Perhaps the most potent cause of MAGA adherence is resentment–the belief by far too many Americans that they are being denied their rightful status or being cheated out of benefits to which they are entitled by the “Others” who are “milking the system.”
Social policy can either ameliorate or feed those feelings.
As I have argued previously, policies intended to help less fortunate citizens can be delivered in ways that stoke resentments, or in ways that encourage national cohesion. Consider public attitudes toward welfare programs aimed at impoverished constituencies, and contrast those attitudes with the overwhelming majorities that approve of Social Security and Medicare.
The difference is that Social Security and Medicare are universal programs. Virtually everyone contributes to them and everyone who lives long enough participates in their benefits. Just as we don’t generally hear complaints that “those people are driving on roads paid for by my taxes,” or sentiments begrudging a poor neighbor’s garbage pickup, beneficiaries of programs that include everyone (or almost everyone) are much more likely to escape stigma. In addition to the usual questions of efficacy and cost-effectiveness, policymakers in our diverse country should evaluate proposed programs by considering whether they are likely to unify Americans or further divide us. Universal policies are far more likely to unify, an important and often overlooked argument favoring both national health care and a Universal Basic Income.
The defects of existing American welfare policies are well-known and substantial. We have a patchwork of state and federal efforts and programs, with bureaucratic barriers and means tests that aren’t just expensive to administer, but also operate to exclude most of the working poor. Those who do manage to get coverage are routinely stigmatized by moralizing lawmakers pursuing punitive measures aimed at imagined “takers” and “Welfare Queens.” Current anti-poverty policies have not made an appreciable impact on poverty, but they have grown the bureaucracy and contributed significantly to stereotyping and socio-economic polarization; as a result, a growing number of economists and political thinkers now advocate replacing the existing patchwork with a Universal Basic Income- a stipend sent to every U.S. adult citizen, with no strings attached– no requirement to work, or to spend the money on certain items and not others– a cash grant sufficient to insure basic sustenance.
Critics of social welfare are appalled by the very thought of uniformity. Why, we’d end up paying people who didn’t deserve it! It would encourage sloth, it would be spent on booze and drugs, it would require hard-working folks to pay increased taxes…
Interestingly, one “factoid” I recently came across seems relevant to this discussion: Residents in more than half of America’s counties now draw a substantial share of their total income — more than a quarter — from the government. Assuming the accuracy of that data point (I’ve lost the source), we now provide that money in massively inefficient ways.
Numerous pilot programs have disproven predictions that a UBI would undermine ambition and productivity.
The Washington Post recently surveyed the results, in an essay titled “Universal Basic Income Has Been Tested Repeatedly: It Works. Will America Ever Embrace It?”
A growing body of research based on the experiments shows that guaranteed income works — that it pulls people out of poverty, improves health outcomes, and makes it easier for people to find jobs and take care of their children. If empirical evidence ruled the world, guaranteed income would be available to every poor person in America, and many of those people would no longer be poor.
The Mirror, a news site in Indianapolis, recently reported on a small experiment here.
The universal basic income program was funded through a partnership between three Indianapolis nonprofits: Southeast Community Services, Edna Martin Christian Center and John Boner Neighborhood Centers. Participants received a total of 18 monthly payments from October 2022 to this March.
The program represented an effort to experiment with giving money directly to Indianapolis families, rather than providing them with assistance through programming or donations. Though participants got their last check two months ago, the basic income program was such a success that the centers are hoping to do it again.
Rather than spending their stipends on booze and drugs, or quitting jobs, nearly three-fourths of the participants were spending most of their monthly $500 to help cover rent or housing costs.
The research typically focuses on the use people make of the stipends, and the programmatic effects–effects that are overwhelmingly positive. But researchers have neglected to study what may be the most positive aspect of such programs: the extent to which they reduce, rather than aggravate, the tendency to stigmatize recipients and further inflame bigotries.
That may be the most beneficial outcome of all.
Sheila, this is another timely and reflective piece on what is occurring. It is not only a weaponizing of race and income but every analysis conducted demonstrates the case that in the majority of income levels they need to have basic stability and support to make ends meet. I believe if they get short term shots of money they are more likely to blow it all at once on things that worsen their futures.
There seems to be little public ability to grasp the implications of their decisions and actions.
In politics it seems that these differences are usually ultimately weaponized and used to create fear and animosity toward the other party and its members especially of lower status.
This is an extension of the old Southern Strategy from the 1960s as weaponized in the South. Today we have found fault with immigrants (when didn’t we) and are planning to take absurd actions that will undermine our economy and the average Joes standard of living.
Unless or until the Trumpy craziness burns out, we will see no movement in thoughtful programs. Great ideas do not stand a chance for now. We just have to find a way through the coming darkness and storms.
The links about the shift in income from government: Second one is visually interesting.
https://www.axios.com/2024/10/03/government-aid-social-security-medicare
https://eig.org/great-transfermation/
Nancy C
Resentment has been one of the Republican’ Party’s mantras for the past 24 years. Nothing new here folks. And, y’all know what the other “R” is.
Nancy Chism – thank you for the links. The analysis is good as far as it goes.
Two points are missing.
The shift from businesses considering their workers as partners, won in many ways through strong unions, and the pre-“mine, mine, mine” mindset that ended with the Reagan era and the glorification of the real-life Gordon Gekkos. CEO didn’t used to make outrageous salaries, simply large ones, workers didn’t have to look for a new job every five years due to “downsizing”, and there were defined-benefits pension plans. Remember, we now are responsible for our own retirement and the three months of unemployment between downsizings means spending down our savings and not contributing to our retirement. Severance packages and unemployment insurance do not cover costs and certainly leave nothing for an IRA.
Second, Republicans keep spiking the National Debt with tax cuts and have convinced everyone that if we restore the previous, more progressive system with their higher rates for the rich, that somehow this will end economic growth, a dubious assertion, given that the tax cuts did little to spur growth, but much to the accumulation of mega-wealth.
Sheila – Good point on universal versus targeted payments. UBI seems like a promising idea.
Regardless of the pathogens behind King Trump’s coronation, he remains the same person who has made headlines throughout my life. He was brought up in the family he was in, and he learned from his Father, Mother, and Roy Cohen.
They taught him to, first and foremost, reward absolute loyalty and punish everyone else because you are better than them, and publicity is power.
He applied those ideas to the political party formerly known as Republican, and most of them became an absolute loyalist named MAGA.
The result is that we are no longer a republic because we have a monarch.
Like all movements, this one is centered around the seeds of their destruction.
We have to let it fail and rebuild it as soon as possible.
“Consider public attitudes toward welfare programs aimed at impoverished constituencies, and contrast those attitudes with the overwhelming majorities that approve of Social Security and Medicare.”
“Interestingly, one “factoid” I recently came across seems relevant to this discussion: Residents in more than half of America’s counties now draw a substantial share of their total income — more than a quarter — from the government. Assuming the accuracy of that data point (I’ve lost the source), we now provide that money in massively inefficient ways.”
Consider recipients and approval of Social Security and Medicare are receiving the refund promised by our paying into both and we continue paying into Medicare which is deducted from our Social Security checks before we receive it. Many of us subsisting on primarily Social Security either own our homes or continue paying mortgages which means we are paying property taxes which go to aid welfare programs and infrastructure for all. The recent Realty takeover of house pricing, said to be aiding those who cannot afford rent which increases with no maintenance on property they are renting; my property taxes increased by 50% due to the overpricing of homes in this low-middle income area. No Infrastructure maintenance in this area for many years. Social Security and Medicare are not “giveaways” and we continue aiding welfare recipients via our property taxes…and all other taxes we pay at the same rate of the wealthy.
I do not resent these facts; it is the lower rate of taxation on the super wealthy who have just purchased this nation and will become our landlords at noon on January 20, 2025. I worked in the Division of Community Services which included Southeast and John Boner centers and other centers which was a Division of the Mayor’s Office under Mayor Bill Hudnut until Reagan’s election which threw the entire community services into a panic. Staff members in these centers gave service above and beyond job descriptions and gave of their personal time and money to aid people in their areas. One counselor at Near Eastside Multi-Service Center, now John Boner Community Services, was a victim of spouse abuse, divorced and had 7 children; she opened her home to abused women and their children till they could find more permanent assistance because there was nowher for them to seek help. People have changed, and not for the better, resentment class has always been with us but it was outnumbered by those supporting humanities for those in need. The generation of “me first” and “gimme” are now the norm; even family members in need are ignored due primarily the tax free religious influx into politics and the three main branches of government are now privately owned and humanity has no place in the coming court jester administration under King Donald.
One thing is clear, it won’t happen in the next four years either in Indiana or nationally. Even though we know that the Republicans care about the deficit only when Democrats are in charge, we also know that they don’t care even a little bit about helping the poor. They will love to vote for the continuation of their last big tax cut, with maybe a little extra thrown in, just for kicks.
The idea of undermining ambition and productivity, as presented above is, from man view, nothing but Calvinist excuse to maintain the class divide, and keep possible tax break money from “others.”
If we had a culture based on empiricism, we would never have had QAnon, or Trump and his sick”alternative facts.”
Don’t forget the rising Christian Nationalism movement that goes hand in hand with prosperity gospel. Those in need of public programs are not only “takers” but those unfavored by God and with obvious moral failings that have resulted in their poverty (sarcasm, of course)
We have a narcissistic president-elect who leads a cult of self-centered MAGATs. The problem will occur when all these narcissistic department heads congregate in Washington in late January. How will they get things done if they are all know-it-alls?
I did see yesterday that Ross Vought, the “brains” behind P2025, was nominated to head the budgetary process so that you can kiss the idea of UBI goodbye for four years. Ross basically works for Charles Koch, and they hate the idea of unions, let alone the redistribution of Charles’ income via taxes. You earn what you work for…period.
Furthermore, people use UBI income for rent because we’ve gone well beyond the target of 25% of your monthly income going toward shelter. Most young people are paying between 35% to 50% for shelter. That doesn’t leave much for a car payment and student loans, etc. It’s also why birth rates are dropping in this country.
Kamala’s response was that we needed to build more “affordable homes.” Wrong! We need the oligarchy to raise wages to keep up with inflated prices. CEO income has way outpaced worker wages, and shareholder returns have far exceeded worker wages. Stock buybacks have far exceeded worker wages. Get the picture!
UBI is a government solution to an oligarchic problem—a bailout for a government that does not hold the oligarchy accountable. With Trump’s appointments and the bribery taking place in Washington, we are going to see capitalism on steroids for the next four years, barring another pandemic. This means the Democratic Party will shift even further to the right unless held accountable by the people.
I saw a personal bio on social media of a liberal who mentioned all the social justice issues they supported but not one comment about economics. They’ve fallen into the blue-pill trap of identity politics within the Democratic Party and their propaganda media, which has normalized the income and wealth disparities of our oligarchy. They’ve even normalized war and genocide. As long as these topics are normalized, there will be no counterrevolution. The only ones talking about economic issues and anti-war efforts are independent journalists who mainly get throttled on social media.
My significant other makes the point that all businesses depend on customers to purchase their products and employees to make the products that they sell (even if those employees are farmed out to the third world), because the customers are still here (only now unemployed).
So, she then asks, what is the sense of immiserating (i.e. reducing the incomes of) the domestic customer base that the oligarchs expect to buy their products? Are the oligarchs blind? Or just totally obtuse?
there isnt a economy for those in poverty. how say? seems there could be if the working class was expanded somewhat. theres trillions of dollars being hoarded by the rich,locked into funds and investments that the only return is into their own little world. (and not taxed in any way substantial)its locked away from the economy on main street. if the rest of America,as we study this blog today. was in support of a economy that was fair,living wage style, then those poor billionaires wouldnt be,they would be millionaires. this whole scam of whos got what only heads to those chosen by the rst of thier ilk. they have bought one party in DC and part of the others. in a world of mass communication,no one notices,except that damn pimple standing in front of the mirror. POX news will now be front and center as the ethics monitor.no rable will be impossed upon the rich and anointed.the ayatolla of christiana will decide what race will become,and who will now die. sins judged by being whatever they can muster at any given time. this is how racism is going to be. even the white poverty,(last count is 55% of total poverty in the U.S.) will be rewarded with propaganda that tells them they are denied by the other 45% in poverty. instead of freeing up that hoard of living wages, stolen by graft and greed. the rich has finally bought and paid for America.. and they intend on taking more..
JoAnn:
ever see the Ag sectors welfare. your statement here is true, every rancher here in NoDak gets checks for whatever from DC. trumps covid gave every farmer?rancher here in Oliver co, $99 an acre from so called lose from covid. no one here lost a dime. trump just bought their vote. some rancher/farmers here over generations have amassed a acreages due(try5-10.000 acres),no one can afford to start a operation. hense, we have average age of 68 as land owners,and the banks gleefully make sure the mega/maga landowners get that land.
now,about the new commerce secty,seems corp farming is on his mind,and trumps real estate buddies,(now look at the rest of how this mob will sell America)..i hope he cant find any help to work on them…
If you’ve ever seen my comments to this blog, you may have noticed a pattern. You will already know that this topic hits me deeply. It stems from my abhorrence of judgment of others, a horrid determination of who is worthy, who is deserving. It makes me furious, honestly. Universal programs absolutely solve this problem, and they can end up being much cheaper than the current “system”.
Consider health care, for example. (Note: Not health insurance, but health _care_.)
The common idea in the USA is that a universal health care system would be too expensive. However, the other wealthy nations that have such programs spend half as much per capita on health care as the USA does. Your existing complicated system is dominated by greedy insurance and drug companies, middle men, and various grifters happy to get rich off the system. At the same time, it feeds the nasty nature of too many of you to judge others as to whether they _deserve_ health care or not. You guys could absolutely provide great health care to everyone, and save money while doing it. Some of the rich and greedy bastards who love your current system would just have to be a very tine bit less rich. Put another way, you are already putting tons of your tax money towards health care, way more than is necessary, and your current system wastes it, putting much of the money into rich peoples’ pockets rather than into the care the system should provide.
One small complication to address: your current system is expensive for poor people and has taught them to avoid it; once you have a good system, you’ll need to teach people to be proactive about their health care, to actually _use_ the system.
The combination of UBI and a proper health care system would lift the USA to be the true best country in the world. Your people would be healthier, happier, and _more_ productive. Without a proper health system, you country is just second tier.
Ultimately, people do better when they are happy, safe, confident, and comfortable. They do worse when they are unsafe, unhealthy, scared and stressed. If you want good results for your country, you need more people in the former category.
The world’s only trillionaire has purchased what was (before the sale) the most powerful country in the free world, and for cheap, around $134M. Citizen’s United has been used as the vehicle of choice for that purchase by a naturalized citizen. He can’t run the kakistocracy himself (yet) but is clearly running it now through his puppet. His ready cash is being used to enforce compliance of Republican Senators who might have a semblance of a spine or at least want to protect their own turf.
UBI may well be successful, as those who participated in the small experiment have demonstrated, using the money to cover living expenses instead of”blowing it” on short term non-essentials.
If anyone thinks for one moment that the prosperity gospel folks and the White Christian Nationalists will support a policy like that in any form, guess again. As infuriating as it is, so many of those same groups refer to SS and Medicare/Medicaid as “entitlements” as if they were gifts instead of insurance purchased over a lifetime of work.
Their perceived superiority means that anything of value should be acceded to them by right of race/religion. Any deviation from that “norm” requires immediate and forceful rejection.
CGH and spouse ask, “So, she then asks, what is the sense of immiserating (i.e., reducing the incomes of) the domestic customer base that the oligarchs expect to buy their products?”
There is a simple answer to this: It makes NO SENSE and is unsustainable, just like our healthcare system. Follow Jeffrey Sachs and other economists who aren’t owned by the oligarchy, and they repeatedly have told us that our foreign policy is backward and our oligarchy is unsustainable.
The problem is that the oligarchy owns all the means of communication and controls the message (propaganda). Those who fully understand the issues are censored in many ways. This will become a more serious issue under Trump’s administration as they silence all his critics.