California

California Lawmakers Unanimously Approve the State's First Basic Income Program

The idea of attaching fewer strings to government assistance is gaining currency.

|

The idea of attaching fewer strings to government assistance continues to gain currency. On Thursday, the California legislature unanimously passed a budget trailer bill that will create the state's first guaranteed income pilot program.

Under the lawmakers' plan, the state's Department of Social Services (DSS) will get $35 million to dole out in grants to cities and counties that will then set up local basic income schemes. Grants will be prioritized for programs focusing on "pregnant individuals" and young adults 21 or older who've aged out of extended foster care programs.

State Sen. Dave Cortese (D–San Jose) said in a press release Thursday that participants of these pilot programs could end up receiving monthly payments of as much as $1,000 each.

"The first-of-its kind pilot we championed in Santa Clara County is only one example of guaranteed basic income working successfully to improve lives and lift people out of poverty," said Cortese, referencing a similar program launched in 2020 that provided 72 young adults formerly in foster care programs $1,000 monthly stipends. "I'm excited that 40 million Californians will now get a chance to see how guaranteed income works in their own communities."

The bill that passed the legislature yesterday largely leaves it up to DSS to come up with a plan for how to distribute the $35 million to local governments. In order to be eligible for grants, cities and counties have to show that their basic income programs are getting nongovernmental funding worth at least 50 percent of the state money they're receiving.

A number of privately funded universal basic income (UBI)–type programs have sprung up in California in recent years. The most prominent is Stockton's Economic Empowerment Demonstration, which gave a $500 monthly stipend to 125 city residents over the course of two years. That program launched in 2019 and concluded in February of this year.

In March, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf announced the launch of an Oakland Resilient Families partnership, which will provide 600 families with a $500 monthly cash stipend for 18 months. That program is funded entirely by a collection of philanthropic groups, including the nonprofits Family Independence Initiative, Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, and Oakland Thrives, a public-private partnership.

Nearby Marin County has also launched a program to provide a $1,000 stipend to 125 low-income women of color with at least one child over the course of two years. That program has received $3 million from the Marin Community Foundation, a nonprofit, as well as $300,000 from the Marin County government.

The latter two programs exclude white people from eligibility, which could create legal problems for the state government should it try to direct public dollars toward them.

In May, the checks started to roll out for San Francisco's new basic income program for artists. That program, funded by the city and administered in partnership with the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts, will provide $1,000 monthly stipends to artists who, among other qualifications, lost income during the pandemic and whose artistic practice "is rooted in a historically marginalized community."

The bill passed by lawmakers yesterday expressly excludes any money an individual receives from a state-funded guaranteed income program from counting as income when determining their eligibility for other means-tested state or local benefits. The intent there, it appears, is to prevent a "benefits cliff" whereby people lose out on other government benefits by virtue of getting more income.

For supporters, the benefits of guaranteed income programs over traditional welfare are twofold. The provision of unconditional cash benefits means government bureaucrats aren't micromanaging the spending decisions of program beneficiaries. The more universal these programs are, meanwhile, the fewer hoops people have to jump through in order to qualify for assistance.

Their promise at cutting down on government bureaucracy and paternalism is one reason some libertarian scholars have supported UBI-type programs.

The basic income programs that have rolled out in California so far, including the new state-level one, partially fulfill that promise. Their small size and narrow eligibility criteria, including race- and gender-based restrictions in some cases, mean they're obviously not universal. By giving out cash, they do manage to be unconditional.

Having passed the legislature, the bill creating California's basic income pilot now goes to Gov. Gavin Newsom's desk for a signature.

NEXT: The End Offers Doom and Gloom Without Respite

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Let’s pay people to be irresponsible and see what happens. Wow. People decided they’d like to be irresponsible and get paid for it. That’s weird. The whole intention was for people to stop being irresponsible.

    Let’s try it again. This time we’ll use more money. The fuck? Same thing happened? This makes no sense.

    Alright. Now we’ve got the power of good intentions. Really good intentions. And lots of them. It will work out differently this time…

    1. I could almost get behind schemes like this, on the assumption that some kind of welfare is here to stay, if I thought there was any chance it wouldn’t still be backed up by all the same old welfare after people fucked it up by being irresponsible.
      But it really is a silly idea. Figuring out that you have to work to live and that if you fuck it up it’s your problem is pretty much how to be a functional adult person.

      1. I’m 100% behind private charity. Show me a homeless person and I’ll show you someone who didn’t knock on enough church doors to find someone kind and stupid enough to pay their rent. I’m 100% for it because there was no force involved.

        1. Yes, that is true. And in private charity, people are likely to actually give a fuck about the people they are helping, and might actually do something that would help improve their situation rather than just enabling it.

          1. You might be surprised on that. It’s still people spending someone else’s money on someone else. So they really don’t give much of a shit. The only major difference is that the funds don’t come at the point of a gun.

            1. Maybe so. In any case, they can do as they see fit if it’s all voluntary and that’s good enough for me.

          2. Apparently we need government programs to free us from the ‘tyranny’ of private charity.

            Or so some Twatter told me.

            1. Close. We need Government programs to employ public sector union employees to administer them. Then the union employees, pay dues and then the Union makes contributions to politicians who create more programs like this. My Aunt worked for the Department of Public Welfare is our State. She was big in the union. If you would have listened to her and other union members discuss things, you would be against public sector unions as well. After the overhead, how much of that $35 million is actually going to get to people who need it?

      2. I’d be ok with basic income if you had to give up the right to vote.

        1. If I was king no one supported by government could vote. That would include me as an employee of a company that does stuff for the government. My parents for being on SS. Though if you really think about it, under those rules, could anyone vote? I suppose the Amish could, but no because they get tax breaks. Shit.

          1. You would have to start with “No one shall vote in any jurisdiction where one receives a direct payment from that jurisdiction’s government”. So I could still vote in a city election if I didn’t get any checks from the city. And it would have to be direct payments otherwise no one using the ROADZ would be allowed to vote.

            Come to think of it, the Amish don’t believe in voting, so may be should limit the franchise to just the Amish and select communes of Anabaptists.

            1. Government positions – elected and not – should be filled by people picked at random from the Amish phonebook.

          2. Your parents paid in for SS. For seniors it’s typically not a welfare program, and it wasn’t voluntary.

        2. No Representation Without Taxation!

      3. This article itself tells you that the income here is excluded from welfare calculations.

        Its *on top of* all their already existing payments, not in place of.

    2. “The whole intention was for people to stop being irresponsible.”

      No screetch, that was not the intention. The real intention is to keep people on the government dole their whole lives, and enslaved to a one party state.

      1. Believe it or not, unlike you, most people actually have good intentions.

        1. You forgot the cite.

            1. There’s that sharp wit we all know and love.

              1. Sharp as the point on my head, I mean…

        2. sarcasmic
          July.16.2021 at 3:11 pm
          Flag Comment Mute User
          I was going to add something about people who might be splattered by the mess, but nobody cares about your alone ass. Shit. Nobody will know you’re missed until they shut the power off and things start to smell.

        3. “good intentions” of stealing by gov-guns???
          Manipulation of such basic principles by lefty-indoctrination is amazing.

        4. Believe it or not – no they do not. They are, however, good at finding palatable excuses for doing the horrible shit they were going to do anyway.

        5. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It’s the outcomes that matter.

          Fighting poverty by paying people not to work has resulted in more poverty.
          Price controls on rent has led to housing shortages.
          Anti price gouging laws leads to supply shortages.
          Banning fossil fueled power plants to fight climate change leads to electricity shortages.
          Not arresting and charging people for crimes leads to more crime.

    3. In addition, the states has a new bureaucracy to decide which city (and county?) bureaucracies have designed the best system. I somehow doubt any of these burrocrata will work for free. I bet not even 10% percolates down to the end user.

      1. $35 million later, and one person has received one check for $1000, and lots of bureaucrats have new cars.

        1. So, it’s working as planned.

    4. The people who handle existing programs for the state and counties are all Democrats and mostly members of SEIU. None will lose their jobs, because that might mean less votes for Democrat politicians.
      Just another layer added onto what is there now.

  2. Having partnered with several programs who attempt to support kids who have aged-out of foster care, and familiar with their challenges, I can sort-of get behind that part of this. Sort of.

    But when I think of UBI, I am thinking of the Friedman’s model, which instead of laying yet another bill at the foot of taxpayers, could, at least in theory, provide more support for the poor while actually reducing the financial impact on taxpayers. Of course, that would also result in the firing a couple of million Federal, State, and Local employees, and actually reduce the size of government. So that can be probably be called “dead on arrival.”

    1. Friedman’s UBI would be a replacement for what in reality will never got away.

      1. But it does do TWO things:

        It rewards those who actually take it upon themselves to better their situation, and puts more money into the public sphere, and out of the government coffer, which are both pluses.

    2. This is NOT a UBI because it’s not universal and is layered on top of existing welfare programs.

      1. Exactly, and that is just part of what the problem with it is.

      2. This is NOT a UBI because it’s not universal and is layered on top of existing welfare programs.

        Exactly. This is just another welfare program. Hard to see why Reason is so excited about it.

  3. It passed unanimously?
    It is spectacularly stupid, isn’t it?

    1. “It is spectacularly stupid, isn’t it?”

      Or, put another way, perfectly “normal” for California.

    2. Unanimously. As in the few remaining Republican legislators voted for it.

      This is why the Republican Party has failed and why we need actual libertarians in office.

      Vote for Bear. Bear won’t vote along with the Democrats because bear is too busy shitting in the woods.

      1. I’m sure opening their borders for criminals wasn’t a factor… /s

    3. I think the “passed unanimously” claim may not be exactly accurate.

      Not that I’m a big fan of my state’s Republican Party. But by the author’s own link, when the bill originally passed it appears all 8 of our state’s “no” votes came from republican state senators, whereas the 29 “yes” votes naturally came from democrats.

      Perhaps it was unanimously voted into the budget at some later time, but I’ve researched enough already into this CA legislative fuckery.

      https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB153

      1. Republican votes don’t count in California.

  4. Just what Cali needs, more hobos with booze money.

    1. How DARE you call California’s illustrious elected officials, and consumers of expensive wines in fancy restaurants “hobos.” That’s an insult to homeless drifters.

  5. >>fewer strings to government assistance
    >>up to DSS to … distribute the $35 million
    >>programs exclude white people from eligibility

    lol. and what’s a white people?

    1. “what’s a white people?”

      Whatever California says it is. They have their own dictionary.

      1. Cawcasian Mike wants a copy.

    2. The real conundrum is that they’re going to have to find 150 poor, non-white people in Marin County. They may spend the whole $35M just looking for people to give it to.

      1. San Quentin doesn’t count?

  6. Cali leading the way to a new tomorrow of weak codependent people enslaved to government and never able to get out of their debt.

    I am certain a pile of new liberaltarians posting here (and their socks) will extol the virtues of this system.

    1. Not this libertarian. The program is a joke, and designed to get votes, and nothing else.

    2. Libertarian capitalist UBI was supposed to phase out the welfare state by replacing it with a basic income.

      The idea was to get the government out of the business of managing the system and let the recipients act like consumers in a market.

      It was a lot like school vouchers–which was envisioned as a way to shut down the public schools and undermine the teachers’ unions.

      This program is not UBI. It’s just socialism.

      1. If people are managing their own incomes, then we can shut down the food stamp program, the rent assistance program, the Medicaid program, etc. And we can fire all the bureaucrats that administrate those programs.

        This isn’t shutting down any of those things.

        It’s just more wealth redistribution, which is socialism.

      2. And let’s just ignore the fact that UBI didn’t really work either, because we’re all friends here.

        1. Didn’t work when?

          Not that I’d expect it to really. I’d probably stop working (or having a job anyway) if someone wanted to just give me enough to get by on. Especially now that I’ve just paid off my mortgage.

          1. UBI has never worked even when stacked on top of other welfare. It has failed at every attempt.

            https://www.heritage.org/international-economies/commentary/canadian-experiment-quickly-shows-failures-universal-basic

            It fails at the same rate as all forms of socialism.

            Giving the people the ability to not work doesn’t make them happier nor productive. No matter what anyone thinks, productivity is a key metric in happiness as well as society.

            1. Oh yeah, I do remember those.
              I was trying to think of a case where it replaced other welfare.

              1. If ubi fails on top of even extra welfare benefits it won’t work by itself.

          2. Finland tried and it failed, but the usual suspects (Jacobins (marxists) and the New York Times (marxists)) all claim it was done incorrectly.

            1. It has always been done incorrectly, but it will most certainly work next time, when *we* are in charge.

      3. UBI is not libertarian. It involves government taking something from someone and giving it to someone else.

        1. You are right, it’s a compromise with the welfare state. And will never happen in any way close to what libertarians might find acceptable.

          1. I liken it to rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic with the likely result that several tons of additional chairs will magically appear sealing the doom of those not in lifeboats even quicker.

            1. How many people could have survived the Titanic if they had organized those deck chairs into rafts?

      4. This is not a UBI because it is not universal and it is another layer on top of the welfare state.

        1. The point is to have something called “UBI”, pull out the stops to make it “work” regardless of how much money had to be poured into it, then claim it’s a success and we have a new reason to spend taxpayer money on a program that doesn’t really work.

      5. This program is not UBI.

        Exactly. It’s no ways even close. If this were a “UBI,” it would calc out to about $0.87 per person.

      6. “This program is not UBI. It’s just socialism.”

        It’s a welfare program. It’s not a UBI in any meaningful sense.

      7. Other than what are called jobs, there is no Libertarian Capitalist UBI.

  7. If this plan doesn’t cut social services in some other area, then you’re just cheerleading socialism.

    There is a system where people are entitled to an income because they’re citizens. That system is not libertarian capitalism.

    It’s communism.

    1. Totalitarian Democrats are the problem!

      Authoritarian Republicans are the solution!

      1. Automate the government giving away my money, it really makes things easier.

      2. To think you actually started this thread decently. But then you had to go back to being addicted to strawman.

    2. “If this plan doesn’t cut social services in some other area, then you’re just cheerleading socialism.”

      Exactly.

    3. Ken, start warming up Plan B in the bullpen. Cali might not be where you want to live.

    4. So, what do we take from this article?

      Does Britschgi really believe this is a libertarian and capitalist thing Is he clueless about what libertarian capitalist UBI was and why this isn’t it?

      1. It’s all about the clicks.

  8. The idea of attaching fewer strings to government assistance is gaining currency.

    Think long and hard about what that really means.

    Less accountability between a government giving away my fucking money… you know, for those that need the jokes explained.

    1. But accountability costs money, which means in addition to giving away your money, they’re paying people your money to oversee the giving away of your money. So why not save that portion?

    2. Think long and hard about what that really means.

      Yeah, I’m having trouble conceptualizing Britchgy’s “good” interpretation of it. In my world, mooring government assistance programs with the same chains they use to restrain battleships is a good thing.

  9. The latter two programs exclude white people from eligibility, which could create legal problems for the state government should it try to direct public dollars toward them.

    How libertarian is your publication when “excluding people based on skin color” is couched as “could create legal problems”.

    1. The gap illustrated here —><—– contains twice the space needed to house all of Reason and Cato's libertarian impulses in their current itineration's.

    2. Reason isn’t libertarian.

    3. Complete trash. Anything other than outright denunciation of historically proven garbage like UBI, has no place in a magazine ostensibly devoted to Libertarian ideas.

      How much must it gall Postrel these days, to realize the commentariat she despised is far more Libertarian than the writers at this rag?

      1. Assuming she thinks about this place at all, of course.

        1. I don’t keep up with Postrel but given the slew of current and former Reason contributors I do come across, it gives a lot of credence to them actually being libertarian or having shame in the first place as well.

  10. It’s not a Universal Basic Income if it’s not universal. This scheme is just 35 in new welfare program for a select few people. A new welfare program on top of the existing programs. California Democrats are borrowing “Basic Income” as a way to hoodwink people who are warm to the idea of UBI into thinking this is UBI. It is not.

    While I disagree with a UBI, the essence of it is that it would REPLACE the existing patchwork monolith of welfare with a single simpler program. That is NOT what is happening here.

    This is NOT the state’s first basic income program. Because this is just more of the same welfare, but for a slightly different class of people. (The Venn diagram approaches a circle). What’s new is that it’s now handing welfare to young people over 21 who apparently still need to be in foster homes.

    1. This was my first reaction. There’s a big difference between “basic income” and “UNIVERSAL basic income”. If it’s universal, then the homeless dude crapping on the sidewalk in San Fran gets it and Bill Gates gets it. Everyone gets it. It’s the ultimate in equality instead of equity.

      If it doesn’t replace all other welfare systems, then it’s not economically feasible.

      1. It’s not feasible in any instance.

    2. “It’s not a Universal Basic Income if it’s not universal. This scheme is just 35 in new welfare program for a select few people. A new welfare program on top of the existing programs.”

      Exactly. There might be a way to try a actual UBI, to see if it makes any difference (I actually have an idea about that), but that won’t happen because the it’s never been tried. And it’s never been tried because it won’t get anybody reelected.

      1. If it can’t survive on top of other welfare items why would it work as a standalone system? To those above welfare UBI is just a tax cut. We’ve had those. We even have a current negative tax rate it is just purposed for specific things. OK top of that multiple cities and countries have tried giving free and clear income on top of those basic hand outs and the programs still failed.

        1. Hi Jesse:

          “If it can’t survive on top of other welfare items why would it work as a standalone system?”

          A very good question. But there is a possible way to answer it without spending a gazillion dollars. How about utilizing the scientific method?

          What could be done is to take a very specific population (aged-out foster kids is a good example), who have really horrific outcomes, both in income, crime statistics, and the rest, and develop a UBI program specifically for that group. Since they are already “in the system,” it should be pretty simple to track them.

          And like all “experiments,” it needs a “control group.” About 22,000 foster kids age-out every year. So pick half of them (by State) and put them on UBI, and leave the other off. Run the program for five years, and see if there is a difference in outcomes.

          This would give us results that actually mean something, rather than the unicorn tears and fairy dust which most programs try to claim.

          1. Youre arguing for a social program based on circumstances, not UBI.

            It would be preferable for you to argue for that program instead of dressing it as UBI.

            1. No, Jesse, I am talking about a experimenting with the idea, for a short term, rather than just implementing it for everyone and finding out that it doesn’t work after spending a couple of billion dollars or so on it.

              1. That’s a fair point. It’s clearly not Universal, but it would provide good study information. However, to meet the Basic Income level and provide good information, it would need to be high enough to be considered livable (minimum $15K per year, maybe more?) and the applicants would need to be excluded from other welfare programs (or at least a restricted list, maybe just health care subsidies?). If they still get multiple other welfare, then the results will be muddy.

          2. Which scientist would we believe?

            Headline one in my google search:

            Universal basic income seems to improve employment and well-being

            headline two (only spammers post two links so you’ll have to take my word for it:

            Finland gave people free money. It didn’t help them get jobs — but does that matter?

            Headline 3:

            Finland Finds Basic Income Failed to Boost Employment …

            New York Times: (opinion)

            UBI [Marxism] Didn’t fail in Finland, Finland Failed UBI [Marxism has never been tried]

            1. There were two in Canada, neither were completed (cancelled after two years), and the only reports I found on them were of the unicorn variety. I have been unable to see any actual stats. And, IIRC, it was a voluntary program, which means it is inapplicable to the real world, anyway.

              Finland only used it in place of unemployment benefits – ONLY unemployment benefits, IIRC — basically one didn’t have to do any paper work to prove one was seeking a job. Sort of like CA is today (except for time restraints, perhaps, and has been for years. That is not the same thing at all (and it doesn’t work in CA, either. As far as unemployment insurance, I would prefer to see the government get out of it entirely — individuals can purchase unemployment insurance they want, to fit their particular circumstances.

              Neither would begin to meet muster as an “experiment” in any scientific sense regarding possible benefits of “negative income-tax program.”

      2. 35M divided by 12K per year = 2,916 recipients, if there’s no administration cost.

        Hire two dozen administrators at 250K each, and you’re down to 2,416 recipients.

    3. While I disagree with a UBI, the essence of it is that it would REPLACE the existing patchwork monolith of welfare with a single simpler program. That is NOT what is happening here.

      “Patchwork monolith” is an oxymoron. The whole idea behind UBI is that we save the cost of stitching by replacing the patchwork safety blanket with whole cloth.

  11. Grants will be prioritized for programs focusing on “pregnant individuals”

    Hey! What’s with the scare quotes?

    1. Hey, I am a white make who identifies as a pregnant female — do I get a cut of this pie?

      1. *** pregnant pause ***

        1. “*** pregnant pause ***”

          No doubt followed by “aborted comments” …. oh damn

  12. “For supporters, the benefits of guaranteed income programs over traditional welfare are twofold…Their promise at cutting down on government bureaucracy and paternalism is one reason some libertarian scholars have supported UBI-type programs.”

    And critics say…nothing apparently. Weird that criticism is rampant in the comments…

    1. “Cutting down on government bureaucracy” — good one.
      These are new programs on top of the olds ones.
      They add bureaucracy, not subtract it.

  13. We have essentially a year of national UBI woth enhanced unemployment benefits. What is the outcome? People refusing to go back to work.

    This falls in line with every UBI attempt (on top of other social programs) that have also also failed and shown no improvement in education or employment rates.

    Can libertarians stop pushing the failed concept of UBI? It won’t improve anything.

    If you want to end government regulations on welfare fine. But it is just socialism. It won’t improve things. And based on these year it will actually make things worse.

    1. Denmark used to have unemployment insurance for 4 years after people lost their jobs. They found out that people stayed home for 4 years. They cut it to 2 years and now people go back to work after 2 years.

      1. Which is why people should purchase their own unemployment insurance, and the government should get out of it.

      2. So why not cut it down to zero years?

        Don’t the Danish have some more Wedding Cookies, Royal Dansk Cookies, Danish Fynbo Cheese, ham, and baby-back ribs they could be making and selling? Couldn’t they be spending more time innovating and making more products too? Get off your ass, Danes and fill my pantry!

    2. It turns out human nature is pretty predictable in these circumstances. Same reason socialism/communism always fail. The heart of it is without any real motivation to be productive…no one produces anything (other than at gunpoint).

      We were vacationing on Grand Turk a couple years ago. One of the locals was describing their UBI system (dont know what they call it). Basically they get enough excess money through tourism (relative to a small native population) that they can give the people who actually live there an income. You can guess what this looked like…

      The houses that were maintained and nice were all in an area owned by people who dont actually live on the island, who got rich elsewhere and bought property.

      The houses owned by locals on UBI were all basically dilapidated shacks, and they spent their money on rum/beer, and spent their time getting fucked up on the beach. While said life is fantastic for a 2 week stint, long term there are clearly problems with it. Was very sad to see. If they have a significant loss of tourism money for an extended period of time, their native population is likely to starve.

  14. We’re doomed.

  15. In a single article we have BI*, GI**, GBI***, and UBI****.

    Does anyone other than me think failing to clearly define these, at the top of every page commenting on them, is creating more confusion than clarify?

    * Basic Income
    ** Guaranteed Income
    *** Guaranteed Basic Income
    **** Universal Basic Income

    1. “Does anyone other than me think failing to clearly define these, at the top of every page commenting on them, is creating more confusion than clarify?”

      You are not alone.

      As for myself, I just use Friedman’s idea of a “Reverse Income Tax.”

      1. I like the Alternative Maximum Tax idea and the USA Savings Account ideas.

        Alternative Maximum Tax: Once you’ve paid the maximum tax (say 10K), you just write a check to the US Treasury and don’t have to fill out the forms or attach any evidence.

        Unlimited Savings Account (USA): save as much as you want, with all earnings tax free. Take out as much as you want, whenever you want, tax-free and penalty-free. Kind of like what the USA had before the income tax was enacted.

        1. granted, with a 6 trillion dollar budget and only 100M taxpayers, the alternative maximum tax would have to be set around 60K, but it would be a start.

    2. Well this program isn’t Universal nor is it Guaranteed. It’s just temporary Basic Income to a select group. So ….. welfare.

    3. All of it sounds as bad as a UTI (Urinary Tract Infection) or a GITI (Gastro-Intestinal Tract Infection.)

      All these people need is a dose of Ocean Spray Cranberry Juice, followed by a dose of Sun Sweet Prune Juice and some Wilford Brimley-endorsed Quaker Oatmeal to make them right regular, get the shit and bile out of their heads, and get them quick-stepping to the job hunt!

    4. Does anyone other than me think failing to clearly define these, at the top of every page commenting on them, is creating more confusion than clarify?

      You’re working under the assumption that Reason is a libertarian magazine rather than a leftist propaganda outlet designed to obfuscate their preferred politics with libertarian wrapping paper.

  16. In order to be eligible for grants, cities and counties have to show that their basic income programs are getting nongovernmental funding worth at least 50 percent of the state money they’re receiving.

    Thereby guaranteeing it won’t go to poor areas.

    They do this with state-level bond spending as well, mostly on schools –

    “Hey, here’s an umpteen-billion dollar bond proposal to build schools for the children! If you can match the $100 million in funds you’re requesting with locally raised cash, you can have it! If you can’t, go fuck yourself.”

    1. “San Dimas High School Football Rules!”

      Which is where a lot of those grants go. Right, “Mr. 20,000-seat High School Stadium in Texas?”

  17. Redistribution of wealth is fine if the people providing the wealth do it voluntarily. I doubt most of these schemes will work out that way.

  18. young adults 21 or older

    So…when does this end, 25? 75? If there was an end wouldn’t they publish it? Is this trying to convince us it’s for “young” people but that’s just their version of “it’s for the children” and it applies to everyone?
    _____________
    The latter two programs exclude white people from eligibility, which could create legal problems for the state government should it try to direct public dollars toward them.

    Even without public funds racism violates public policy and thus this stipulation should be ruled illegal.

  19. I can only assume that California has notified state union members that they have nullified pension obligations to pay for this, right?

  20. It’s like they’ve never heard of the 14th Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause.

  21. If we need to sacrifice a state to prove left wing economics don’t work California’s the best choice. It’s big enough people can’t whine the programs didn’t work only because it’s missing some key (invented) element. It started from an incredibly wealthy position so the fall is undeniable. And the left has complete control so people who try to shift blame that it’s Reps fault for not blocking them will be laughed at (as usual).

    Plus it’s full of all the best people.

    1. Except California has a lot of wealth to tap.
      It will take a long time to drain it, even as the smarter entrepreneurs flee to Texas or Florida.

    2. The proof has already been established. Lost population, Tent-Cities, Crime, etc.. etc.. etc… And what does every failed ‘left wing’ failure do??

      Blames and pushes their problems National.
      Corrupting the U.S. Constitution in the process.

      Democrats are very very much a National Socialist Regime. Insisting every Nazi policy be inescapable by all State’s – the ideology is best described as “conquer and consume” just like the German Nazi’s did.

      I’m afraid the ‘sacrifice’ a state has already occured hundreds of times before (hint, hint; Detroit) yet the reality is entirely ignored.

    3. How can stuffing people’s pockets full of cash not work for the people who are getting their pockets stuffed full of cash?

      What are we trying to achieve here?

      People do better when we stuff their pockets full of cash? Are the people who are paying for this doing better because of it?

      1. People do not do better because they are aware they did nothing to earn it. And they will do nothing to alter this path. There are six human needs and doing nothing to have wealth taken from others and given to them results in not satisfying at least three of them (growth, contribution and significance).

        1. ^^^ THIS; Everyone should read…

    4. “If we need to sacrifice a state to prove left wing economics don’t work California’s the best choice.”

      Because no one who watched the economies of Russia, East Germany, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Venezuela, etc. could figure it out.

  22. I can’t wait to join all the other folks who are flocking to California.

  23. “Fewer hoops” means all you have to do to qualify is belong to the right race. Let’s hope these racially biased programs end up in the courts.

    1. And even if they got rid of restrictions based on “race,” then the only qualification is just to exist. A disaster either way.

  24. Subsidize poverty and laziness and you’ll get more of both. I guess we’ve learned absolutely nothing from the devastation wrought by Johnson’s Great Society and impact it had on poor, primarily black, families in this country. Talk about doubling down on stupid. If you want to help these people, teach they a trade and help them find a job.

    1. You are asking poor people to get a job?
      In the middle of an economy that is desperately short of workers?
      What are you …a racist?

    2. Don’t forget the devastation that generations of complete government dependence has wrought on Indian reservations. There are entire counties with no industry, barely any commercial sector, and a mixture of government hatred, reliance, and learned helplessness that creates a critical loss of any self-importance or purpose.

      Generational welfare recipients, whether on the reservation, boondocks, or ghetto, turn to drink and drugs because their lives are pointless, they make nothing, and they know it.

      1. UBI should be considered the acronym for “Useless Ballast Income,” because that’s what it will turn the poor into without fail!

  25. This article and headline are all over the place.

    As far as I can tell

    1. This is private – so state isn’t approving anything.

    2. The state has amended the law to allow this income to not count towards total income for welfare benefits.

    3. So its not a basic income.

    4. And it doesn’t replace welfare at all.

    5. Is completely racist and sexist. But for some reason this discrimination will be condoned because its private while the rest of us had better bake that fucking cake.

    1. 5. Is completely racist and sexist. But for some reason this discrimination will be condoned because its private while the rest of us had better bake that fucking cake.
      It’s remarkable how this is not worth scrutinizing in an ostensibly libertarian magazine. Yes let’s applaud this shitty law with bad premises because people can buy weed with their guv bennies now.

    2. 1. This is private – so state isn’t approving anything.

      Yeah, nothing says, “privately funded” like having “Mayors for a Guaranteed Income” as one of your donors.

  26. I’m not seeing the universal part of any of these programs. Looks like more Democrat vote buying to me.

  27. In March, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf announced the launch of an Oakland Resilient Families partnership, which will provide 600 families with a $500 monthly cash stipend for 18 months. That program is funded entirely by a collection of philanthropic groups, including the nonprofits Family Independence Initiative, Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, and Oakland Thrives, a public-private partnership.

    let us not forget this program is closed to white people…

  28. Funny, we have already tried UBI with the ridiculous COVID benefits, and people are seeing what a disaster that is, so let’s double down on stupid.

    Man my state is such a wreck.

  29. The latter two programs exclude white people from eligibility, which could create legal problems for the state government should it try to direct public dollars toward them.

    Gosh, ya think? The proper response to people who hate you and want you dead is to kill them before they can kill you. This won’t end well.

  30. The Stockton UBI resulted in 12% increase in full time employment among 125 recipients compared to 125 people who did not receive this UBI.

    http://www.stocktondemonstration.org/employment

    “In February 2019, 28% of recipients had full-time employment. One year later, 40% of recipients were employed full-time.

    In contrast, the control group saw only a 5% increase in full-time employment over the same one- year period — 32% of those in the control group were employed full-time in February 2019; one year later, 37% of control group participants were employed full-time.”

    28% to 40% (UBI)
    32% to 37% (no UBI)

    Another way to put it – the city spent 750,000 dollars on 125 people and got a net gain of 12 full time employment. And we’re assuming UBI has direct correlation with landing a job.

    Other measures of success include recipients reporting that they were less anxious and happy, which is expected of people getting free stuff.

  31. Gimme. Gimme gimme. Gimme more, Gimme More, GIMME MORE MORE and MORE!

  32. Let’s pay people to be irresponsible and see what happens. Wow. People decided they’d like to be irresponsible and get paid for it. That’s weird. The whole intention was for people to stop being irresponsible.

    Let’s try it again. This time we’ll use more money. The fuck? Same thing happened? This makes no sense.

    Alright. Now we’ve got the power of good intentions. Really good intentions. And lots of them. It will work out differently this time…

Please to post comments