Pro tip for @AndrewYang: If someone asks you, “But how are you going to pay for $1,000 per month for every citizen?” don’t start talking about a VAT on Amazon (which wouldn’t even cover it) and “trickle up economics” etc.
Instead, you should thunderously respond, “How are you going to pay for a war with Iran!? For continuing the Bush era wars!? For our bloated military budgets!? This would be an applause line in a Democratic primary, maybe even a Republican one.
One of the reasons Yang avoids discussing paying for UBI is that actually paying for it will rub many Democrats the wrong way. UBI isn’t an add-on to the current welfare state. It’s a *replacement* for it and a paradigm shift away from “Great Society” thinking.
The mid-century welfare state sought to “end poverty” and level off periods of economic recession and higher unemployment. It assumed a universal, prosperous, middle-class society, which might just need a kick start or tweak.
Yang’s version of UBI, on the other hand, is based on the cultural despair resulting from economic and social dislocation: automation, robotics, and digital efficiency gains will destroy manufacturing jobs—forever. We can’t just tell people “learn to code”; they need help now!
Many libertarians—Charles Murray most prominently—support UBI rather cynically. They believe that gov't action is inherently inefficient—likely wildly so—due to the nature of gov't. They reluctantly accept, however, the reality of gov't and seek to work with it, not against it.
In Murray’s model, UBI would replace the welfare state: no more bureaucrats, no more food stamps, Medicaid, Social Security—just direct deposits in citizens’ bank accounts. It would be a weird “free market socialism.” And in tech parlance, “UBI doesn’t stack."
Murray demonstrates that, as of 2015, UBI (his version being slightly less generous than Yang’s) would actually cost *less* than the current welfare state—and be much more efficient. But again, all this only makes sense if UBI replaces the welfare state.
I’d add that I support UBI for nationalist reasons, as well. “The Bag” is your direct benefit from being a citizen. The cost of each new immigrant can be easily calculated as another 12 Bags per year. I would expect citizens to guard these Bags from usurping outsiders.
UBI would also be a way for the less-favored poor Americans—who slip through the cracks of the current welfare state—to actually enjoy the fruits of government largess. So many poor Whites would immediately benefit from a Bag per month.
I don’t expect Yang to articulate UBI like this But the fact remains that he must embrace the radicalness of his campaign. The mid-century dream of a universal middle-class society is done. The robots will take your jobs. UBI is our hope to prevent destitution and disintegration.
So, Chairman Yang, stop running away from the radical nature of your campaign. Own it. And differentiate yourself from rivals. This is what Tulsi is doing on foreign policy—and clearly benefiting from it.
