So I recently looked at Andrew Yang's UBI proposal and medicare for all in terms of funding. With Bernie Sanders' medicare for all proposal, I found that the numbers added up for the most part and that it was sufficient as it is. With Andrew Yang's UBI, I found the numbers did not add up and offered corrections that should come close to bringing in enough revenue, most notably a 10% payroll tax and income tax on other forms of income in addition to Yang's 10% VAT and spending cuts.
Now I want to look at how different people and families will be impacted across the spectrum. I won't focus on the top income earners as there are too many taxes to keep track of, but I can probably get a good idea of how it would impact people in the bottom 90% of the spectrum. So here I will analyze people at the 10th, 30th, 50th, 70th, and 90th percentile of earnings.
Taxes on average earners
Average earners would would face a number of higher taxes with UBI and medicare for all. Most notably, they would face a 10% payroll/income tax on earnings, and an additional 10% VAT from the UBI. They would also face an additional 7.5% payroll tax paid by employers for healthcare, and a 4% premium they pay based on their earnings.
Savings by average earners
Individual adults over 18 would receive a $12,000 UBI, with 2 adult households getting $24,000. While medicare for all would tack on an additional 7.5% payroll tax paid by employers, this replaces a 7.6% premium already paid for health insurance. That said it cancels itself out and breaks roughly even and will not be counted. I will count the additional 4% tax paid by households, but it should be noted that the average household spends 8% on healthcare right now, so this would cut household expenditures in half in practice, effectively shifting the burden to the rich. That said while I could account for an extra 4% in taxes households pay, I could also deduct 4% in practice due to the extra spending power they should have. I understand household costs are asymmetrical across households, with some paying very little and some paying a lot, but this is a model for looking at the overall big picture so your mileage may vary vs my calculations.
That said, I will account for 6% effective extra payroll/income taxes on households in practice, and an extra 10% on top of that in terms of a VAT, as this will be the extra overall money coming out of peoples' paychecks. I will also apply the $12,000 UBI to income between the payroll tax deduction, which would apply here, and the VAT deduction, which would apply to the UBI itself.
10th percentile income
Now, before I begin I will cite my sources and point out for individual and household incomes I am drawing my sources from here and here. I will assume 1 adult for individual income and 2 adults for your average household.
At 10th percentile, your individual income is $7000. With an effective 6% payroll tax accounting for healthcare savings, you will pay in $420 and make a total of $6520. You will get a $12,000 UBI bringing your income up to $18,520. You will then pay 10% in VAT bringing your income down to $16,722. This will leave you 164% better off compared to where you would be under a laissez faire system. It would effectively lift you out of poverty.
For households, your income would be $14,280, which would be brought down to $13,423 after the effective payroll tax. You would then get $24,000 bringing your income up to $37,423. Paying the VAT, you would have a total of $33,680 at your disposal in net. You would be MUCH better off than under the status quo, a whopping 135%. I can't comment on how and whether welfare would make you better off than this at all, but I'm guessing probably not.
30th percentile income
At 30th percentile income, an individual would make $24,001 a year. After the payroll tax they would make $22,561. With the UBI they would get $34,561. With the VAT they would get $31,105. This makes them almost 30% better off than they are now.
For households they make $35,495. After payroll taxes they will make $33,365. UBI would then bring them up to $57,365. The VAT would bring them back down to $51,629. This makes them 45% better off than they would be right now.
50th percentile income
Now we are getting into medians; true "averages." This is what your actual average joe would get under this plan.
At 50th percentile income, an individual would make $39,048. The payroll tax would bring this down to $36,705. UBI would bring this up to $48,705. The VAT brings this down to $43,835, which is 12% more than one would make now.
For households, they would make $61,822. With the payroll tax it would become $58,113. The UBI would bring this up to $82,113. With the VAT, it would go down to $73,901. They would be roughly 20% better off than they are now.
70th percentile income
At 70th percentile, an individual earns $60,020 a year. The payroll tax would bring this down to $56,418. UBI would raise this up to $68,418. The 10% VAT would reduce this to $61,577. This means that someone at this level, which is where you start getting into the bottom of the upper middle class in my opinion, would be 3% better off than they are now.
For a household, they would make $98,823 a year. The payroll tax brings this down to $92,894. UBI would bring this up to $116,894. The VAT would bring it back down to $105,204. This would make people 6% better off than they are now.
90th percentile income
At 90th percentile income, an individual earns $114,068. The payroll brings this down to $107,224. The UBI brings it up to $119,224. The VAT brings it back down to $107,301. This would leave such an individual 6% worse off than the status quo. That really isn't bad at all considering how much money that is.
For households, 90th percentile is $178,793. The payroll tax brings them down to $168,065. UBI brings them back up to $192,065. The VAT brings it back down to $172,859, which leaves these guys 3% worse off. Again, not bad.
Discussion and conclusion
So, I do want to keep in mind this analysis is a little deceptive. I did not include what these guys currently pay in taxes. I did not include the full extent of the extra taxation burden here, which would be closer to 24% rather than 16%. HOWEVER, also keep in mind you will not have to pay for health insurance. That expense is GONE. Those hundreds, if not thousands, you spend every month on insurance? Off your back. Copays, deductibles, medical debt? Don't worry about it. All taken care of. That's where that extra spending power comes from.
Relative to the status quo, while a UBI and medicare for all would raise taxes nominally on working families by as much as 24% on the end that they would actually face (ignoring the employer premium that they already pay), the extra spending power and freedom it brings would leave the vast majority of Americans much better off in practice. I'm almost stunned how well the numbers work out. Almost 80% of people would benefit from this shift to my knowledge. You would have more spending power in your pockets at the end of the day, not less. People at the bottom would obviously benefit the most. At the 10th percentile you would be 2.5x as well off as you are today roughly. At the 30th percentile, still a good 30-45% better off. At the median, closer to 12-20%. At the 70th percentile, a modest 3-6%. People at the 90th percentile would be 3-6% worse off in contrast.
UBI costs a lot of money on paper. But that deceptive. It pumps a lot of money in and out of the economy, taking it from some and redistributing it to those who need it most in practice. Such taxes on paper should be economy destroying but they're not because all of that income is being pumped back into the economy like a massive stimulus. And best of all it does it in a way that should not greatly discourage work effort, as marginal tax rates for most Americans would likely remain below 50%. Medicare for all seems astoundingly expensive too, but in practice, removing healthcare off of peoples' backs actually leaves them better off. It is a weight around their necks that threatens to send them into financial ruin.
Don't let the massive costs of these programs dissuade you, you might be thinking, oh my god, $8-9 trillion federal budget, how are you gonna pay for that? Well, we already discussed it over 3 posts. While the taxes would take tons of money out of the economy, it is not like it goes into a black hole never to be seen again. It ends up being redistributed back into peoples' hands via UBI and being freed from the burden of high medical costs. I mean if we go by the graph here from the CBO, the nominal rates will go up. Lower income households will nominally be paying 28% of their income in taxes vs the 4% or so they do now. Second quintile people will be paying 32%. 3rd quintile people around 37%. 4th quintile around 42%. Top quintile anything from 45% on up, with the top really getting hosed due to Bernie's tax increases on them. I cannot comment on whether these high rates can be achieved or if the rich will hide their money or what, but on paper, this plan seems to work at least. And lots of people will be getting lots of money back offsetting this burden and leaving most better off for it. This reminds me of what a European nation charges in terms of taxes. Those nations are the most prosperous on earth and have the most expansive safety nets. We can be like them. UBI and medicare for all would make us like them. I think this is a worthwhile goal. This is, in my opinion, what our vision should be going into 2020, and what I would support in an ideal world where I could magically have a candidate with Yang's UBI plan (modified to my specifications) and Bernie's medicare for all plan.
Wednesday, February 27, 2019
Tuesday, February 26, 2019
Analyzing Bernie Sanders' Medicare For All proposal
So, seeing how I'm getting into analyzing how we pay for things like Andrew Yang's UBI plan, I decided to also analyze Bernie Sanders' medicare for all proposal since I also would like to see universal healthcare implemented. I came across this page on his senate website outlining how he plans to pay for it, and looking at it, our current spending, and what we would need to implement medicare for all, I will see if the numbers add up.
We spend $3.5 trillion on healthcare per year as a country, which is a little different from Sanders' claim of $3.2 trillion, but not off by a lot. It is possible that this is derived from the same data, just looking at it differently, or that the data is from a different year. I will look at how his numbers add up to both estimates in this article. We currently spend $1.036 trillion between medicare and medicaid, a trillion less than what Sanders claims, so we need roughly $2.2.-2.5 trillion in order to fund it in theory. This sounds like a big gap to fill in theory but let's look at Sanders' plan.
So we get $1.036 trillion from current spending.
We would get $390 billion from a "7.5% payroll tax paid for by employers."
We would get $350 billion from a "4% income based premium paid by households."
We would get $420 billion a year from tax breaks that we would no longer need that go to people like employers who currently fund healthcare.
We would get $500 billion from saving on administrative costs.
We would get $113 billion from saving on pharmaceutical costs.
So far this gets us a total of about $2.8 trillion dollars. Effectively, depending how one looks at it, it would raise taxes between 4% and 11.5% on people, and as far as the employer base payroll tax that might actually take the place of a lot of current contributions employers pay so it might actually come out much lower. It would be a tax increase on average people, but considering how much of that spending replaces current spending on insurance, many people might be better off. Sanders points out that the average family could save around $4400 a year under this plan so it sounds like it would be a net positive for most families.
And that's not all, Sanders also had other proposals that would help close the remaining $400-700 billion gap that are targetted at the wealthy and wall street. These include:
Higher taxes on those making over $250,000 a year, ranging from 40% up to 52%, as well as taxing capital gains like regular work and "limiting tax deductions for the wealthy." This would raise $180 billion a year.
He would raise $24 billion from increasing the estate tax on estates over $3.5 million.
A wealth tax would raise $130 billion per year.
He would close the "Gingrich Edwards" tax loophole which should raise $25 billion per year.
He would tax off shore profit holdings in the Cayman islands and the like, raising $77 billion per year.
He would "impose a fee on large financial institutions", raising $12 billion per year.
Finally, he would "repear corporate accounting gimmicks" for an additional $11 billion yet year.
This would give us an additional $459 billion per year total, which combined with the previous $2.8 trillion, gives us a total of around $3.26 trillion. Assuming Sanders' $3.2 trillion figure is accurate, his numbers add up on paper. I can't guarantee he will raise the revenue he claims to, but on paper I have to give his plan a tentative pass. I will admit that based on the $3.5 trillion figure that I do come up $240 billion short that way of looking at it, but it is unknown whether the two figures were derived from reading the same data differently or what. The point is the numbers add up close enough in theory that I have to give this idea a tentative pass.
Also, another thing that we need to take into consideration with single payer healthcare is that in such a system, the government is effectively a monopsony, or the only buyer of healthcare (hence the name "single PAYER"). This is basically the buyer equivalent of a monopoly in economics. The advantage of such a system is the government can effectively strongarm businesses into charging lower prices because if they don't, the government can force their hand by refusing to buy from them. So they can set prices and control costs much better, and this could lead to further savings in the long term where maybe one day we can only spend 10-12% of our GDP on healthcare like the rest of the world.
That said, it looks to me that while single payer healthcare is very expensive, almost as much as my universal basic income plan, Bernie Sanders does have a solid funding proposal to pay for it to the best of my knowledge. I can't go into the specifics of whether the nominal tax rates he will attempt to charge will bring in the amount of revenue he claims they will or any of that really advanced stuff you would need a full fledged economist to analyze, but his numbers to be, look good enough where I have to approve of this plan.
We spend $3.5 trillion on healthcare per year as a country, which is a little different from Sanders' claim of $3.2 trillion, but not off by a lot. It is possible that this is derived from the same data, just looking at it differently, or that the data is from a different year. I will look at how his numbers add up to both estimates in this article. We currently spend $1.036 trillion between medicare and medicaid, a trillion less than what Sanders claims, so we need roughly $2.2.-2.5 trillion in order to fund it in theory. This sounds like a big gap to fill in theory but let's look at Sanders' plan.
So we get $1.036 trillion from current spending.
We would get $390 billion from a "7.5% payroll tax paid for by employers."
We would get $350 billion from a "4% income based premium paid by households."
We would get $420 billion a year from tax breaks that we would no longer need that go to people like employers who currently fund healthcare.
We would get $500 billion from saving on administrative costs.
We would get $113 billion from saving on pharmaceutical costs.
So far this gets us a total of about $2.8 trillion dollars. Effectively, depending how one looks at it, it would raise taxes between 4% and 11.5% on people, and as far as the employer base payroll tax that might actually take the place of a lot of current contributions employers pay so it might actually come out much lower. It would be a tax increase on average people, but considering how much of that spending replaces current spending on insurance, many people might be better off. Sanders points out that the average family could save around $4400 a year under this plan so it sounds like it would be a net positive for most families.
And that's not all, Sanders also had other proposals that would help close the remaining $400-700 billion gap that are targetted at the wealthy and wall street. These include:
Higher taxes on those making over $250,000 a year, ranging from 40% up to 52%, as well as taxing capital gains like regular work and "limiting tax deductions for the wealthy." This would raise $180 billion a year.
He would raise $24 billion from increasing the estate tax on estates over $3.5 million.
A wealth tax would raise $130 billion per year.
He would close the "Gingrich Edwards" tax loophole which should raise $25 billion per year.
He would tax off shore profit holdings in the Cayman islands and the like, raising $77 billion per year.
He would "impose a fee on large financial institutions", raising $12 billion per year.
Finally, he would "repear corporate accounting gimmicks" for an additional $11 billion yet year.
This would give us an additional $459 billion per year total, which combined with the previous $2.8 trillion, gives us a total of around $3.26 trillion. Assuming Sanders' $3.2 trillion figure is accurate, his numbers add up on paper. I can't guarantee he will raise the revenue he claims to, but on paper I have to give his plan a tentative pass. I will admit that based on the $3.5 trillion figure that I do come up $240 billion short that way of looking at it, but it is unknown whether the two figures were derived from reading the same data differently or what. The point is the numbers add up close enough in theory that I have to give this idea a tentative pass.
Also, another thing that we need to take into consideration with single payer healthcare is that in such a system, the government is effectively a monopsony, or the only buyer of healthcare (hence the name "single PAYER"). This is basically the buyer equivalent of a monopoly in economics. The advantage of such a system is the government can effectively strongarm businesses into charging lower prices because if they don't, the government can force their hand by refusing to buy from them. So they can set prices and control costs much better, and this could lead to further savings in the long term where maybe one day we can only spend 10-12% of our GDP on healthcare like the rest of the world.
That said, it looks to me that while single payer healthcare is very expensive, almost as much as my universal basic income plan, Bernie Sanders does have a solid funding proposal to pay for it to the best of my knowledge. I can't go into the specifics of whether the nominal tax rates he will attempt to charge will bring in the amount of revenue he claims they will or any of that really advanced stuff you would need a full fledged economist to analyze, but his numbers to be, look good enough where I have to approve of this plan.
Sunday, February 24, 2019
My opinion on the green new deal
So I recently discussed the standoff between Dianne Feinstein and some school children and I hinted at the idea that I'm not fully behind a green new deal. I would not say I'm completely opposed to it, but as per the post I wrote the other day, I believe that there are only so many programs we can pragmatically pursue at once and I believe that there are opportunity costs associated with whatever program we choose. The green new deal is likely going to be a very expensive program. I am not sure of the exact costs, but if I had to guess, it would cost trillions per year. This makes it a direct competitor to the proposal I champion, which is the universal basic income. Quite frankly we cannot afford both. While I believe we have room to expand our safety nets to be more Scandiavian in size and scope, there are limits and one of these proposals will put us in line with Scandinavian countries spending wise, which I see near the realistic maximum a market based economy can bear. Past that we literally have a much bigger public sector in our economy than a private sector, and this basically would inhibit growth and move us toward a nationalized economy similar to what you would expect from a failed communist state. No, just no. I am not a supporter of that. My utopian ideals must be tempered with a reasonable amount of pragmatism, and I realize we cannot have it all. That said, we must decide what to prioritize.
The green new deal sounds compelling in some ways. It would completely change how our economy works to make it more green, while providing jobs and economic security for all. These are not bad aspirations. My key concern is the approach, and considering how I'm weighing the concept of the proposal against a UBI, my standards are quite high and I honestly would rather have a UBI.
First of all, I don't consider the green aspects of the green new deal to be pragmatic. The program is ambitious, too ambitious, and the initial goals put forward by Alexandria Ocasio Cortez seem completely unfeasible to me. She supported things like retrofitting every building in the entire country to be more green, which I just can't see happening. Many buildings in the US are quite old, and it's already burdensome to mess with the infrastructure. Whenever someone installs a gas furnace in my neighborhood they dig up the street and cause tons of disruption. Imagine that times several hundred million in the next 10 years. This is madness. She wants to replace all heaters with electric to get rid of all fossil fuels, which may raise the heating costs for many Americans. She wants to basically make so much high speed rail it makes air travel obsolete, but high speed rail is, in and of itself, quite expensive, and making enough for the entire country and to accommodate the volume necessary for air travel...I just can't see it working. They want to get rid of nuclear power, which I see as one of the most reliable forms of power out there and is far better than fossil fuels, even if not perfect. Even worse, if you trust Andrew Yang's assessment on it, which I see as realistic, the US only produces 15% of carbon emissions so say we implement all of these things to completely remove the carbon impacts of the US, well, we still have the other 85% of the world to worry about. So on the green front, we're basically pushing these extremely expensive high scale solutions that will ultimately have a marginal effect on the problem if they're even feasible at all. I mean I hate to say it, but I think we are screwed on climate change and while I do support mitigation where practical, the green new deal approach seems more new deal than green in practice.
Then you have to look at the economic front. It basically pushes FDR's second bill of rights and tries to guarantee healthcare, job training, and jobs to all Americans. This isn't bad, I definitely support universal healthcare and job training and education. I support many overhauls to our labor laws to raise wages and make working conditions better. But I will say what I've always said here, JOBS ARE NOT THE ANSWER. So say we spent trillions creating jobs. Okay, for the next decade as we improve our infrastructure that makes sense. What will we do then? Create more work for the sake of creating more work? Will tax payers be willing to pay more money (and I'll get to funding later, that's a doozy) to the tune of hundreds of billions or trillions a year for the purpose of creating jobs so others can have a paycheck? Why not just cut out the middleman and give everyone a paycheck like with UBI? I am not totally opposed to the economic aspirations here, but I do think they're a bit outdated. Guaranteed jobs made sense when FDR suggested it, but even then it wasn't perfect. We need to also consider where these jobs will be located. The key issue with the economy in some ways in terms of jobs is some communities are just...dead. Obviously they're not gonna create a job for every displaced coal miner or factory worker living in Appalachia or the burnt out cities in the rust belt. And honestly, will people necessarily be qualified to do the jobs at hand? Infrastructure jobs are dangerous and generally are only good for young people with good physical strength, stamina, and coordination. Older people and even some younger people may not be physically fit for these jobs. That said, the logistics of how this would work just seem mind boggling to me. It sounds nice on paper, but wouldn't it be better just to cut everyone a check?
Finally, AOC, while I respect her in a lot of ways and see her as young Bernie, doesnt seem to be experienced enough to know how to pay for this. I already criticized Yang's proposal and tried to improve it, but now I'm criticizing this. AOC wants to use modern monetary theory to just inject money into the economy, which is a terrible idea. Even if MMT is true, and I do believe it has merit, you're gonna devalue the currency by an insane amount to pay for it, perhaps even creating hyperinflation.Yeah, this is just a terrible idea.
Look, I love the left. I love the upcoming political revolution that realigns the parties and moves us left as a country. We need solutions to problems that have been ignored for far too long. But we have to be smart about it. The green new deal would cost a ton of money and has impractical aspirations on the front of curbing climate change. It's a lot of money with diminishing goals. On the economic front it's better and I like the idea we're finally discussing guaranteed livings in a market economy, but honestly, I'm more in support of Andrew Yang's UBI proposal. I think it's better just to cut everyone a check and help them find their own happiness rather than create a vast job creating bureaucracy that might make sense in the next decade but will likely become less and less relevant beyond that. Finally, there doesn't seem to be a realistic proposal to pay for it all. I'm not saying we can't. I mean, if we can fund a UBI which I believe we can, we can fund this. But the proponents are relying on deficit spending instead and this is just a terrible idea. Honestly, I'm not fully opposed to a green new deal in practice, and if Bernie is the nominee for president and pushes one I will support it and hope for the best. Still, I do not see it as the best approach and would rather support a UBI proposal like Andrew Yang supports over this.
The green new deal sounds compelling in some ways. It would completely change how our economy works to make it more green, while providing jobs and economic security for all. These are not bad aspirations. My key concern is the approach, and considering how I'm weighing the concept of the proposal against a UBI, my standards are quite high and I honestly would rather have a UBI.
First of all, I don't consider the green aspects of the green new deal to be pragmatic. The program is ambitious, too ambitious, and the initial goals put forward by Alexandria Ocasio Cortez seem completely unfeasible to me. She supported things like retrofitting every building in the entire country to be more green, which I just can't see happening. Many buildings in the US are quite old, and it's already burdensome to mess with the infrastructure. Whenever someone installs a gas furnace in my neighborhood they dig up the street and cause tons of disruption. Imagine that times several hundred million in the next 10 years. This is madness. She wants to replace all heaters with electric to get rid of all fossil fuels, which may raise the heating costs for many Americans. She wants to basically make so much high speed rail it makes air travel obsolete, but high speed rail is, in and of itself, quite expensive, and making enough for the entire country and to accommodate the volume necessary for air travel...I just can't see it working. They want to get rid of nuclear power, which I see as one of the most reliable forms of power out there and is far better than fossil fuels, even if not perfect. Even worse, if you trust Andrew Yang's assessment on it, which I see as realistic, the US only produces 15% of carbon emissions so say we implement all of these things to completely remove the carbon impacts of the US, well, we still have the other 85% of the world to worry about. So on the green front, we're basically pushing these extremely expensive high scale solutions that will ultimately have a marginal effect on the problem if they're even feasible at all. I mean I hate to say it, but I think we are screwed on climate change and while I do support mitigation where practical, the green new deal approach seems more new deal than green in practice.
Then you have to look at the economic front. It basically pushes FDR's second bill of rights and tries to guarantee healthcare, job training, and jobs to all Americans. This isn't bad, I definitely support universal healthcare and job training and education. I support many overhauls to our labor laws to raise wages and make working conditions better. But I will say what I've always said here, JOBS ARE NOT THE ANSWER. So say we spent trillions creating jobs. Okay, for the next decade as we improve our infrastructure that makes sense. What will we do then? Create more work for the sake of creating more work? Will tax payers be willing to pay more money (and I'll get to funding later, that's a doozy) to the tune of hundreds of billions or trillions a year for the purpose of creating jobs so others can have a paycheck? Why not just cut out the middleman and give everyone a paycheck like with UBI? I am not totally opposed to the economic aspirations here, but I do think they're a bit outdated. Guaranteed jobs made sense when FDR suggested it, but even then it wasn't perfect. We need to also consider where these jobs will be located. The key issue with the economy in some ways in terms of jobs is some communities are just...dead. Obviously they're not gonna create a job for every displaced coal miner or factory worker living in Appalachia or the burnt out cities in the rust belt. And honestly, will people necessarily be qualified to do the jobs at hand? Infrastructure jobs are dangerous and generally are only good for young people with good physical strength, stamina, and coordination. Older people and even some younger people may not be physically fit for these jobs. That said, the logistics of how this would work just seem mind boggling to me. It sounds nice on paper, but wouldn't it be better just to cut everyone a check?
Finally, AOC, while I respect her in a lot of ways and see her as young Bernie, doesnt seem to be experienced enough to know how to pay for this. I already criticized Yang's proposal and tried to improve it, but now I'm criticizing this. AOC wants to use modern monetary theory to just inject money into the economy, which is a terrible idea. Even if MMT is true, and I do believe it has merit, you're gonna devalue the currency by an insane amount to pay for it, perhaps even creating hyperinflation.Yeah, this is just a terrible idea.
Look, I love the left. I love the upcoming political revolution that realigns the parties and moves us left as a country. We need solutions to problems that have been ignored for far too long. But we have to be smart about it. The green new deal would cost a ton of money and has impractical aspirations on the front of curbing climate change. It's a lot of money with diminishing goals. On the economic front it's better and I like the idea we're finally discussing guaranteed livings in a market economy, but honestly, I'm more in support of Andrew Yang's UBI proposal. I think it's better just to cut everyone a check and help them find their own happiness rather than create a vast job creating bureaucracy that might make sense in the next decade but will likely become less and less relevant beyond that. Finally, there doesn't seem to be a realistic proposal to pay for it all. I'm not saying we can't. I mean, if we can fund a UBI which I believe we can, we can fund this. But the proponents are relying on deficit spending instead and this is just a terrible idea. Honestly, I'm not fully opposed to a green new deal in practice, and if Bernie is the nominee for president and pushes one I will support it and hope for the best. Still, I do not see it as the best approach and would rather support a UBI proposal like Andrew Yang supports over this.
My very mixed opinion on the Diane Feinstein debacle
So Dianne Feinstein was caught on camera in a confrontation with a bunch of school children over support for the green new deal, and it's gotten a lot of controversy. Personally, viewing the video, I have a very mixed view on the video, and it's largely a lot of negativity toward both sides here. I'll explain why.
Before getting into Feinstein herself, I want to focus on the school children. Let me ask you this, when you were the age of these children, were you into politics? I sure wasn't, and don't know of any kid who was. I was too busy watching Power Rangers and playing Pokemon. It seems to me like either the parents or the teachers, or maybe both, put them up to this. This rubs me the wrong way. First of all, I'm against childhood indoctrination into topics like religion and politics. I was indoctrinated into religion and to an extent politics as a kid and a teenager, and considering how my deconversion and changing my views are what inspired me to name this blog what it did, I have very negative views toward parents and teachers manipulating children into having political views at their age. They are not at an age of reason, where they can think about these issues for themselves. These opinions are imposed on them. It doesn't matter to me if they're on the "right" side of history or happen to agree with me, I dislike the concept of kids being involved in politics because that normally involves some level of indoctrination they have no control over. Second of all, sending children to do your dirty work is...well....dirty. The purpose of using children to send a political message is for emotional manipulation. It's the whole Mrs. Lovejoy "won't somebody please think of the children" routine. I'm against this because I support actual rational and open debate and consider using children to be more manipulative. It's a trap to make Feinstein look bad if she says no, because who can say no to children? The purpose is to try to trap her into a positive position in order to force her hand on the issue regardless of the merits. That said, I could almost forgive Feinstein for calling them out on this...almost.
Which brings me to the other half of the equation, Feinstein. I admit if I were in her shoes I would not exactly be the picture of grace under fire either. This is part of the reason I would suck as a politician. For all of the ideas I have, I often lack charisma and in moments like this when confronted, I would have barely more charisma than Hillary Clinton. Which is kind of why I have to rip Feinstein here. Feinstein reacted like I would expect Hillary Clinton to react. I mean, she not only failed to meet my admittedly low standards here, but she shattered my low expectations by going so low with this that I can only express extreme disdain toward her over this. Feinstein reacted arrogantly. She literally reminded me of Clinton's 2016 persona. Actually considering the video, she made Clinton look good. She went on about how she won her last election. She went on about how the kids didn't vote for her because they're too young. She told them to run for office if they think they can do a better job. She completely and utterly talked down to the kids and crushed their dreams in a way that I just find morally reprehensible, and she is exactly what I find so offputting about the old guard of the party. These guys think they know better than everyone else, that they are owed their seat, and don't have to listen to their constituents. Her challenge to the kids to run something comes off as even more offputting because let's be honest, she's in a safe district, and it's likely the DCCC would discourage primary challenges and powerful interests would work against them because "unity." Sure she wins elections, but it's because the demographics combined with the broken 2 party system make it where she is in a position of complete job security. And she will likely hold that position in the senate until the day she dies or retires. She knows it. She's untouchable. And it makes her words even more insulting. That said, screw Dianne Feinstein. This is exactly the kind of democrat we should not hold our nose and "vote blue no matter who" for. Screw party unity if this is the kind of people we have to unite with. We can do far better.
That said, I'm very mixed on this issue. I don't believe either side is really "right". I think both are, to varying degrees, wrong. I don't blame the children as they don't know any better, but I do blame the parents and/or teachers. Sending children to try to emotionally manipulate a senator and the public's reaction to the issue is...well...wrong. There are many good reasons to be for the green new deal and many reasons to be against it. I'd rather focus on actual debate rather than these kinds of underhanded tactics. At the same time, Feinstein's reaction managed to let down my relatively low expectations for a response here. I'm not expecting Feinstein to react perfectly here. She was put into a bind. But she literally outdid Hillary Clinton's arrogance and condescension in her response, and really reminded me of why I can't stand centrist neoliberal politicians. If you're not for the green new deal, fine, I'm mixed on it myself and question if it's the best approach. It's not that I oppose expansive government programs that provide economic security and try to tackle climate change, I just question if it's the right path to solving the problems at hand. But don't talk down to children simply because they're not old enough to vote for you. I didn't vote for Feinstein either as I don't live her your district, and if she were in my district, your attitude would send me backing to the green party so fast I wouldn't be supporting her in the future. This is exactly the kind of democratic candidate I actively refuse to support. This whole debacle is just failure all around.
Before getting into Feinstein herself, I want to focus on the school children. Let me ask you this, when you were the age of these children, were you into politics? I sure wasn't, and don't know of any kid who was. I was too busy watching Power Rangers and playing Pokemon. It seems to me like either the parents or the teachers, or maybe both, put them up to this. This rubs me the wrong way. First of all, I'm against childhood indoctrination into topics like religion and politics. I was indoctrinated into religion and to an extent politics as a kid and a teenager, and considering how my deconversion and changing my views are what inspired me to name this blog what it did, I have very negative views toward parents and teachers manipulating children into having political views at their age. They are not at an age of reason, where they can think about these issues for themselves. These opinions are imposed on them. It doesn't matter to me if they're on the "right" side of history or happen to agree with me, I dislike the concept of kids being involved in politics because that normally involves some level of indoctrination they have no control over. Second of all, sending children to do your dirty work is...well....dirty. The purpose of using children to send a political message is for emotional manipulation. It's the whole Mrs. Lovejoy "won't somebody please think of the children" routine. I'm against this because I support actual rational and open debate and consider using children to be more manipulative. It's a trap to make Feinstein look bad if she says no, because who can say no to children? The purpose is to try to trap her into a positive position in order to force her hand on the issue regardless of the merits. That said, I could almost forgive Feinstein for calling them out on this...almost.
Which brings me to the other half of the equation, Feinstein. I admit if I were in her shoes I would not exactly be the picture of grace under fire either. This is part of the reason I would suck as a politician. For all of the ideas I have, I often lack charisma and in moments like this when confronted, I would have barely more charisma than Hillary Clinton. Which is kind of why I have to rip Feinstein here. Feinstein reacted like I would expect Hillary Clinton to react. I mean, she not only failed to meet my admittedly low standards here, but she shattered my low expectations by going so low with this that I can only express extreme disdain toward her over this. Feinstein reacted arrogantly. She literally reminded me of Clinton's 2016 persona. Actually considering the video, she made Clinton look good. She went on about how she won her last election. She went on about how the kids didn't vote for her because they're too young. She told them to run for office if they think they can do a better job. She completely and utterly talked down to the kids and crushed their dreams in a way that I just find morally reprehensible, and she is exactly what I find so offputting about the old guard of the party. These guys think they know better than everyone else, that they are owed their seat, and don't have to listen to their constituents. Her challenge to the kids to run something comes off as even more offputting because let's be honest, she's in a safe district, and it's likely the DCCC would discourage primary challenges and powerful interests would work against them because "unity." Sure she wins elections, but it's because the demographics combined with the broken 2 party system make it where she is in a position of complete job security. And she will likely hold that position in the senate until the day she dies or retires. She knows it. She's untouchable. And it makes her words even more insulting. That said, screw Dianne Feinstein. This is exactly the kind of democrat we should not hold our nose and "vote blue no matter who" for. Screw party unity if this is the kind of people we have to unite with. We can do far better.
That said, I'm very mixed on this issue. I don't believe either side is really "right". I think both are, to varying degrees, wrong. I don't blame the children as they don't know any better, but I do blame the parents and/or teachers. Sending children to try to emotionally manipulate a senator and the public's reaction to the issue is...well...wrong. There are many good reasons to be for the green new deal and many reasons to be against it. I'd rather focus on actual debate rather than these kinds of underhanded tactics. At the same time, Feinstein's reaction managed to let down my relatively low expectations for a response here. I'm not expecting Feinstein to react perfectly here. She was put into a bind. But she literally outdid Hillary Clinton's arrogance and condescension in her response, and really reminded me of why I can't stand centrist neoliberal politicians. If you're not for the green new deal, fine, I'm mixed on it myself and question if it's the best approach. It's not that I oppose expansive government programs that provide economic security and try to tackle climate change, I just question if it's the right path to solving the problems at hand. But don't talk down to children simply because they're not old enough to vote for you. I didn't vote for Feinstein either as I don't live her your district, and if she were in my district, your attitude would send me backing to the green party so fast I wouldn't be supporting her in the future. This is exactly the kind of democratic candidate I actively refuse to support. This whole debacle is just failure all around.
Friday, February 22, 2019
I love this discussion of ideas, but we need to prioritize
So....I gotta say, there's some stuff going on about the democratic primary I'm not huge on, but there's a lot going on I absolutely LOVE. This primary is SO much better than 2016, and the overton window seems to be moving left very fast. We have all of these candidates pushing all of these ideas, and it's just glorious. This is what our discourse should look like, and what it was missing in 2016.
The problem is, it's almost too much, at least if we tackle all of these ideas at once. Let's be honest, we only have limited amounts of money, we can't pursue every idea that people come up with. You start with Bernie's 2016 platform that included a $15 minimum wage, universal healthcare, and free college, and that sounded pretty good. Now we have people pushing minimum wage, universal healthcare, and free college, but also stuff like free day care, reparations for slaves, universal basic income, a green new deal, a jobs program. For every problem, there is a solution. I mean this sounds great, but we gotta think holistically going forward. We need to think, what ideas would be best to implement, and how do we focus on them. We need to weed our redundancy. A jobs program and a UBI might overlap. UBI and green new deal might conflict with one another. Reparations for slavery might be divisive and we might be better off pursuing other avenues.
It's kind of like the debates of the 1960s again, which is great, don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining, but there are disadvantages here. The last time the democrats had this much power, they implemented tons of programs and they made peoples' lives better....but they kind of left things half way done and didn't think in terms of the big picture. Which is where we started seeing debates about UBI. Because during the 1930s to the 1960s, the democrats pushed tons of ideas, but they always did so in a piecemeal way. They created dozens, if not hundreds of agencies, with dozens, if not hundreds of programs, and they kinda left the root causes remain. In other words, they just basically fixed capitalism by applying generous amounts of duct tape, that became undone once it was neglected in the 1980s on. And now history is repeating itself.
Rather than focus on all of these different programs, it is my opinion that we should pursue a focused, targeted effort on a few programs that would have the widest effects, do the most amount of good, and would be hardest for the government to actually screw up and botch. This is why I am so gung ho on universal basic income as a solution. It isn't quite a silver bullet, but it's as close as one that exists in my opinion. Want childcare? Buy it with UBI! Or heck, instead of pushing single moms into the work force to get a job, making them need to hire a whole different person to take care of their kid, maybe they should just take care of their kid and there is no shame for doing work that isn't profitable in the market like raising children. This is why I like a lot of Andrew Yang's ideas, he seems to understand this kind of thing, and seeks solutions that actually would work. UBI would resolve the reparations thing in a less divisive manner because rather than focusing on fixing the system for some people who were screwed, it fixes the system for everyone, giving everyone a floor with which they can springboard to more success. UBI would be a good program to replace food stamps as well. It is a program that would solve many many problems, in a holistic ways, and fill in some obvious gaps in the market based system we have.
We should also focus on universal healthcare. If there's anything that can't be bought adequately with UBI, it's access to healthcare. Just as medicare complements social security, medicare for all would complement UBI. We would be giving all of our citizens the same good deal (more or less) seniors get in their advanced age. A nice safety net to live on, that may not lead to a glamorous life in itself, but probably takes care of most basics and with some mild work effort could lead to a quite comfortable life.
Free education is my third pillar. Education is a key to acquiring skills to succeed in the job market. It is the key to economic mobility. This has some under question in an age where many college grads fail to find meaningful work, but without it, I see college as only a real option for the rich, unless you want to fall into tons of life ruining debt. Moreover, who says free education can't apply to say, trade school too? You want to learn an in demand trade? That should be covered! The point is, people should have access to whatever tools they need to succeed in the economy.
Going into 2016, this is what my dream platform was. I have advanced a bit since then, but I do think it's a good springboard on which to start a broader discussion about our needs as a society. I believe if we take care of the basics via a UBI, free healthcare, and free education, we could solve 90% of the problems in this country related to economics in the short to intermediate future. From there it's just a matter of figuring out what else we need. Perhaps housing, to which solutions could exist. Maybe we do, after figuring all that out, we decide universal childcare would allow some women get ahead. Maybe we can then figure out if affirmative action is needed to fix structural racism, while giving people displaced by it a softer landing. Maybe we can then figure out how to decarbonize the economy around a green new deal focused primarily on fixing the environment, not providing jobs for their own sake to people. Maybe we can then decide market socialism is a good idea and implement codetermination to make workplaces more worker owned and democratic. The sky is the limit.
Right now the country is finally in the mood to think big about things. That's a very good thing, but it's also something that could determine the future course of the country and what we value. Rather than implementing tons of programs in a piecemeal mass duct tape like fashion, maybe it would be better to focus on a few of the largest ones with the most widespread impacts, and then work from there. Otherwise we might be ballooning the size of government, without really getting to the root of the problems, which sounds to me like a recipe for the right to come back with a vengeance like they did in the 1980s.
The problem is, it's almost too much, at least if we tackle all of these ideas at once. Let's be honest, we only have limited amounts of money, we can't pursue every idea that people come up with. You start with Bernie's 2016 platform that included a $15 minimum wage, universal healthcare, and free college, and that sounded pretty good. Now we have people pushing minimum wage, universal healthcare, and free college, but also stuff like free day care, reparations for slaves, universal basic income, a green new deal, a jobs program. For every problem, there is a solution. I mean this sounds great, but we gotta think holistically going forward. We need to think, what ideas would be best to implement, and how do we focus on them. We need to weed our redundancy. A jobs program and a UBI might overlap. UBI and green new deal might conflict with one another. Reparations for slavery might be divisive and we might be better off pursuing other avenues.
It's kind of like the debates of the 1960s again, which is great, don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining, but there are disadvantages here. The last time the democrats had this much power, they implemented tons of programs and they made peoples' lives better....but they kind of left things half way done and didn't think in terms of the big picture. Which is where we started seeing debates about UBI. Because during the 1930s to the 1960s, the democrats pushed tons of ideas, but they always did so in a piecemeal way. They created dozens, if not hundreds of agencies, with dozens, if not hundreds of programs, and they kinda left the root causes remain. In other words, they just basically fixed capitalism by applying generous amounts of duct tape, that became undone once it was neglected in the 1980s on. And now history is repeating itself.
Rather than focus on all of these different programs, it is my opinion that we should pursue a focused, targeted effort on a few programs that would have the widest effects, do the most amount of good, and would be hardest for the government to actually screw up and botch. This is why I am so gung ho on universal basic income as a solution. It isn't quite a silver bullet, but it's as close as one that exists in my opinion. Want childcare? Buy it with UBI! Or heck, instead of pushing single moms into the work force to get a job, making them need to hire a whole different person to take care of their kid, maybe they should just take care of their kid and there is no shame for doing work that isn't profitable in the market like raising children. This is why I like a lot of Andrew Yang's ideas, he seems to understand this kind of thing, and seeks solutions that actually would work. UBI would resolve the reparations thing in a less divisive manner because rather than focusing on fixing the system for some people who were screwed, it fixes the system for everyone, giving everyone a floor with which they can springboard to more success. UBI would be a good program to replace food stamps as well. It is a program that would solve many many problems, in a holistic ways, and fill in some obvious gaps in the market based system we have.
We should also focus on universal healthcare. If there's anything that can't be bought adequately with UBI, it's access to healthcare. Just as medicare complements social security, medicare for all would complement UBI. We would be giving all of our citizens the same good deal (more or less) seniors get in their advanced age. A nice safety net to live on, that may not lead to a glamorous life in itself, but probably takes care of most basics and with some mild work effort could lead to a quite comfortable life.
Free education is my third pillar. Education is a key to acquiring skills to succeed in the job market. It is the key to economic mobility. This has some under question in an age where many college grads fail to find meaningful work, but without it, I see college as only a real option for the rich, unless you want to fall into tons of life ruining debt. Moreover, who says free education can't apply to say, trade school too? You want to learn an in demand trade? That should be covered! The point is, people should have access to whatever tools they need to succeed in the economy.
Going into 2016, this is what my dream platform was. I have advanced a bit since then, but I do think it's a good springboard on which to start a broader discussion about our needs as a society. I believe if we take care of the basics via a UBI, free healthcare, and free education, we could solve 90% of the problems in this country related to economics in the short to intermediate future. From there it's just a matter of figuring out what else we need. Perhaps housing, to which solutions could exist. Maybe we do, after figuring all that out, we decide universal childcare would allow some women get ahead. Maybe we can then figure out if affirmative action is needed to fix structural racism, while giving people displaced by it a softer landing. Maybe we can then figure out how to decarbonize the economy around a green new deal focused primarily on fixing the environment, not providing jobs for their own sake to people. Maybe we can then decide market socialism is a good idea and implement codetermination to make workplaces more worker owned and democratic. The sky is the limit.
Right now the country is finally in the mood to think big about things. That's a very good thing, but it's also something that could determine the future course of the country and what we value. Rather than implementing tons of programs in a piecemeal mass duct tape like fashion, maybe it would be better to focus on a few of the largest ones with the most widespread impacts, and then work from there. Otherwise we might be ballooning the size of government, without really getting to the root of the problems, which sounds to me like a recipe for the right to come back with a vengeance like they did in the 1980s.
Wednesday, February 20, 2019
Dissecting Andrew Yang's UBI numbers, and an updated discussion on how to fund UBI
So, universal basic income. The holy grail of my progressive policy platform. An issue I've been passionate about before I started this blog. And now we have a candidate who is running on it as the central part of his platform. I discussed Yang a couple times on this blog, but I never really delved into his numbers. Since I am opinionated on basic income I decided I would analyze his funding strategy for passing UBI, as well as improve it by taking aspects of my previous funding numbers as well as other policies that would help give us a robust funding strategy for UBI.
I also feel this is a necessary step of improving my own numbers because if you guys remembered, I was overly ambitious thinking I could reform the entire tax code into a flat tax. Honestly, I think what I'm coming up with here might be better.
Without further ado, let's look at Yang's platform.
Like me, Yang wants a UBI of around $1000 a month for all adults. He varies from my position in the sense he does not allow a grant for children though, and because he assumes seniors can just go on social security, ignoring that many people might actually make less on social security than UBI if their lifetime contributions are too low. These restrictions do admittedly save money and likely reduce the cost of UBI down to around $2 trillion or so, but I believe that it would introduce coverage gaps that should not exist.
He believes we can save $500-600 billion by eliminating welfare, which doesn't seem too unreasonable. However, he does give people the option to reject UBI and stay on welfare if their benefits are more generous. This makes sense but also makes the UBI numbers more fuzzy. He might be saving a lot less money in eliminating welfare, but because those who choose to remain on welfare would be forgoing UBI, it would also mean UBI would cost less in the first place. So this is fair, but it's also unclear how the numbers would work.
He supports a 10% VAT or value added tax. He believes a 10% VAT would raise $800 billion in revenue. Let's take him at his word as I don't know what it would be. While this sounds about right based on my understanding of the size of the economy, VAT is essentially a consumption tax. Consumption taxes are passed onto consumers, and make goods more expensive. This would devalue spending power, including that of those on UBI. Your $12,000 a year UBI is now worth $10,800. This isn't bad, but it is sub optimal. I will stick with this though when I go into my own modified funding plan that builds on Yang's though.
He believes that $500-600 billion could be raised from new revenue from economic growth from UBI. UBI causes consumption, which raises demand, which creates jobs. This is true, but I do think this is shaky and kind of the same argument trickle down economics people make. Budget deficits don't matter because the economy will grow and we'll get all of this new revenue. It never works out and we get deficits as a result. He might be onto something, but this isn't a good argument to make.
Finally, he believes that we could save on "healthcare, incarceration, homeless services, and the like" and estimates savings $100-200 billion. I don't deny this is true. Heck it's a common argument UBI supporters have been making for years. But will we save $100-200 billion on the federal level? That is the question. The savings might be had at state and local government levels, as well as in the private sector. This won't be free revenue on the federal level for UBI.
That said, Andrew Yang's UBI platform has some glaring holes and fuzzy math in it. It's not necessarily wrong, but some of the assumptions he makes are questionable. That said, I would like to try to take a stab at making a better UBI program than he has, taking my past work on the subject and revamping his numbers.
How to fund a UBI
First of all we need to figure out how many people are living in the US. There are approximately 248 million adults living in the US, and approximately 73 million children. Let's start by assuming we're going to give $1000 a month to every adult over 18 who is not an illegal immigrant or incarcerated. I will modify social programs as necessary to make this work. I will also consider a small UBI for children if I can make the numbers work and deem it necessary. There are currently 11 million illegal immigrants in the US, and 2 million people are in prison. This brings the total adults eligible for UBI down to 235 million. This means we would need to raise $2.82 trillion to fund UBI. This seems like a lot, but let's look at how we can do this.
So I would start off with Yang's VAT and pin it at $800 billion like he does. This would account for a good part of the cost in and of itself.
Looking at the most recent report of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, people made $8.49 trillion in wages and salaries in the past year. If we added a 10% income or payroll tax, I would prefer payroll as it would remove the money without the need to pay all at once at the end of the year and be more painless for the end users, we could raise $849 billion.
Looking at other sources of income like proprietor's income, of which only around 20% is taxable based on my previous work, rental income, and personal income receipts on assets, which is basically capital gains, if we applied the same 10% tax to that stuff, we could raise an additional $348 billion.
Putting this all together, we are already up to just short of $2 trillion. We only need to raise an additional $823 billion or so in revenue. So at this point, let's shift to social programs.
It's a common trope on the right that people on welfare can make up to $43,000 in benefits, but the reality is far more complicated. Single moms are only getting $6648 in cash benefits, which UBI would just flat out eclipse. They're also only getting $6249 in food stamps, $275 in heating assistance, $300 in additional food assistance, and $1156 under WIC. And that's only if they qualify for all of that. We could probably eliminate all of that with most people being better off. I would keep medicaid's $11,302 in benefits though as I support medicare for all as well, and also the $12702 in housing subsidies because UBI can't replace that. But as far as the other benefits, I think they can go. Based on this chart, this means we could save $269 billion while still leaving medicaid, housing, and unemployment (which I will get to) alone.
With social security, and disability, I would only be comfortable with eliminating roughly 35% of the programs. With social security the maximum benefit people can get is $2861 a month. If we cut it to $1861 and give these people a $1000 UBI, we could save 35% from the program and scale the program down from there. This would leave people at the maximum making what they make now while making those below the maximum better off. Considering how social security costs around $1.052 trillion a year, that would raise $368 billion in this way.
With unemployment I would do something similar. The maximum amount between states and how generous the programs are varies a lot, but if we general cut 35% like with social security, most people would be better off than they are now, and we would save an additional $12 billion.
Adding all of this up, we get $2.646 trillion in raised revenue. We are only $174 billion short. We could fill this gap and raise a lot of revenue doing a bunch of things. I came across this post today in relation with Bernie's ideas and there are a lot of valid funding strategies here. To point out a few in particular:
We could raise $488 billion by repealing the Bush tax cuts. This would fill in the gap and also likely raise enough money to fund a smaller UBI for children, which would likely cost around $292 billion.
We could raise between $75 billion and $300 billion with a carbon tax.
We could raise $275 billion with Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax idea.
Bernie Sanders has many different proposals to raise revenue for medicare for all that could help.
The list goes on and on. It's really a matter of taking our pick of which taxes we prefer and what programs we want to fund. Heck we could likely fund medicare for all and basic income and probably have a tax scheme similar to your typical Scandinavian country at this point...and for most people, basic income would refund a lot of those taxes. That 10% payroll tax? You won't be losing money until you make more than $120,000 a year. If you count the VAT as well, you still will be in the clear until you make more than $60,000. This is WAY more progressive and less burdensome on working families than my previous proposal. That said, I really think this could work.
To summarize, for those who don't want to read all of that
We need $2.82 trillion to fund UBI for all adults:
$800 billion would come from Yang's 10% VAT
$849 billion would come from a 10% payroll tax
$348 billion would come from a 10% tax on other forms of income
$281 billion would come from cutting social programs and replacing them
$368 billion would come from cutting parts of social security and replacing it
This would give us $2.646 trillion in funding. From there we could raise the additional revenue from a plethora of possible taxes including higher taxes on the rich, a carbon tax, or various spending cuts elsewhere. So we got this covered.
I think this would be a much better proposal than both what Yang is offering, which seems to rely on fuzzy math at times, and my own previous proposal which may have been too ambitious with trying to reform our entire system into a 45% flat tax. It would be far more incremental, and much more progressive for most people, leaving more money in their pockets.
I also feel this is a necessary step of improving my own numbers because if you guys remembered, I was overly ambitious thinking I could reform the entire tax code into a flat tax. Honestly, I think what I'm coming up with here might be better.
Without further ado, let's look at Yang's platform.
Like me, Yang wants a UBI of around $1000 a month for all adults. He varies from my position in the sense he does not allow a grant for children though, and because he assumes seniors can just go on social security, ignoring that many people might actually make less on social security than UBI if their lifetime contributions are too low. These restrictions do admittedly save money and likely reduce the cost of UBI down to around $2 trillion or so, but I believe that it would introduce coverage gaps that should not exist.
He believes we can save $500-600 billion by eliminating welfare, which doesn't seem too unreasonable. However, he does give people the option to reject UBI and stay on welfare if their benefits are more generous. This makes sense but also makes the UBI numbers more fuzzy. He might be saving a lot less money in eliminating welfare, but because those who choose to remain on welfare would be forgoing UBI, it would also mean UBI would cost less in the first place. So this is fair, but it's also unclear how the numbers would work.
He supports a 10% VAT or value added tax. He believes a 10% VAT would raise $800 billion in revenue. Let's take him at his word as I don't know what it would be. While this sounds about right based on my understanding of the size of the economy, VAT is essentially a consumption tax. Consumption taxes are passed onto consumers, and make goods more expensive. This would devalue spending power, including that of those on UBI. Your $12,000 a year UBI is now worth $10,800. This isn't bad, but it is sub optimal. I will stick with this though when I go into my own modified funding plan that builds on Yang's though.
He believes that $500-600 billion could be raised from new revenue from economic growth from UBI. UBI causes consumption, which raises demand, which creates jobs. This is true, but I do think this is shaky and kind of the same argument trickle down economics people make. Budget deficits don't matter because the economy will grow and we'll get all of this new revenue. It never works out and we get deficits as a result. He might be onto something, but this isn't a good argument to make.
Finally, he believes that we could save on "healthcare, incarceration, homeless services, and the like" and estimates savings $100-200 billion. I don't deny this is true. Heck it's a common argument UBI supporters have been making for years. But will we save $100-200 billion on the federal level? That is the question. The savings might be had at state and local government levels, as well as in the private sector. This won't be free revenue on the federal level for UBI.
That said, Andrew Yang's UBI platform has some glaring holes and fuzzy math in it. It's not necessarily wrong, but some of the assumptions he makes are questionable. That said, I would like to try to take a stab at making a better UBI program than he has, taking my past work on the subject and revamping his numbers.
How to fund a UBI
First of all we need to figure out how many people are living in the US. There are approximately 248 million adults living in the US, and approximately 73 million children. Let's start by assuming we're going to give $1000 a month to every adult over 18 who is not an illegal immigrant or incarcerated. I will modify social programs as necessary to make this work. I will also consider a small UBI for children if I can make the numbers work and deem it necessary. There are currently 11 million illegal immigrants in the US, and 2 million people are in prison. This brings the total adults eligible for UBI down to 235 million. This means we would need to raise $2.82 trillion to fund UBI. This seems like a lot, but let's look at how we can do this.
So I would start off with Yang's VAT and pin it at $800 billion like he does. This would account for a good part of the cost in and of itself.
Looking at the most recent report of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, people made $8.49 trillion in wages and salaries in the past year. If we added a 10% income or payroll tax, I would prefer payroll as it would remove the money without the need to pay all at once at the end of the year and be more painless for the end users, we could raise $849 billion.
Looking at other sources of income like proprietor's income, of which only around 20% is taxable based on my previous work, rental income, and personal income receipts on assets, which is basically capital gains, if we applied the same 10% tax to that stuff, we could raise an additional $348 billion.
Putting this all together, we are already up to just short of $2 trillion. We only need to raise an additional $823 billion or so in revenue. So at this point, let's shift to social programs.
It's a common trope on the right that people on welfare can make up to $43,000 in benefits, but the reality is far more complicated. Single moms are only getting $6648 in cash benefits, which UBI would just flat out eclipse. They're also only getting $6249 in food stamps, $275 in heating assistance, $300 in additional food assistance, and $1156 under WIC. And that's only if they qualify for all of that. We could probably eliminate all of that with most people being better off. I would keep medicaid's $11,302 in benefits though as I support medicare for all as well, and also the $12702 in housing subsidies because UBI can't replace that. But as far as the other benefits, I think they can go. Based on this chart, this means we could save $269 billion while still leaving medicaid, housing, and unemployment (which I will get to) alone.
With social security, and disability, I would only be comfortable with eliminating roughly 35% of the programs. With social security the maximum benefit people can get is $2861 a month. If we cut it to $1861 and give these people a $1000 UBI, we could save 35% from the program and scale the program down from there. This would leave people at the maximum making what they make now while making those below the maximum better off. Considering how social security costs around $1.052 trillion a year, that would raise $368 billion in this way.
With unemployment I would do something similar. The maximum amount between states and how generous the programs are varies a lot, but if we general cut 35% like with social security, most people would be better off than they are now, and we would save an additional $12 billion.
Adding all of this up, we get $2.646 trillion in raised revenue. We are only $174 billion short. We could fill this gap and raise a lot of revenue doing a bunch of things. I came across this post today in relation with Bernie's ideas and there are a lot of valid funding strategies here. To point out a few in particular:
We could raise $488 billion by repealing the Bush tax cuts. This would fill in the gap and also likely raise enough money to fund a smaller UBI for children, which would likely cost around $292 billion.
We could raise between $75 billion and $300 billion with a carbon tax.
We could raise $275 billion with Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax idea.
Bernie Sanders has many different proposals to raise revenue for medicare for all that could help.
The list goes on and on. It's really a matter of taking our pick of which taxes we prefer and what programs we want to fund. Heck we could likely fund medicare for all and basic income and probably have a tax scheme similar to your typical Scandinavian country at this point...and for most people, basic income would refund a lot of those taxes. That 10% payroll tax? You won't be losing money until you make more than $120,000 a year. If you count the VAT as well, you still will be in the clear until you make more than $60,000. This is WAY more progressive and less burdensome on working families than my previous proposal. That said, I really think this could work.
To summarize, for those who don't want to read all of that
We need $2.82 trillion to fund UBI for all adults:
$800 billion would come from Yang's 10% VAT
$849 billion would come from a 10% payroll tax
$348 billion would come from a 10% tax on other forms of income
$281 billion would come from cutting social programs and replacing them
$368 billion would come from cutting parts of social security and replacing it
This would give us $2.646 trillion in funding. From there we could raise the additional revenue from a plethora of possible taxes including higher taxes on the rich, a carbon tax, or various spending cuts elsewhere. So we got this covered.
I think this would be a much better proposal than both what Yang is offering, which seems to rely on fuzzy math at times, and my own previous proposal which may have been too ambitious with trying to reform our entire system into a 45% flat tax. It would be far more incremental, and much more progressive for most people, leaving more money in their pockets.
Bernie is running, but what makes him unique?
Okay, so yesterday Bernie formally announced his run for president of the United States, and the media is already asking why his candidacy is needed. I mean, so many other candidates like Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand and Elizabeth Warren are taking up his positions, why HIM? It's like they're saying "go away Bernie, this is our show now", and that in this crowded 2020 primary, he's no longer unique.
Well, yes and no. It is true the party has moved left since 2016, which was exactly what I wanted and why I strategically voted third party last time. I figured if Clinton lost the party would be forced to the left. But here's the thing, are these other candidates left? I already wrote about Kamala Harris several times who is seen as the frontrunner, and I think a lot of the other establishment democrats championing parts of his message are just like her. They are as fake as a $3 bill. Bernie has been championing his policies for decades. It's a meme at this point that for every bad thing that has happened for the last 30 years, there has been a video of Bernie Sanders trying to stop it. And it's true. Many of his opponents were the ones who allowed the bad things to happen in the first place. Many of his opponents were opposing his agenda until the last year or two. Remember how Booker voted against importing drugs from Canada? I mean, this is Bernie's competition, and as I already laid out in the previous post, none of the other progressives in the race are as solid on the issues, or show sufficient commitment to them, like Bernie Sanders does. He is the OG. Why buy Walmart brand cola when you can buy Coca Cola? Why buy payless shoes for the same price as Nikes? Why play "Rules of Survival" when you can play PUBG mobile? The other candidates are mostly copycats and knock offs. Even if they adopt his platform, they lack the history of showing support of and dedication toward making his key policies reality. They're just jumping on the bandwagon. This is why Bernie stands above most of the rest of the race. If we want Bernie's policies to be reality, we need to support Bernie. Quite frankly I don't trust the copycats and one of my biggest fears is that one of them wins, and then fails to implement his policies as they regress to the center, allowing the democrats to return to their centrist ways. If we want this leftward shift to stick, we need to support a candidate that actually believes in it.
Quite frankly, the only candidate I'm even considering supporting over Bernie is Andrew Yang, and that's because, as you guys can tell, I'm a HUGE basic income supporter. So Yang has a niche Bernie doesn't that makes him attractive to me. But other than that, I pose the question in the reverse. Why should I support a copycat candidate when I can back the real deal? Why should I support Harris or Gillibrand or Booker or even Warren or Gabbard....when I can just have Bernie? Other than his advanced age, there is no other reason to consider an alternative who doesn't offer a strong unique policy position that is absent from Bernie's platform. You're free to your opinion, but this is mine.
Well, yes and no. It is true the party has moved left since 2016, which was exactly what I wanted and why I strategically voted third party last time. I figured if Clinton lost the party would be forced to the left. But here's the thing, are these other candidates left? I already wrote about Kamala Harris several times who is seen as the frontrunner, and I think a lot of the other establishment democrats championing parts of his message are just like her. They are as fake as a $3 bill. Bernie has been championing his policies for decades. It's a meme at this point that for every bad thing that has happened for the last 30 years, there has been a video of Bernie Sanders trying to stop it. And it's true. Many of his opponents were the ones who allowed the bad things to happen in the first place. Many of his opponents were opposing his agenda until the last year or two. Remember how Booker voted against importing drugs from Canada? I mean, this is Bernie's competition, and as I already laid out in the previous post, none of the other progressives in the race are as solid on the issues, or show sufficient commitment to them, like Bernie Sanders does. He is the OG. Why buy Walmart brand cola when you can buy Coca Cola? Why buy payless shoes for the same price as Nikes? Why play "Rules of Survival" when you can play PUBG mobile? The other candidates are mostly copycats and knock offs. Even if they adopt his platform, they lack the history of showing support of and dedication toward making his key policies reality. They're just jumping on the bandwagon. This is why Bernie stands above most of the rest of the race. If we want Bernie's policies to be reality, we need to support Bernie. Quite frankly I don't trust the copycats and one of my biggest fears is that one of them wins, and then fails to implement his policies as they regress to the center, allowing the democrats to return to their centrist ways. If we want this leftward shift to stick, we need to support a candidate that actually believes in it.
Quite frankly, the only candidate I'm even considering supporting over Bernie is Andrew Yang, and that's because, as you guys can tell, I'm a HUGE basic income supporter. So Yang has a niche Bernie doesn't that makes him attractive to me. But other than that, I pose the question in the reverse. Why should I support a copycat candidate when I can back the real deal? Why should I support Harris or Gillibrand or Booker or even Warren or Gabbard....when I can just have Bernie? Other than his advanced age, there is no other reason to consider an alternative who doesn't offer a strong unique policy position that is absent from Bernie's platform. You're free to your opinion, but this is mine.
Monday, February 11, 2019
Opinions on the 2020 candidates so far
So with 2020 ramping up already and major candidates declaring and others still expected to throw their hat into the ring, I started evaluating and developing opinions of some of these candidates. I even have a full on metric going in which I evaluate the candidates on a scoring system out of 100, but it's still being tweaked and the results vary and fluctuate a lot. Still, it does give me an idea of where the candidates stand relative to one another and allowed me to systemize them in a way that gives me a rough idea of how much I support them. To summarize, this metric takes a look at things like their policy positions on a variety of issues weighted toward ones I give priority to (economics in particular). They also look at their political history, their experience, their ideology/worldview, and their commitment to progressive values over time. Here's a rough idea of the results. I am explicitly avoiding a strict ranking system at this time because the ratings are fluctuating and rankings change regularly, although most candidates stay within their tier.
Tier 1 candidates
Tier 1 candidates are candidates that are, in my opinion, near perfect. They may have minor flaws, but they are incredibly minor, and all in all I have strong agreement with these candidates and they consistently score high on all of my metrics, getting at least a 90/100. Only one candidate currently scores this high and that's:
Bernie Sanders
Pros: He has a very strong record of commitment to progressive values, lots of legislative experience, and his platform and worldview excels on virtually every metric.
Cons: He doesn't support basic income. Really, that's the worst I have to say about the guy. And I likely wouldn't even bring it up if there weren't candidates who did endorse UBI.
Other thoughts: This guy is the real deal and so far gets my endorsement although I am open for alternatives as some say he's too old.
Tier 2 candidates
Tier 2 candidates score below tier 1 candidates and tend to have minor to moderate flaws. They are still candidates I can at least somewhat enthusiastically support, but they are not necessarily my ideal candidate. They generally scores between 70 and 89 points on my metric.
Andrew Yang
Pros: Very strong platform endorsing UBI and has a very strong history and commitment to studying solutions to our economy. His worldview is very similar to where my worldview was in 2016 when I started this blog.
Cons: Lack of political experience, has some weird libertarianish ideas toward cutting regulations and reducing the size of the federal work force, some of his proposals may not be pragmatic.
Other thoughts: The guy founded a nonprofit called "Venture for America" and has a history of trying to create jobs in the economy. He has come to the conclusion that this is like bailing water out of a sinking ship and that a basic income is needed to prepare us for a future world where work is less central to our lives. As you can tell this would resonate with my worldview and I hope he has as much rust belt appeal as he's trying to generate.
Tulsi Gabbard
Pros: Very progressive platform that is similar to Bernie's, showed a willingness to go against the grain in 2016 when she resigned from the DNC. Strong focus on anti interventionism in foreign policy.
Cons: Questionable history on some issues regarding gay marriage, islam, and foreign policy.
Other thoughts: One of the most underrated candidates and unfairly attacked by the media, probably because she actually is progressive and poses a threat to the status quo. While her past stances are concerning, as an ex-Christian conservative I can understand where she was coming from and believe her shift to the left to be genuine.
Pete Buttigieg
Pros: Strong millennial oriented worldview that is a breath of fresh air in politics, seems very progressive on issues.
Cons: Not a lot of information on the guy, commitment to some issues questionable. Would like more information to get an idea of how he thinks more.
Other thoughts: He's a mayor from Indiana who is one of the youngest candidates running. He's a relative unknown and flying under everyone's radar, but is a candidate that resonates with me somewhat strongly. Endorses the green new deal, medicare for all, etc. Could be a very progressive candidate.
Elizabeth Warren
Pros: Strong anti wall street track record, unique solutions like a wealth tax, workers choosing parts of their board of directors, etc. Perhaps the most progressive "establishment" candidate.
Cons: Commitment to some issues like medicare for all questionable. She emphasizes being a "regulatory capitalist" and seems to like markets a little too much for my tastes. As such, while a very strong, tough candidate in some ways she also seems kinda wishy washy at the same time. She has convictions but such convictions may not necessarily align perfectly with mine. Still she's good enough to be a tier 2 candidate at this time in my opinion.
Other thoughts: covered that in the cons.
Tier 3 candidates
Tier 3 candidates are candidates that I deem as not that progressive, or come off as fake progressives. They're not quite as bad as some of the more tried and true centrists I will mention in the next tier, but their visions and convictions on progressive issues is...well...questionable. Generally speaking these candidates score between 50 and 69 points on my metric. If they make it to the general I would consider voting for them but I would be holding my nose and not be very enthusiastic about them. I would consider voting third party if a third party puts forward a significantly better candidate but it really depends on the circumstances.
Kamala Harris
Pros: She sounds very progressive on paper and has a lot of interesting ideas. her LIFT act is basically a proto UBI. She supports medicare for all in theory. She's basically trying to occupy the same ideological space as Bernie. This is good, I like this.
Cons: She has a troubled history as a prosecutor, and does not have a history of being as progressive as she's portraying herself in this election. She walked back comments on medicare for all recently suggesting she would be okay with a more moderate approach, and while she sounds good, she scores very low in terms of her political convictions on these subjects. Also, the establishment loves her so something must be up there right?
Other thoughts: I really really wanna love Kamala Harris, but I really can't trust her. I'd describe her as a "trap" for progressives. Someone who fakes left, much like Obama, but who would likely govern from the center. I want to like her, but I just can't.
Kirsten Gillibrand
Pros: Much like Harris, has adopted a slew of progressive, Bernie-esque positions on various issues making her seem like a strong contender on paper.
Cons: Much like Harris, does not have a record of being progressive. She used to be a blue dog conservative democrat when representing upstate NY, then became progressive when becoming a senator, and is trying to be more progressive running for president. I don't buy it. I don't trust her. She also has a knack for "bipartisanship" and that kind of rubs me the wrong way. Tells me she won't have the convictions to pass progressive legislation.
Other thoughts: She's basically the same kind of candidate as Harris. Someone who I want to like, and seems progressive when I take them at their word, but also seems like the kind of person to sell out progressive values and compromise with the GOP. I want to like her, but I just can't.
Julian Castro
Pros: Endorses medicare for all on paper, seems progressive on paper. Also seems to have some decent convictions on issues and seems more genuine than some of the fake progressives on here.
Cons: History of being a bit more of a middle of the road democrat. I wouldn't call him a centrist, but I struggle to say he's as far left as I would like. He occupies the same ideological space as Obama and even served in his cabinet.
Other thoughts: I like Castro, but I'm not sure he's progressive enough for me on economic issues. He's not the worst candidate but we can do better.
Sherrod Brown
Pros: He has a certain midwestern charm and has some history and convictions of being progressive
Cons: Nowhere near as progressive as I would like. Does not endorse medicare for all, also campaigns on a "dignity of work" platform which is alienating to me as I believe the solution to midwestern problems is UBI.
Other thoughts: Nothing against the guy, he seems like a decent human being, I just don't believe he's progressive enough for my tastes.
Cory Booker
Pros: He's shifted significantly to the left, embracing medicare for all and other progressive legislation in theory.
Cons: He has a history of being an outright centrist neoliberal and his leftward turn is not believable at all.
Other thoughts:He would've been tier 4 but he's pivoted hard left enough to get enough support for me to include in the "maybe" column.
Amy Klobuchar
Pros: She has a certain level of genuineness to her and isn't an outright terrible candidate in my opinion.
Cons: While not as centrist as some of the centrists in tier 4, she's NOT that progressive.
Other thoughts: She just isn't that appealing to me. Reminds me of another Sherrod Brown style candidate.
Tier 4 candidates
Tier 4 candidates are candidates who are basically tried and true centrists. They generally align with the democratic party but are very neoliberal in their orientations, openly embracing economic conservatism or centrism while being somewhat socially liberal. If one of these candidates is a democratic nominee I will vote third party. They generally score between 30 and 49 points on my metric.
Beto O Rourke
Pros: He's socially liberal and not a terrible person
Cons: Dude is a tried and true "new democrat" who doesn't even try to be that progressive.
Other thoughts: My first impressions of him last year were nice but then as more came out about him, yikes, how about no.
Joe Biden
Pros: Hard to really come up with any. Um...he wasn't a bad vice president I guess?
Cons: Well, the dude told millennials complaining about the economy "give me a break", he bashed UBI to push the whole "work is about dignity" crap. He has a terrible history going back to the 1970s holding positions that in today's climate would be abhorrent on topics like drugs and school busing. If not for being Obama's VP, the dude would be a wash up given the left wing turn the party is doing right now.
Other thoughts: I just don't like him at all. He's basically Hillary 2.0 and the kind of old guard democrat who needs to just go away and let a new generation take over. Your time is passed.
John Delaney
Pros: Socially liberal I guess
Cons: Tried and true centrist running on things like bipartisanship and compromise.
Other thoughts: Not what I want at all
John Hickenlooper
Pros: Socially liberal as fudge
Cons: Another outspoken centrist candidate. No thanks.
Other thoughts: I mean, really, at least people like Booker, Harris, and Gillibrand have the sense to at least try to run to the left. Even if it's insincere it means something to me. These centrists are just no gos.
Howard Schultz
Pros: Socially liberal
Cons: basically a republican who is butthurt the party is moving left and fears paying more taxes.
Other thoughts: The guy is the CEO of Starbucks and is mulling a third party run, claiming the party is moving too far left. He has gotten ire from democrats and anti establishment progressives alike, fearing he will split the vote. While i have no problems with third candidates running their convictions and splitting the vote, the dude is just a scummy billionaire who wants his taxes lowered. Screw this guy.
Tier 5 Candidates
These candidates aren't democrats. Most democrats can easily break the 30 point threshold simply for being for social leftism and having SOME convictions there. If you score below 30, you're either a republican or maybe a libertarian.
Donald Trump
Pros: None really. But if I had to say something I like his protectionism and opposition to free trade agreements in theory I guess.
Cons: Everything. The dude is a puppet republican who is passing their agenda on economics and social issues in particular. And on foreign policy he's an unmitigated disaster. The dude has the temperament of a manchild and is completely unqualified to be president. I know I'm not releasing individual scores due to the fluctuating nature of my metric and my impressions of candidates yet, but let's be honest, the guy is currently sitting in the single digits on my metric.
Other thoughts: All I can hope for is the country takes a good hard look at conservatism and the republicans in this country and takes a hard shift left. I hope tier 4 candidates start representing the republican party. I hope to see the democrats become more progressive. I hope the democrat who will likely win in 2020 goes for the jugular as far as the GOP and what it stands for goes and says "THIS CRAP DOESN'T WORK", rejecting a decades long legacy of screwing our country up, and that they don't end up being some lame tier 4 or even wishy washy candidate who tries to "heal" the country via bipartisanship. GO. FOR. THE. IDEOLOGICAL. JUGULAR. It's the perfect chance. This guy is a failure of a president, and like FDR blamed Hoover and Reagan blamed Carter for the ideological failures of the other party, I hope the next president lays the broken legacy of conservatism at Trump's feet.
Overall
We have a very diverse set of candidates running this time. There are many candidates out there I like. There are many candidates I DON'T like. All in all, I have to say I am loving the shift left the democratic party seems to be taking. I just hope whomever gets into office has the vision and convictions to make the country a better place and doesn't turn into Clinton 2.0. As we know some of those candidates talk like a progressive but don't walk like one. We will have to see how things go. Right now I would say if I had to choose a candidate to endorse, it would be Bernie Sanders obviously. Although any tier 2 candidate would do in my opinion. I'm especially developing an affinity for and keeping my eye on Andrew Yang, but I'm open to many options. Again, we will have to see how this unfolds.
Tier 1 candidates
Tier 1 candidates are candidates that are, in my opinion, near perfect. They may have minor flaws, but they are incredibly minor, and all in all I have strong agreement with these candidates and they consistently score high on all of my metrics, getting at least a 90/100. Only one candidate currently scores this high and that's:
Bernie Sanders
Pros: He has a very strong record of commitment to progressive values, lots of legislative experience, and his platform and worldview excels on virtually every metric.
Cons: He doesn't support basic income. Really, that's the worst I have to say about the guy. And I likely wouldn't even bring it up if there weren't candidates who did endorse UBI.
Other thoughts: This guy is the real deal and so far gets my endorsement although I am open for alternatives as some say he's too old.
Tier 2 candidates
Tier 2 candidates score below tier 1 candidates and tend to have minor to moderate flaws. They are still candidates I can at least somewhat enthusiastically support, but they are not necessarily my ideal candidate. They generally scores between 70 and 89 points on my metric.
Andrew Yang
Pros: Very strong platform endorsing UBI and has a very strong history and commitment to studying solutions to our economy. His worldview is very similar to where my worldview was in 2016 when I started this blog.
Cons: Lack of political experience, has some weird libertarianish ideas toward cutting regulations and reducing the size of the federal work force, some of his proposals may not be pragmatic.
Other thoughts: The guy founded a nonprofit called "Venture for America" and has a history of trying to create jobs in the economy. He has come to the conclusion that this is like bailing water out of a sinking ship and that a basic income is needed to prepare us for a future world where work is less central to our lives. As you can tell this would resonate with my worldview and I hope he has as much rust belt appeal as he's trying to generate.
Tulsi Gabbard
Pros: Very progressive platform that is similar to Bernie's, showed a willingness to go against the grain in 2016 when she resigned from the DNC. Strong focus on anti interventionism in foreign policy.
Cons: Questionable history on some issues regarding gay marriage, islam, and foreign policy.
Other thoughts: One of the most underrated candidates and unfairly attacked by the media, probably because she actually is progressive and poses a threat to the status quo. While her past stances are concerning, as an ex-Christian conservative I can understand where she was coming from and believe her shift to the left to be genuine.
Pete Buttigieg
Pros: Strong millennial oriented worldview that is a breath of fresh air in politics, seems very progressive on issues.
Cons: Not a lot of information on the guy, commitment to some issues questionable. Would like more information to get an idea of how he thinks more.
Other thoughts: He's a mayor from Indiana who is one of the youngest candidates running. He's a relative unknown and flying under everyone's radar, but is a candidate that resonates with me somewhat strongly. Endorses the green new deal, medicare for all, etc. Could be a very progressive candidate.
Elizabeth Warren
Pros: Strong anti wall street track record, unique solutions like a wealth tax, workers choosing parts of their board of directors, etc. Perhaps the most progressive "establishment" candidate.
Cons: Commitment to some issues like medicare for all questionable. She emphasizes being a "regulatory capitalist" and seems to like markets a little too much for my tastes. As such, while a very strong, tough candidate in some ways she also seems kinda wishy washy at the same time. She has convictions but such convictions may not necessarily align perfectly with mine. Still she's good enough to be a tier 2 candidate at this time in my opinion.
Other thoughts: covered that in the cons.
Tier 3 candidates
Tier 3 candidates are candidates that I deem as not that progressive, or come off as fake progressives. They're not quite as bad as some of the more tried and true centrists I will mention in the next tier, but their visions and convictions on progressive issues is...well...questionable. Generally speaking these candidates score between 50 and 69 points on my metric. If they make it to the general I would consider voting for them but I would be holding my nose and not be very enthusiastic about them. I would consider voting third party if a third party puts forward a significantly better candidate but it really depends on the circumstances.
Kamala Harris
Pros: She sounds very progressive on paper and has a lot of interesting ideas. her LIFT act is basically a proto UBI. She supports medicare for all in theory. She's basically trying to occupy the same ideological space as Bernie. This is good, I like this.
Cons: She has a troubled history as a prosecutor, and does not have a history of being as progressive as she's portraying herself in this election. She walked back comments on medicare for all recently suggesting she would be okay with a more moderate approach, and while she sounds good, she scores very low in terms of her political convictions on these subjects. Also, the establishment loves her so something must be up there right?
Other thoughts: I really really wanna love Kamala Harris, but I really can't trust her. I'd describe her as a "trap" for progressives. Someone who fakes left, much like Obama, but who would likely govern from the center. I want to like her, but I just can't.
Kirsten Gillibrand
Pros: Much like Harris, has adopted a slew of progressive, Bernie-esque positions on various issues making her seem like a strong contender on paper.
Cons: Much like Harris, does not have a record of being progressive. She used to be a blue dog conservative democrat when representing upstate NY, then became progressive when becoming a senator, and is trying to be more progressive running for president. I don't buy it. I don't trust her. She also has a knack for "bipartisanship" and that kind of rubs me the wrong way. Tells me she won't have the convictions to pass progressive legislation.
Other thoughts: She's basically the same kind of candidate as Harris. Someone who I want to like, and seems progressive when I take them at their word, but also seems like the kind of person to sell out progressive values and compromise with the GOP. I want to like her, but I just can't.
Julian Castro
Pros: Endorses medicare for all on paper, seems progressive on paper. Also seems to have some decent convictions on issues and seems more genuine than some of the fake progressives on here.
Cons: History of being a bit more of a middle of the road democrat. I wouldn't call him a centrist, but I struggle to say he's as far left as I would like. He occupies the same ideological space as Obama and even served in his cabinet.
Other thoughts: I like Castro, but I'm not sure he's progressive enough for me on economic issues. He's not the worst candidate but we can do better.
Sherrod Brown
Pros: He has a certain midwestern charm and has some history and convictions of being progressive
Cons: Nowhere near as progressive as I would like. Does not endorse medicare for all, also campaigns on a "dignity of work" platform which is alienating to me as I believe the solution to midwestern problems is UBI.
Other thoughts: Nothing against the guy, he seems like a decent human being, I just don't believe he's progressive enough for my tastes.
Cory Booker
Pros: He's shifted significantly to the left, embracing medicare for all and other progressive legislation in theory.
Cons: He has a history of being an outright centrist neoliberal and his leftward turn is not believable at all.
Other thoughts:He would've been tier 4 but he's pivoted hard left enough to get enough support for me to include in the "maybe" column.
Amy Klobuchar
Pros: She has a certain level of genuineness to her and isn't an outright terrible candidate in my opinion.
Cons: While not as centrist as some of the centrists in tier 4, she's NOT that progressive.
Other thoughts: She just isn't that appealing to me. Reminds me of another Sherrod Brown style candidate.
Tier 4 candidates
Tier 4 candidates are candidates who are basically tried and true centrists. They generally align with the democratic party but are very neoliberal in their orientations, openly embracing economic conservatism or centrism while being somewhat socially liberal. If one of these candidates is a democratic nominee I will vote third party. They generally score between 30 and 49 points on my metric.
Beto O Rourke
Pros: He's socially liberal and not a terrible person
Cons: Dude is a tried and true "new democrat" who doesn't even try to be that progressive.
Other thoughts: My first impressions of him last year were nice but then as more came out about him, yikes, how about no.
Joe Biden
Pros: Hard to really come up with any. Um...he wasn't a bad vice president I guess?
Cons: Well, the dude told millennials complaining about the economy "give me a break", he bashed UBI to push the whole "work is about dignity" crap. He has a terrible history going back to the 1970s holding positions that in today's climate would be abhorrent on topics like drugs and school busing. If not for being Obama's VP, the dude would be a wash up given the left wing turn the party is doing right now.
Other thoughts: I just don't like him at all. He's basically Hillary 2.0 and the kind of old guard democrat who needs to just go away and let a new generation take over. Your time is passed.
John Delaney
Pros: Socially liberal I guess
Cons: Tried and true centrist running on things like bipartisanship and compromise.
Other thoughts: Not what I want at all
John Hickenlooper
Pros: Socially liberal as fudge
Cons: Another outspoken centrist candidate. No thanks.
Other thoughts: I mean, really, at least people like Booker, Harris, and Gillibrand have the sense to at least try to run to the left. Even if it's insincere it means something to me. These centrists are just no gos.
Howard Schultz
Pros: Socially liberal
Cons: basically a republican who is butthurt the party is moving left and fears paying more taxes.
Other thoughts: The guy is the CEO of Starbucks and is mulling a third party run, claiming the party is moving too far left. He has gotten ire from democrats and anti establishment progressives alike, fearing he will split the vote. While i have no problems with third candidates running their convictions and splitting the vote, the dude is just a scummy billionaire who wants his taxes lowered. Screw this guy.
Tier 5 Candidates
These candidates aren't democrats. Most democrats can easily break the 30 point threshold simply for being for social leftism and having SOME convictions there. If you score below 30, you're either a republican or maybe a libertarian.
Donald Trump
Pros: None really. But if I had to say something I like his protectionism and opposition to free trade agreements in theory I guess.
Cons: Everything. The dude is a puppet republican who is passing their agenda on economics and social issues in particular. And on foreign policy he's an unmitigated disaster. The dude has the temperament of a manchild and is completely unqualified to be president. I know I'm not releasing individual scores due to the fluctuating nature of my metric and my impressions of candidates yet, but let's be honest, the guy is currently sitting in the single digits on my metric.
Other thoughts: All I can hope for is the country takes a good hard look at conservatism and the republicans in this country and takes a hard shift left. I hope tier 4 candidates start representing the republican party. I hope to see the democrats become more progressive. I hope the democrat who will likely win in 2020 goes for the jugular as far as the GOP and what it stands for goes and says "THIS CRAP DOESN'T WORK", rejecting a decades long legacy of screwing our country up, and that they don't end up being some lame tier 4 or even wishy washy candidate who tries to "heal" the country via bipartisanship. GO. FOR. THE. IDEOLOGICAL. JUGULAR. It's the perfect chance. This guy is a failure of a president, and like FDR blamed Hoover and Reagan blamed Carter for the ideological failures of the other party, I hope the next president lays the broken legacy of conservatism at Trump's feet.
Overall
We have a very diverse set of candidates running this time. There are many candidates out there I like. There are many candidates I DON'T like. All in all, I have to say I am loving the shift left the democratic party seems to be taking. I just hope whomever gets into office has the vision and convictions to make the country a better place and doesn't turn into Clinton 2.0. As we know some of those candidates talk like a progressive but don't walk like one. We will have to see how things go. Right now I would say if I had to choose a candidate to endorse, it would be Bernie Sanders obviously. Although any tier 2 candidate would do in my opinion. I'm especially developing an affinity for and keeping my eye on Andrew Yang, but I'm open to many options. Again, we will have to see how this unfolds.
Monday, February 4, 2019
The art of manufacturing consent: 2019 edition
So, we often hear people on the far left say that politics is "rigged". I wrote about this in 2016, and explained how rigging doesn't mean that the ballot boxes are rigged, but that the narratives favoring and opposing certain candidates is rigged. You don't rig stuff in an explicit way that causes (most) people to question the legitimacy of the whole process, you do it in subtle ways that make people think that the election was fair. But it was them who was influenced, not the voter.
We are already seeing this for the 2020 primaries. While the field is MUCH improved over 2016, I can't express how happy at the diverse set of candidates we have this time relative to last time, the media is already playing favorites for who to choose. The most progressive candidates are being hammered with negative press, from Bernie having some sex scandals on his campaign he knew nothing about, to people harping on him for simply being too old and white, to Tulsi Gabbard being labeled the candidate Russia allegedly wants to win (because being an anti interventionist automatically means you're pro Russia right?). When it comes to the most progressive candidates, every flaw is hammered upon. All of their strengths are ignored. All of their weaknesses are emphasized. You will hear about this scandal, that scandal, this thing they did in their past, that thing they did in their past. But you won't see them treated as a possible winner.
CNN recently ranked the candidates by who they thought would win and the Young Turks did a good job ripping them to shreds for it. Sanders is second in the polls, but was treated as 6th place, while Kamala Harris like 4th or 5th and she was treated as the 'frontrunner." They then gave her her own town hall, and donated to her campaign. Now suddenly she jumped up to 18% and 2nd place in the polling behind Biden.
This brings me to my next point. The media, in deciding Kamala Harris was the frontrunner, basically created a self fulfilling propehecy. Your average person isn't paying close attention to 2020 politics yet. But the establishment is, and they picked their favorite. So they give her her own town hall, parade her around on national tv, have her say Bernie-eqsue things without the record or the resolve to back it up, and the people, not knowing any better, eat it up. So now tons of people like Harris, she scores higher than Bernie, and she might win the nomination at the rate things are going.This is manufacturing consent. if they paraded Bernie around, he would be the frontrunner. But they don't like Bernie, because he's genuine and represents a real threat to the power of the elites. So they attack the most progressive candidates and push someone who sounds good but isn't as good looking at their records.
This is how elections are rigged. It isn't about ballot box stuffing. It's about manipulating public perception in a one sided way to get them to a pre arranged conclusion, and then act on it. Elections are rigged by the owners of the propaganda machines picking winners and losers that fit their interests and convincing the unknowing public that they are the best candidate. They're not really the best, objectively speaking. They just appear to be because that's how the media shapes perception around them. Be wary of this going into this election cycle, and get your news from not just multiple sources, but multiple kinds of sources, so that you can get a wide variety of views from different people. Also, don't just rely on corporate media, listen to anti establishment podcasts and youtube channels too. Sometimes these guys are better than the corporate guys, depending on the source in question. Make up your own mind. Don't just accept something because CNN or MSNBC or even I say it. Be a skeptic, analyze the evidence, make up your own mind. Don't let yourself be controlled. It's the only way you'll get to the real truth.
We are already seeing this for the 2020 primaries. While the field is MUCH improved over 2016, I can't express how happy at the diverse set of candidates we have this time relative to last time, the media is already playing favorites for who to choose. The most progressive candidates are being hammered with negative press, from Bernie having some sex scandals on his campaign he knew nothing about, to people harping on him for simply being too old and white, to Tulsi Gabbard being labeled the candidate Russia allegedly wants to win (because being an anti interventionist automatically means you're pro Russia right?). When it comes to the most progressive candidates, every flaw is hammered upon. All of their strengths are ignored. All of their weaknesses are emphasized. You will hear about this scandal, that scandal, this thing they did in their past, that thing they did in their past. But you won't see them treated as a possible winner.
CNN recently ranked the candidates by who they thought would win and the Young Turks did a good job ripping them to shreds for it. Sanders is second in the polls, but was treated as 6th place, while Kamala Harris like 4th or 5th and she was treated as the 'frontrunner." They then gave her her own town hall, and donated to her campaign. Now suddenly she jumped up to 18% and 2nd place in the polling behind Biden.
This brings me to my next point. The media, in deciding Kamala Harris was the frontrunner, basically created a self fulfilling propehecy. Your average person isn't paying close attention to 2020 politics yet. But the establishment is, and they picked their favorite. So they give her her own town hall, parade her around on national tv, have her say Bernie-eqsue things without the record or the resolve to back it up, and the people, not knowing any better, eat it up. So now tons of people like Harris, she scores higher than Bernie, and she might win the nomination at the rate things are going.This is manufacturing consent. if they paraded Bernie around, he would be the frontrunner. But they don't like Bernie, because he's genuine and represents a real threat to the power of the elites. So they attack the most progressive candidates and push someone who sounds good but isn't as good looking at their records.
This is how elections are rigged. It isn't about ballot box stuffing. It's about manipulating public perception in a one sided way to get them to a pre arranged conclusion, and then act on it. Elections are rigged by the owners of the propaganda machines picking winners and losers that fit their interests and convincing the unknowing public that they are the best candidate. They're not really the best, objectively speaking. They just appear to be because that's how the media shapes perception around them. Be wary of this going into this election cycle, and get your news from not just multiple sources, but multiple kinds of sources, so that you can get a wide variety of views from different people. Also, don't just rely on corporate media, listen to anti establishment podcasts and youtube channels too. Sometimes these guys are better than the corporate guys, depending on the source in question. Make up your own mind. Don't just accept something because CNN or MSNBC or even I say it. Be a skeptic, analyze the evidence, make up your own mind. Don't let yourself be controlled. It's the only way you'll get to the real truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)