder dry. These Congressmen and Congresswomen are very smart about who they think will show up at the polls. They know that if they can keep the publicity down their constituency will send them back again. The only thing that will make a difference is physically

showing up in the streets with the cameras rolling. That is the only thing that will cause them to alter their allegiance to their contributors. They may tell you they work for you but they won't do it until you show them who is the boss.

The Death of the Average Worker

Explaining The Rising Death Rate In Middle-Aged White People : Shots - Health News : NPR





And yet this group didn't vote for the party that says it will work to their advantage.  And why should they.  The Democratic Party had not been on these people's sides for at least 30 years, probably longer and we need to be honest about why that is.  The Democratic Party has paid more attention to large financial interests such as the big investment banks.  It was the Democratic Party that removed the restrictions placed by the Glass-Steagall act that made it easier for the behemoths of Wall Street to drive the economy into the gutter and force the hand of the government to reach out to save them.  Since then legislation meant to curb the banks has been under attack from the right which is nothing short of incredible since they also managed to get the displaced workers to vote for them.  It doesn't matter that the GOP and Libertarians are lying through their teeth when they say that less regulation will create more jobs.  It is enough, at least for now, that someone is paying attention to them.



Under Bush 41 NAFTA was negotiated and it probably needed to be due to increased globalization and to increase exports from American industry but it also meant that we had to accept goods from elsewhere that could be sold more cheaply.  The problem with this is that we left the American Worker behind.  There should have been legislation that would have ensured that the displaced worker would either be placed into another equally lucrative field or that he would be compensated, for lifetime if necessary, for the loss of his way of life.  Then retraining would make sense for younger workers but it has to be recognized that even with retraining there still has to be jobs for them to go into.  Again, this is the role of government to introduce stimulating legislation to help these new industries to get on their feet.  Is this a socialist program?  Absolutely, but the Democratic Party can't afford to be Republican lite.  The Democratic Party has to be obviously the party of the American Worker.   Would this increase the size of government?  Absolutely, but the people need to understand that government is their friend, not their enemy.



As it is what on earth does the displaced American Worker have to give him or her confidence in being able to provide for the family and to feel useful and productive. Absolutely nothing and that is where the Republican Party, Libertarians and all, are happy to leave them.  Leave them there until market forces create new jobs (or not) for them.  Well, it will be too late for them and, as this PBS report says, they will succumb to the comfort and oblivion of alcohol and drugs.  Cue the next generation for whom the 4 year college degree is no longer the key to unlock the door to a successful career and another generation is lost until it has become an avalanche that will only be cured by disaster.



The point is that we know what needs to be done.  It is a matter of deciding to make government do the job that only it can do to work for the average American Worker as well as it works for the 1%.  Of course it will cost money and there should be an assessment on the industry that is benefiting form the offshoring of jobs to help pay for it.  Why on earth would Democrats expect market forces to treat the people fairly?  Market forces do not do that.  They favor those with power and that power has to be curbed.  There is no solution to this problem in the ferocity of unfettered capitalism just as the answer does not lie in pure communism.  The balance must be sought and the defining characteristic of that balance must be the welfare of the Average Worker.



The Democratic Party came into greatness after the crash of 1929 that led to the Great Depression.  People realized that there was only one option if they wanted government to work for them.  The growth of labor unions exemplified the power of the many but good times allowed the Democratic Party to drift away from the economic well being of the Average Worker.  The avarice of the free market, idolized by the Republican Party, is relentless and it steadily encroached on the welfare of the worker until President Reagan when it burst into its full glory and the average American Worker has not had a raise since then even though productivity has increased exponentially.  The rebirth of the Democratic Party will not come unless we take off our suits and put on our boots.  We need to get down into the trenches with the people and make them understand they have a partner.  It will not be easy.  Nor should it be.  The very first thing that must be done is to level the playing field by removed the cancer of money influencing our political system.  This must be done to return elected representatives fealty to the people rather than monied special interests.

When to Lay it Down

 This report on the PBS Newshour is very good and brings some logic to the arguments being bandied about on various issues.  It not only draws some contradictions between the ACA and the replacement bill but it also deals with how news media is to handle blatantly false statements made by the administration without seeming like attack dogs.  It is a very serious question that needs some addressing or the lies will be lost in the chatter.




This link takes you to the report by the CBO but also discussed is how does the new media get answers to demonstrably false statements by the President.

Affordable Care Act or American Health Care Plan

Today, Monday March 13, the PBS newshour had this report on the proposed replacement bill for the Affordable Care Act.  It is a pretty good debate in that it illustrates the different viewpoints of the interested parties. This link takes you to the video on PBS  The proponents of the replacement bill see giving choice back to those being insured as being paramount.  They see that as being preferable to the point of insuring the most people and keeping costs at an average cost for everyone.  It points out rather dramatically the differences of perspective of the two political parties.  The ACA attempts to insure the most people by spreading risk across the entire pool population while its replacement makes no such attempt.  It is simply to allow the market to price certain segments of the population out of the market thereby making it cheaper for those who can afford it.  The replacement does not mandate the same coverages that the ACA does thereby making it possible for people to choose less coverage for less money.  The ACA says those people are going to seek treatment after their coverage runs out thereby increasing risk to the taxpayer.  It all depends on the view that you take.  If you are young and healthy you may decide to forego coverage entirely and take your chances.  If something happens you'll go to the emergency room for treatment and, if you get it, either the hospital will take the loss or the taxpayer will pick it up.  If you are, say, age 55 to 64 then your coverage will cost you far more than it does now which will effectively force you out of the market and into the same quandary as the others who lack insurance.

Personally, I can't live with the idea that we will allow fellow citizens to go without medical care just because they can't afford to pay some multi-billion dollar insurance company what it thinks it can get.  This is what makes the difference for me.  I think it is acceptable to ask those who have resources to pay a bit more in order to take care of those less fortunate.  The real inequity between the two bills is caused by forcing people to buy insurance on the open market which is what big business loves.  A national health care plan (Medicare for all) takes care of this.  Even giving people access to a subsidized public option would help.

I hope this helps someone reason through their thoughts on this subject.

Let's Rethink This

This is really not hard to understand. Anyone who reads a newspaper or who gets news from any other source besides Faux News and Breitbart understands this. I am, nevertheless, astounded at the number of people who, from all indications, get their information exactly that way.

Now hear this! Those jobs that the President says he is going to bring back to our shores are not coming back. This is just the plain, simple truth and here is why.

Post WWII Dresden

After WWII the United States had the only manufacturing base in the world that was not bombed into oblivion. Germany was divided into two parts and Europe was devastated. If you needed a refrigerator or washing machine you got it from the United States. Same with wheel bearings and widgets. In the 70 years since then the world has caught up. Now they can do it where they are and do it cheaper. We won't work for $2 per day nor should we. The jobs turning nuts or putting in
windshields are now done by robots. They will work 24 hours per day and not unionize to demand higher wages and vacations. If you are a high school graduate without any skills you are NOT in demand and you are not going to be in demand unless you are willing to work alongside immigrants that work hard for
minimum wage. Just accept that. We will still manufacture stuff here it just will not require you to do it. It will require people with advanced skills. There are other opportunities in the skilled trades and in health care that could be good jobs and need to be taken advantage of. But, we killed the unions that guaranteed good wages and benefits so now we don't have that.

The former Middle Class is in trouble. It's not that we don't have enough jobs. It is just that they don't put enough money in your pocket so the real question is not about bringing jobs back. It is about how do we make these jobs pay enough to sustain the American Dream. Think about this. $10 per hour is $400 per week before taxes. $15 per hour is $600 per week, about $30K per year. Can you live the American Dream on that? Pay for health care, college and braces for the kid's teeth? No, you can't. Now, if you are one of those Pulaski County residents who work at one of the factories out on 461 how much are you making?

So, just ask yourself this question. What can we do to assure that every American has the opportunity to earn not only a living wage but one that would all him or her to participate in the American Dream. If we deport all the illegal immigrants do you think that our native citizens would feel empowered to fill those jobs? Well, trends suggest that is not so. If we lower taxes on corporations will they be empowered to reinvest that money in new plants and new jobs? Well, trends suggest that is not so. What will create jobs and put money in the hands of workers. Infrastructure for one. Highways and bridges. How can we pay for it without increasing the already outlandish national debt? There are not too many ways to do that. Either allow private enterprise to build and charge us to use it, cut spending or raise taxes. When we built most of the infrastructure we have the top tax rate was 93%.

So, I'm going to just mention a few things. I'm not original in this. Hillary Clinton actually spoke about stuff like this but she couldn't figure out how to make it into a meme or 10 second sound byte. It is true that trade agreements have contributed to offshoring of jobs. What is not true is that we could have stopped it. Domestic markets are saturated, foreign markets are emerging. There is a demand for cheap products here in America. What could have been done was to support those whose jobs were dislocated due to NAFTA even if it meant doing so for the rest of their careers. Lots of
them were just aged out of the new economy. Retraining should be part of that support and creation of jobs through the use of government stimulus for those who were retrained to step into. Continuation of benefits even after a job is found so that the shock won't be financially debilitating. This last one is one we should be using now when we move people from government assistance to work. The loss of benefits in many cases offsets wages and creates a disincentive to work. And, central to all of this is access to a health care plan that is affordable and comprehensive. I prefer Medicare for all. This provision in the ACA has allowed countless entrepreneurs to start new businesses knowing that they will not have to suffer for giving up their work related health care. We should be supporting displaced workers who have lost jobs due to automation in the same way. It is not right that the American Worker should have to bear the negative results of improved productivity. Things like this should be taken into account when taxes are assessed so that corporations don't benefit from windfall profits. You may say, “well, they were just being smart” and that is true. No one disputes that but it still should not totally fall on the shoulders of the American Worker. No wonder they have no faith in government institutions.

My Take is that we are not going to bring those low skill jobs back. It is that we need to do a much better job of supporting those impacted until they are able to meet the needs of the modern manufacturers.