United States California approves 1st state-funded guaranteed income plan

DarthOne

☦️

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California lawmakers on Thursday approved the first state-funded guaranteed income plan in the U.S., $35 million for monthly cash payments to qualifying pregnant people and young adults who recently left foster care with no restrictions on how they spend it.

The votes — 36-0 in the Senate and 64-0 in the Assembly — showed bipartisan support for an idea that is gaining momentum across the country. Dozens of local programs have sprung up in recent years, including some that have been privately funded, making it easier for elected officials to sell the public on the idea.

California’s plan is taxpayer-funded, and could spur other states to follow its lead.

“If you look at the stats for our foster youth, they are devastating,” Senate Republican Leader Scott Wilk said. “We should be doing all we can to lift these young people up.”

Local governments and organizations will apply for the money and run their programs. The state Department of Social Services will decide who gets funding. California lawmakers left it up to local officials to determine the size of the monthly payments, which generally range from $500 to $1,000 in existing programs around the country.

The vote came on the same day millions of parents began receiving their first monthly payments under a temporary expansion of the federal child tax credit many view as a form of guaranteed income.

“Now there is momentum, things are moving quickly,” said Michael Tubbs, an advisor to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who was a trailblazer when he instituted a guaranteed income program as mayor of Stockton. “The next stop is the federal government.”

For decades, most government assistance programs have had strict rules about how the money could be spent, usually limiting benefits to things like food or housing. But a guaranteed income program gives money to people with no rules on how to spend it. The idea is to reduce the stresses of poverty that cause health problems and make it harder for people to find and keep work.

“It changes the philosophy from ‘big brother government knows what’s best for you,’” said state Sen. Dave Cortese, a Democrat from San Jose. “We’ve been very prescriptive with that population as a state and as counties go. Look at the failure. Half of them don’t get their high school diplomas, let alone advance like other people their age.”

But critics like Republican Assemblyman Vince Fong of Bakersfield say guaranteed income programs “undermine incentives to work and increase dependence on government.”

“We should be pushing policies that encourage the value of work,” said Fong, who abstained from Thursday’s vote. “Guaranteed income doesn’t provide the job training and skills needed for upward mobility.”

Guaranteed income programs date back to the 18th century. The U.S. government even experimented with them in the 1960s and 1970s during the Nixon administration before they fell out of favor.

But recently, guaranteed income programs have been making a comeback. Programs have been announced in New Orleans; Oakland, California; Tacoma, Washington; Gainesville, Florida; and Los Angeles — the nation’s second largest city, which has a plan to give $1,000 a month to 2,000 needy families.

The state wants to target the money on programs that benefit pregnant people and young adults aged out of the foster care system to help them transition to life on their own. The latter includes people like Naihla De Jesus, who was removed from her mother’s custody at 17 and bounced between living with an aunt, a godmother and a boyfriend until landing in a transitional housing program.

She became ineligible for that program when she turned 24 last year, which normally would have ended her government assistance as a foster child. Instead, the taxpayers of Santa Clara County have been paying her $1,000 a month with no restrictions on how she can spend it, part of a guaranteed income program targeting former foster care children.

De Jesus is also caring for her 9-year-old brother as his temporary guardian while battling anxiety and depression. She said her condition made it hard for her to keep a job because some days she wouldn’t have enough energy to get out of bed and wouldn’t go to work.

Now, she has a full-time job as a client support specialist with the Bill Wilson Center, where she works with young people who are in situations like hers. She says she doesn’t worry about money like she used to, choosing to save most of what she gets from the guaranteed income program. She used some of it to buy things for her brother, whose interest in expensive electronics grows as he gets older.

And she used the money to save for a down payment for her “dream car,” a blue Subaru WRX.

“I’m proud of myself, of where I am,” she said. “I don’t have to stress and then isolate myself and overthink, ’Oh, I’m not going to have enough money to pay my rent or pay my phone bill.”

Santa Clara County’s program has cost the county $1.4 million so far. Participants get the money on a debit card, which they can use for purchases or to withdraw money from an ATM. County officials ask them to fill out surveys to monitor how they are doing, but they haven’t completed a thorough analysis, said Melanie Jimenez Perez, who oversees the program.

An analysis of a guaranteed program in Stockton found full-time employment increased among participants after the first year of receiving the money.

(slow claps)

Well done California, well done....First off, you are already bankrupt. We all know everyone else is picking up your slack, so stop pretending otherwise.

Second, congratulations idiots: Now everything in California will be even MORE expensive.

Fucking braindead communists.

(Nevermind that this money would bet better off being used to fix your water infrastructure, which is over 100 years old. Or how about your power grid? You know the one that can't keep up with demand in the summer. Although the amount of money that'd be required to accomplish this with so-called 'renewable energy' would be astronomical.)


Edit: removed the term 'retards' because calling these Californians that is an insult to the mentally impaired.
 
Last edited:

prinCZess

Warrior, Writer, Performer, Perv
I mean...Presuming it's being used as a stand-in/replacement for the traditional slate of various aid programs, what can be said positive of basic income schemes are they have the advantage of reducing wastage, bureaucratic expenses, and targeting issues from aid programs (and reducing the paperwork and application burden on the people receiving them). Theoretically (and you'd have to dig up the other attempts at these schemes in the past to see how much this corresponded to reality), it should encourage participants to save money, ironically, since instead of having a set amount for food or a housing allowance/subsidy it has the flat amount and anything that can be saved is kept personally. Savings being one of the big things that gives people stability and allows some transition out of paycheck-to-paycheck life or credit-card indebtedness.
Theoretically. As said, that's all a spitball.

Based on the article and supposition, it seems California is losing out on all the wastage reduction and everything not benefiting the recipients because they're just putting this scheme on top of all their other stuff--which would also be something to account for and remember in the cited study wherein a basic income helped. By what I can tell, it wasn't just a basic income, but the income coming on top of any/every other program individuals were taking advantage of.
Which doesn't make for a good argument of the benefits of something alone/in-particular.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
The thing is, the same culture and mentality that leads to BLS, will never accept removing other all the other programs in addition. You might get some programs removed, but you'll never get all of them removed, and when the BLS proves not to 'solve' the problem of 'poverty' just like every other handout before it, the BLS and other programs will bloat as well.
 

Brutus

Well-known member
Hetman
I would agree with @prinCZess
Let them run with the horrible mess of a first incarnation. We have the tech to track everything, just refine it and find out what what programs they can cut that don't work to save money.
It would be an interesting experiment. They just have to make sure to catch the scammers fast.
 

DarthOne

☦️
I would agree with @prinCZess
Let them run with the horrible mess of a first incarnation. We have the tech to track everything, just refine it and find out what what programs they can cut that don't work to save money.
It would be an interesting experiment. They just have to make sure to catch the scammers fast.
I have my doubts it will work out like that.
 

Brutus

Well-known member
Hetman
I have my doubts it will work out like that.

When have we humans have ever done anything that would be considered smart if you look at things in hindsight? Riding controlled explosions in space, forming a representative republic, creating weapons so so terrifying they can wipe out cities. We live in terrifying and amazing times build upon many mistakes and strange sideways discoveries.

I saw let them experiment, if it leads to the bankrupting the state then they know who to blame and maybe if they rub two braincells together they can cut the fat from their states budget.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
California is at the point where reform is not possible any more we are going to hit the wall full tilt and go bankrupt no matter what so what our leadership is doing is promising the world and hoping to god they get out in time with a golden paracute while all the things burn
 

boomghost

I trust you know where the launch button is?
California is at the point where reform is not possible any more we are going to hit the wall full tilt and go bankrupt no matter what so what our leadership is doing is promising the world and hoping to god they get out in time with a golden paracute while all the things burn
and when it goes bankrupt just who do you think will be made to pay for it? plus where will all the democrats swarm to to change states to be just like the CA that failed because "It wasn't true socialism!"
 

Cherico

Well-known member
and when it goes bankrupt just who do you think will be made to pay for it? plus where will all the democrats swarm to to change states to be just like the CA that failed because "It wasn't true socialism!"


Who pays for it?

three posibilities

1. We get baild out by the feds whole country pays for it.
2. We go bankrupt our creditors pay for it our economy nose dives
3. total fincial collapse california pays for it.

the socialists will flee to the places with the gold so they can begin the process of fleceing public once more.
 

boomghost

I trust you know where the launch button is?
Who pays for it?

three posibilities

1. We get baild out by the feds whole country pays for it.
2. We go bankrupt our creditors pay for it our economy nose dives
3. total fincial collapse california pays for it.

the socialists will flee to the places with the gold so they can begin the process of fleceing public once more.
any sort of CA bankruptcy should mandate that they can't leave the state to other places, they ruined their state they can rot in it rather than ruin perfectly good republican states
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
any sort of CA bankruptcy should mandate that they can't leave the state to other places, they ruined their state they can rot in it rather than ruin perfectly good republican states
Mandating that citizens in the US no longer have the freedom to move and travel throughout the country would lead to really dark places fast, that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
 

Navarro

Well-known member
The thing is, the same culture and mentality that leads to BLS, will never accept removing other all the other programs in addition. You might get some programs removed, but you'll never get all of them removed, and when the BLS proves not to 'solve' the problem of 'poverty' just like every other handout before it, the BLS and other programs will bloat as well.

Not to mention that UBI is a one-way ticket to hyperinflation. Increase the supply of money without increasing demand, what do you expect ...
 
Last edited:

Val the Moofia Boss

Well-known member
and chances are that other states will have to pay more federal taxes as the democrats vote to subsidize it on a national level

Or the government will just print more money to pay for it. Sell treasury bonds to the Federal Reserve. The banking arm of the government simply credits the government, literally taking money from one hand and putting it in the other hand and saying "see? we financed the government without printing money!" (when they just did so). A big portion of the national debt is just the government printing money to pay its employees and other crap.

California won't face total economic collapse overnight. The federal government will bail out CA but the bureaucratic inefficiency will continue to get worse, and the big cities (San Francisco, Sacramento, Hollywood, LA, etc) will increasingly resemble Detroit. Bloating taxes and other fees will probably force more and more people to move out of the state, even if they don't live in the big cities.

I've heard that Ohio's software industry is growing, so maybe it will eventually supplant Silicon Valley. Who knows.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
The thing is, the same culture and mentality that leads to BLS, will never accept removing other all the other programs in addition. You might get some programs removed, but you'll never get all of them removed, and when the BLS proves not to 'solve' the problem of 'poverty' just like every other handout before it, the BLS and other programs will bloat as well.
Any attempt at reforming the welfare system is going to hampered by the fact that nearly every other aspect of the government is in need of it as well, up to and including our election system. Because they all interact with each other to make it damn near impossible to actually fix anything. Universal Basic Income only makes sense to implement as a less costly and more beneficial replacement to our currently bloated list of welfare programs, and not as an addition to them; but you're right in that almost nobody in government would accept that, as they're primarily interested in implementing a UBI as a form of bribery in exchange for votes.

Unfortunately, it's that very same unrestrained power-obsessed mindset that is slowly but surely driving our country into the gutter, and we'll have to excise it before anything else can be done.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top