Mediaboss Marketing

February 6, 2017 by Edwin G. Dolan

Edwin G. Dolan is an economist and educator whose writings regularly appear at EconoMonitor.The Niskanen Center is excited to welcome him as a new Poverty and Welfare adjunct focusing on Universal Basic Income research.

In recent post on EconLog, Bryan Caplan writes, Im baffled that anyone with libertarian sympathies takes the UBI [universal basic income] seriously. I love a challenge. Let me try to un-baffle you, Bryan, and the many others who might be as puzzled as you are. Here are three kinds of libertarians who might take a UBI very seriously indeed.

Libertarian pragmatists

Philosophical issues aside, what galls many libertarians most about government is the failure of many policies to produce their intended results. Poverty policy is Exhibit A. By some calculations, the government already spends enough on poverty programs to raise all low-income families to the official poverty level, even though the poverty rate barely budges from year to year. Wouldnt it be better to spend that money in a way that helps poor people more effectively?

A UBI would help by ending the way benefit reductions and welfare cliffs in current programs undermine work incentives. When you add together the effects of SNAP, TANF, CHIP, EITC and the rest of the alphabet soup, and account for work-related expenses like transportation and child care, a worker from a poor household can end up taking home nothing, even from a full-time job. A UBI has no benefit reductions. You get it whether you work or not, so you keep every added dollar you earn (income and payroll taxes excepted, and these are low for the poor).

But, wait, you might say. Why would I work at all if you gave me a UBI? That might be a problem if you got your UBI on top of existing programs, but if it replaced those programs, work incentives would be strengthened, not weakened. In which situation would you be more likely to take a job: one where you get $800 a month as a UBI plus a chance to earn another $800 from a job, all of which you can keep, or one where your get $800 a month in food stamps and housing vouchers, and anything extra you earn is taken away in benefit reductions?

Or, you might say, a UBI might be fine for the poor, but wouldnt it be unaffordable to give it to the middle class and the rich as well? Yes, if you added it on top of all the middle-class welfare and tax loopholes for the rich that we have now. No, if the UBI replaced existing tax preferences and other programs that we now lavish on middle- and upper-income households. Done properly, a UBI would streamline the entire system of federal taxes and transfers without any aggregate impact on the federal budget.

Classical liberals

Not all of those with libertarian sympathies are anarcho-capitalist purists. Many classical liberals, even those whom purist libertarians lionize in other contexts, are more open to the idea of a social safety net as a legitimate function of a limited government.

In his book Law, Legislation, and Liberty, classical liberal Friedrich Hayek wrote,

The assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself, appears not only to be a wholly legitimate protection against a risk common to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society.

Philosophically, classical liberals see social insurance of this kind as something to which they would willingly assent if they considered it behind a veil of ignorance, where they did not know if they themselves would be born rich or poor. Once the philosophical hurdle is overcome, the practical advantages of a UBI become highly attractive. In terms of administrative efficiency and work incentives, a UBI wins hands down over the current welfare system, and beats even the negative income tax famously championed by Milton Friedman, another classical liberal,.

Lifestyle libertarians

The libertarian sympathies of still others arise from the conviction that all people should be able to live their lives according to their own values, so long as they dont interfere with the right of others to do likewise. These lifestyle libertarians are drawn to a UBI because of its contrast with the nanny state mentality that characterizes current policies. Why should social programs treat married couples differently from people living in unconventional communal arrangements? Why should welfare recipients have to undergo intrusive drug testing? Why should food stamps let you buy hamburger and feed it to your dog, but not buy dog food?

Writing for Reason.com, Matthew Feeney urges libertarians to stop arguing in principle against the redistribution of wealth. Instead, he says, scrap the welfare state and give people free money. Feeney sees a UBI as an alternative that promotes personal responsibility, reduces the humiliations associated with the current system, and reduces administrative waste in government.

So there you are. A UBI is a policy for pragmatic critics of well-intentioned but ineffective government, for classical liberals, and for advocates of personal freedom. No wonder so many libertarians take the idea seriously.

Original post:
Why Should a Libertarian Take Universal Basic Income Seriously? - Niskanen Center (press release) (blog)

Picture credit: The Huffington Post

Recently graduating from a left-leaning university, in a left-leaning city, with a majority left-leaning friends, all of whom are overly-equipped with cuddle bears and safe spaces, every day Ive had to suffer through hearing about the glorious socialist utopia that would come about with a Bernie Sanders presidency.

Having actually studied political science, focusing heavily on various countries policies and economics, I have to fight a constant urge where I dont lower myself to the lefts standards and go on a peaceful protest rampage. Fortunately, it has never come to that. Being well-equipped with a basic knowledge of economics and morality, one can ask three simple questions to stun any Bernie bro.

This is probably one of the best arguments against Sanders specific idea of socialism, as his views are radical even for a modern socialist.

While socialism never works in the long run, as we have seen with Venezuelas collapse and Sweden and Denmarks reduction in benefits and fragile economic systems, there are measures that can prolong its life.

Sweden and Denmark, both the golden standard for socialists, have some the lowest corporate tax rates in the world. In Sweden and Denmark, the corporate tax rate is 22 percent; whereas in the United States, we have a whopping tax rate of 38.9 percent; the second highest in the world. For socialism to be sustainable, even if it is only in the short run, Sweden and Denmark understood the necessity for investment. They needed incentives for companies to move to their country and employ their population.

As mentioned before, this still isnt enough to save them from disaster that occurs from any type of economic change, which usually leads to heightened unemployment, budget imbalance and increased deficit, and the inevitable removal or reduction in welfare benefits. However, Sweden and Denmarks policy on low corporate tax rates is something Bernie never addresses. Hedoesnt understand this and seeks only to ridicule corporations and the wealthy; the very people that provide the economic means to make socialism as sustainable as it will ever be. Could you imagine a millennial wrapping his head around the idea of lowering tax rates for those evil corporations? Me neither.

This is, arguably, the biggest flaw in Sanders socialist dream.

While this should be common knowledge for a Bernie supporter, youll find many dont actually know the answer or have looked at the in-depth causal effect of what is proposed.

Quoting from Bernie Sanders official site, he states: There is something profoundly wrong when the top one-tenth of one percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. While this figure is mostly accurate, there are debates about its validity. Politifact references fellow libertarian Daniel Mitchell when he argues that tax laws in the late 20th century required high income taxpayers to report capital income, while middle income citizens didnt have to. Despite this fact, Mitchell goes on to say that the rich arent rich because the poor are poor; the rich are rich, because they are innovative and provide services which others want.

Back to the question at hand. While Bernie mostly relies on demonizing the wealthy, there are instances where he provides a plan to redistribute the wealth.

They consist of raising taxes on the rich, raising the minimum wage, providing government-funded youth programs, and other expensive programs, all to be billable to higher income individuals. At this time, the top 10 percent already pay 68 percent of all federal income taxes and 53 percent of all federal taxes in general.

What happens when that tax rate widens and the wealthy pay more in taxes and middle class pays less? If you believe those in the top 10 percent are millionaires, youre very wrong. The income for the top 1 to 10 percent is between $380,354 to $113,799. In other words, essentially anyone that owns and operates a successful business. The people that took a risk with their own money, bet on themselves, and came out positive; the people that are providing jobs to the middle class; the people that have to put payroll on their own credit card and often use their own funds to invest in their company; those are the people that Bernie Sanders wants to tax even more, and he hides that fact by having the public perceive the top 10 percent as fat oil men sitting on a mountain of cash.

By redistributing wealth, you are essentially taking money from those that provide the jobs for everyone else, invest and take rise, and essentially keep the economy going. Not only is it morally wrong, but economically idiotic.

The American Dream is based on an idea that anyone can succeed in this country if they have the desire to work hard enough. It is one of the major reasons that America has had the most successful economy since World War II.

The government, specifically under Reagan and Clinton, facilitated an environment where people could achieve anything, because the government would interfere as little as possible. It is why the Reagan and Clinton years (despite the Democrats stance on the economy today, Clintonomics was very much in favor of being enterprise-friendly and making the government smaller) were some of the best economic years in American history.

Bernie Sanders plan is to go against this logical concept, and label the successful and wealthy as the enemy and everyone else as the victim. So, if a successful economy is determined by innovation and a strong working class as Reagan and Clinton proved how do you incentivize people to take risk on themselves and open businesses or try to get a promotion and make more money, when the more money you make, the more is taken away?

* Braden Paynter is your average Joe Schmoe, who loves his country and all the freedom it entails. He has received an education in political science and international politics, being one of the few in his class to emerge without shouting leftist propaganda at the top of his lungs.

The main BeingLibertarian.com account, used for editorials and guest author submissions. The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions. Contact the Editor at editor@beinglibertarian.email

Like Loading...

Read the original post:
3 Questions for Bernie Supporters - Being Libertarian

Conservative Republicans Double Down on Push to Repeal Health Law Wall Street Journal WASHINGTONConservative Republicans, worried about growing voices within the party advising or accepting a slower pace for repealing the Affordable Care Act, are redoubling their push to speed the GOP's long-desired goal. President Donald Trump on ... and more »

Go here to see the original:
Conservative Republicans Double Down on Push to Repeal Health Law - Wall Street Journal

And yet, we are hearing no pieties about American lives from Republican leaders on Capitol Hill, no sense that the cause of the failure should be investigated, let alone that Trumps role in it should be a major investigative focal point.

It is through events like Benghazi that we see just how paper-thin the GOPs commitments to its most defining ideals really are. What Republicans have held forth as fundamental principles are, thanks to Trumps election, revealed as hollow bromides and shibboleths. Trump will likely be president for at least four years; but starting now, and through the eventual end of GOP rule, we never have to take Republican sanctimony at face value again, and their phoniness ought to be a commanding narrative of the Trump era.

Over the weekend, Trump referred to James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee who temporarily enjoined his anti-Muslim immigration order, as a so-called judge, and directed his Twitter followers to blame future terrorist attacks on Robart and the entire court system.

This is the second federal judge Trump has attacked directly and his most undisguised assault on the judiciary in general since he became a national political figure. With a handful of exceptionsSenate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell notably said its best not to single out judges for criticismRepublicans on Capitol Hill have decided to pretend nothing happened.

Given the understated nature of their response to Trumps shameless and dangerous assault on the integrity of the judiciary, would you believe that when President Obama politely disagreed with the Supreme Courts 2010 Citizens United decision

conservatives lost their minds?

Whereas Trumps efforts to discredit the judiciary need to be resisted, he is free, as far as Im concerned, to undermine the National Prayer Breakfast however he chooses. To that end, he couldnt have done better than plugging The Apprentice during his speech there last week. He asked attendees to pray for the shows ratings, knowing evangelical conservatives would stick their heads in the sand, as they have for all of Trumps unholy outrages.

It shouldnt be forgotten, though, that many of these same evangelicals were beside themselves (or claimed to be) when Obama implored Christian critics of Islam to be mindful of terrible things that have been done throughout history in the name of Jesus Christ.

Hypocrisy is a third-rate political crime. But it isnt just that conservatives apply different standards to different politicians on the basis of partisan affiliation; its that their appeals to like-minded voters are fraudulent. National security, rule of law, and religious faith are supposed to be central facets of conservative identity. Presumably some Republican voters around the country are genuinely motivated by conservative views on these issues. For the time being, its up to Democrats and the media to make clear to these voters that the GOPs commitment to their principles is illusory.

But eventually Trumps presidency will end, and just as quickly as they abandoned these pieties, Republicans will try to reclaim them. It will be a major failure of politics, and perhaps also the media, if they succeed in doing so. Republicans outed themselves when they submitted to Trump, and they cant be allowed to pretend it never happened.

Go here to read the rest:
Never Believe the Republicans' BS Ever Again - New Republic

WASHINGTON It was only a few months ago when Republicans routinely blasted the president for what they called his executive overreach and his failure to tout America's superiority over other nations. Not so much anymore.

Now that Barack Obama is out of the White House, Republicans have become noticeably quiet on a host of issues that used to spark their criticism.

In the last few days, President Donald Trump's actions have thrown the spotlight on three things Republicans don't seem to mind now that their fellow Republican is in charge:

RELYING ON EXECUTIVE ACTION:

For years, Republicans skewered Obama for allegedly ruling by fiat, accusing him of acting like an "emperor" for using executive orders to push through his agenda. That was especially true when it came to Obama's decision to protect from deportation more than 700,000 young immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children.

But now that Trump is in the White House, their tune has changed.

Trump has spent his first weeks in office relying on executive action to make good on a long list of campaign promises. Most controversial: His order suspending the country's refugee program and blocking immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries, which is now held up in court.

Asked recently if President Trump was doing the same thing as Obama, House Speaker Paul Ryan scoffed.

"It's quite the opposite," he told reporters at a recent GOP retreat, arguing that Obama had exceeded his power and that Trump was merely trying to reverse it.

"He's restoring the proper balance," said Ryan. "And in our opinion he is undoing a lot of damage that was done by the last president, who exceeded his power."

___

FAILING TO EMBRACE AMERICAM EXCEPTIONALISM:

It was a running theme during Obama's tenure: The president, Republicans would argue, failed to embrace a brand of "American exceptionalism" that sees the U.S. as morally superior to other nations.

"We have a president right now who thinks America's just another nation," once-GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney said during a 2011 primary debate. "America is an exceptional nation."

Obama defended himself, saying in 2014 that he believed "in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being."

Trump doesn't seem worried about the criticism.

In an interview with Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly that aired over the weekend, Trump dismissed concerns about befriending Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"But he's a killer though. Putin's a killer," O'Reilly said.

"We've got a lot of killers," Trump responded. "Boy, you think our country's so innocent?"

Pressed on the exchange in an interview with CBS'S "Face the Nation," Vice President Mike Pence stumbled on the question of whether he and the president think America is morally superior to Russia.

But he eventually said: "I believe that the ideals that America has stood for throughout our history represent the highest ideals of humankind."

___

CRITICIZING THE JUDICIARY:

In 2010, President Obama delivered a rare, in-person rebuke of the Supreme Court. During his State of the Union speech, with justices sitting in the audience, Obama criticized the court's decision in the Citizens United campaign finance case.

Obama opened his remarks by saying his criticism was "with all due deference to separation of powers," but then argued the ruling reversed "a century of law" that would open the floodgates to money from special interests.

Critics decried the move as a breach of decorum that politicized the court.

And Trump has launched his own offensive against the judiciary branch with personal attacks on the federal judge who halted his immigration order.

"The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!" Trump tweeted over the weekend.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on CNN that it was likely "best to avoid criticizing judges individually."

But Pence defended the president's actions, telling NBC's "Meet the Press" that "the president of the United States has every right to criticize the other two branches of government."

__

Follow Colvin on Twitter athttps://twitter.com/colvinj

See the original post:
Republicans mum as Trump adopts Obama tactics - Minneapolis Star Tribune