Here’s a key section:

Debt reduction has to be about renewal and prosperity, not pain and sacrifice.

That means deficit reduction has to be embedded in policies that produce growth. Michael Graetz of Columbia University has proposed replacing the current awful tax code with a value-added tax of 14 percent, cuts in the corporate tax rate, and a fair income tax with two simple brackets kicking in over $100,000. Many people have ideas to streamline the welfare state. The message has to be: we can afford to have a thick safety net, if it is more efficient.

The tax ideas are clearly compatible with a basic income, and could thereby be made even simpler. More relevant is “Many people have ideas to streamline the welfare state.” The most efficient “thick” safety net would be a basic income.

Set some amount, enough for a frugal person to manage food and shelter, at least, and give that to everyone, the homeless, middle class readers of this blog, Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey. No means testing. Minimal bureaucracy. Integrated with the tax code. Direct deposit into bank accounts. The ultimate social safety net and the ultimate in simplicity and efficiency.

Here is Brooks complete column. Also worth reading, and considering seriously, is his link in the excerpt above to more specifics about taxes.

As you can see, the main focus of Brooks’ column is deficit reduction — he is an avowed conservative, after all — and the concluding section focuses specifically on the challenge of gaining political cover for his ideas. Here, too, basic income provides an answer.

Income security for all is a plan that can attract support from across the political spectrum, from “tea party patriots” to those the tea partiers denounce as socialists to those who really are socialists.

It’ll be exciting when these ideas are more widely debated. That could happen this year, and would if I had a platform as broad and sturdy as Brooks. In addition to his semi-weekly columns in the New York Times, he’s a regular guest on NPR, PBS, and other mainstream media. All I have is this blog. Even so, I expect a real, massive, effective, and ultimately successful campaign within the next five years.

I discuss these ideas in more detail in Peaceful, Positive Revolution: Economic Security for Every American.

Please help spread the word.

Steven Shafarman

Politicians are talking about paygo, and President Obama endorsed the concept a few days ago. Why not? It purportedly worked in the 90s, when President Clinton and the Republican Congress cut government spending and produced a budget surplus.

It’s a simple rule: New spending legislation must include the cuts to pay for it. Pay as you go.

Obama and the Democrats are endorsing it now in response to Republican warnings about the budget deficit. Republicans want to blame Obama and the Democrats for the deficits, ignoring the fact that most of the red ink spilled on their watch, while they controlled Congress with the Bush administration, cutting taxes and launching the war in Iraq.

For some help in cutting through the spin and fear tactics, here’s a very good article from a truly nonpartisan source, Public Agenda.

Paygo: Useful, but Not Nearly Enough

A direct link to an article it recommends,

America’s Sea of Red Ink Was Years in the Making, is here.

For some “truly terrifying data about the real state of the U.S. economy” (that’s the subtitle), here’s a piece from Slate that has some very good short tables.

All three articles conclude that radical reforms are necessary.

The best way to start, in my view, is with income security for all.

In the 1960s, guaranteed income was a mainstream, moderate idea. Martin Luther King called for it in his last book, and a plan to provide it passed the House of Representatives by two-to-one, but was blocked in the Senate. Proponents including leading economists from the left and the right.

The updated idea is to set some amount, say $1,000 a month, and provide that to every adult citizen. It should be enough for food and shelter, but just enough, so people still have strong incentives to work and earn.

Once that is in place, it will be a lot easier to cut government programs. Everyone will have a basic income, so we’ll be able to cut individual welfare programs. Everyone who’s unemployed or underemployed will be able to manage while they find or create jobs for themselves, so we’ll be able to cut corporate welfare programs that subsidize employers. Cut individual welfare, perhaps eliminating whole programs and agencies. Cut corporate welfare bailouts, subsidies, tax credits, and such. That’s how we pay for the basic income, Citizen Dividends.

Give the same amount to everyone – the hungry and homeless, the middle class, Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey – and we create a baseline of economic justice and economic equality. It will be a lot easier for us to work together as We the People to demand that our elected officials enact the necessary reforms. That includes the necessary reforms of our tax code.

The complete plan, the idea, the benefits, and how we can make it happen, is in Peaceful, Positive Revolution,.

Additional information is on the home page and elsewhere on this web site, www.IncomeSecurityForAll.org.

Please comment on this blog and help spread the word.

Steven Shafarman

When people hear about Citizen Dividends, they often agree with the concept – stop the bailouts, give money directly to people, promote the general welfare only – while asking some obvious questions: How are we going to pay for it? How can we afford to give every adult citizen $1,000 a month (or $800 or $1200, to be determined)?

Good questions, especially with massive federal budget deficits. The short answer: We pay for it by cutting government programs that become superfluous. Start with individual welfare programs and corporate welfare. There’s a lot of both in $3.4 trillion.

Every adult citizen will have an income, guaranteed, for food and shelter at least. So it will make sense to cut or eliminate programs that provide for the poor and homeless. That includes food stamps, temporary aid to needy families, housing programs, and much more. We’ll be able to cut those programs at the local, state, and federal level. Current programs are conditional, and therefore highly bureaucratic and costly to administer. The basic income is unconditional, so administrative costs will be extremely low.

Corporate welfare includes all of the bailouts to Wall Street – several trillion dollars in the past year, counting the money released by the Federal Reserve Board. (Though such bailouts will, we hope, not be needed in the future.)

More common and recurring corporate welfare is government spending to create jobs. Politicians and pundits talk about “creating jobs” all the time. Right? Most elected officials seem to believe their primary task in office is to create jobs. Just about everything they do, every time they spend our money, especially these days during the recession, “creating jobs” is what they talk about. We hear that from Democrats and Republicans, from Obama, members of Congress, governors, state legislators, and local officials

Stop for a moment. Think about it. With Citizen Dividends, everyone will have an income for food and shelter. Everyone who’s unemployed or underemployed will be able to provide for themselves while they find or create jobs for themselves. People won’t expect or depend on government to find or create jobs for them.

The federal budget is $3.4 trillion. How much of that spending is individual welfare? How much is corporate welfare and other job programs? A lot of that spending is hidden, most notably corporate welfare in the military budget. Politicians routinely vote for spending, weapons for example, that military experts don’t even want, always with some statements about “jobs.”

Let’s not forget state and local spending, individual welfare and corporate welfare.

We can afford Citizen Dividends. The total cost may be $2 trillion or more, but it could all be paid for through cutting or eliminating other programs. As we debate those cuts, Democrats are likely to insist on protecting the poor and homeless, ensuring that none are harmed. Conservative Republicans and Libertarians might call for cutting and eliminating programs immediately. Lots of compromises will be necessary, but at least we’ll be moving forward.

Real change, not just cosmetics, a Peaceful, Positive Revolution.

Steven Shafarman

Give us the money. We’ll stimulate economic activity by our spending. We’ll make mortgage payments, ending the foreclosure crisis. We’ll buy houses and strengthen housing markets. We’ll also save money, and thus help recapitalize banks. That’s the rapid, reliable, responsible way to end the recession — give the money to us.

A question people commonly ask when they first hear about Citizen Dividends is: How will we pay for it? Where will the money come from?

One possible answer — for the short-term, in any case — is on the front page of today’s Washington Post:

The central bank, effectively, will print more money to pay for the purchases.

Here’s the complete Post story.

In the longer term, we’ll pay for it by cutting government programs that become superfluous, starting with the bailouts and handouts to big corporations, including AIG and the banks. There will no longer be any rationale for corporate welfare to create jobs, because everyone will have an income for food and shelter while they find or create their own jobs. We’ll also be able to cut most individual welfare programs, federal, state, and local.

Indeed, the long-term is when we’ll really be grateful to have Citizen Dividends. Sooner or later our federal government is going to cut spending and start balancing its budget. That’ll be a lot easier politically when we’re united by Citizen Dividends. And it’ll be a lot more just, humane, and sustainable.

Steven Shafarman

Those are fairly obvious, though often not asked, and the answers typically come in a cloud of conventional assumptions and rhetoric.

Here’s a fourth: Would that still make sense if we had Citizen Dividends, a guaranteed basic income for every adult citizen?

“No” is the answer in many cases. If every adult citizen had a basic income, say $1,000 a month, a lot of government spending would become unnecessary. No more bailouts of banks and other big corporations. Not so much value or meaning to the talk about “stimulating the economy” and “creating jobs.”

Every adult American, employed or unemployed, will be able to afford food and shelter. Those who are unemployed will be able to manage while they find or create jobs for themselves. Our government will promote the general welfare only, not the special welfare of any specific individual, group, region, business, or industry. That’s what most items in the government’s budget actually do: provide some special welfare, promote some special interest.

Moreover, it is absolutely true and very well documented that the real engine for creating jobs and stimulating economic growth is small business. Small businesses are the engine for innovation and increasing productive. Small businesses, not big ones, ought to get government support, if government is going to provide any sort of support, tax credits, subsidies, or other assistance.

The best way for government to support small businesses is through Citizen Dividends. Individual citizens will invest their money and their time to start businesses. That, after all, is a core component of the American dream, to own your own business and be your own boss. Citizen Dividends will make it possible for everyone who shares that goal to pursue it. This is one way government can support all small businesses, instead of only some, picking winners and losers. Thus, this is an approach that conservatives ought to embrace.

Conservatives ought to embrace this idea, also, as a way to mobilize popular support for cutting government. If conservatives want validation for these assertions, they can find it in Milton Friedman’s books Capitalism and Freedom and Free to Choose, both of which called for a negative income tax. This is by far the most efficient, most cost-effective, most reliable, and most ethical way to help the poor. It’s truly the conservative means to achieve liberal ends.

Please help spread the word.

Steven Shafarman