One of the most important factors of a program like a Federal Job Guarantee or Medicare for All is that they cannot be "budgeted" for as programs like the #FJG are automatic stabilizers that rise and fall based on economic triggers that put them into play. Similarly with #M4A
If a pandemic sweeps through, a Federal Medicare for All would simply make payments and the costs would be irrelevant to the population.
Same with a Job Guarantee. If there is a downturn in the economy, triggers like unemployment would propel people onto the Federal Job Guarantee. Budgeting is irrelevant. It ebbs and flows based on the macroeconomic state of the economy at any given time.
This is not the same at the state level. Since states cannot create currency Article 1 Section 10 of the USC precludes states from issuing dollars to make payments in the case of tax shortfalls. States need to pay for stuff with taxes and bonds. Not so with the Federal Government
So discussing automatic stabilizers being run at the state level is a red herring. It cannot be done without direct subsidization of programs at the Federal Level.
So creating state based "pilots" cannot be conducted without the Federal Government subsidizing the automatic stabilizer aspect which is vital to the success or even proofs needed to move forward. The automatic stabilizer is the most important aspect of its viability.
And once you begin raising state and local taxes to find programs you end up with two horrific conditions. One is capital and tax flight of businesses and the wealthy or two gentrification to draw in an exclusive community pricing out the poor.
Why do you suppose state based policy advocates attack me as a person for what I said versus attack their own understanding of macroeconomics?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
