Over the past week we’ve seen some possible breakthrough steps toward a basic income. Did you miss that news? Not surprising, because it’s been buried in news reports about the Copenhagen Climate talks.

Sen. Maria Cantwell from Washington is introducing a bill calling for “cap and dividend” — a cap on emissions, with permits being auctioned off and the revenue distributed to American citizens. Here’s a quote from a McLatchy News story:

Under her bill, the federal government would auction off carbon shares to the nation’s 2,000 or so fuel producers like coal and oil companies. Every two years, the shares would expire and, over the years, the U.S. government would offer fewer and fewer shares for sale as a way to reduce carbon consumption.

Seventy-five percent of the money raised would be rebated directly to U.S. citizens. Cantwell’s office estimated that an average family of four would receive a total of about $1,100 a year in the form of tax-free monthly checks.

An important point is that the proposal seems to have some bipartisan support in the Senate, and even support from oil companies. The complete story, with the title “New Proposal Would Pay Americans a Percent of Carbon Permits” is here.

An even stronger version of this idea was in the New York Times a few days earlier. James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, had a an op-ed denouncing the Democratic party’ “cap and trade” plan, and calling instead for “fee and dividend.” It’s an idea Hansen has advocated for some time, and that I’ve written about before.

Here’s an excerpt from Hansen’s op-ed:

Under this approach, a gradually rising carbon fee would be collected at the mine or port of entry for each fossil fuel (coal, oil and gas). The fee would be uniform, a certain number of dollars per ton of carbon dioxide in the fuel. The public would not directly pay any fee, but the price of goods would rise in proportion to how much carbon-emitting fuel is used in their production.All of the collected fees would then be distributed to the public. Prudent people would use their dividend wisely, adjusting their lifestyle, choice of vehicle and so on. Those who do better than average in choosing less-polluting goods would receive more in the dividend than they pay in added costs.

For example, when the fee reached $115 per ton of carbon dioxide it would add $1 per gallon to the price of gasoline and 5 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour to the price of electricity. Given the amount of oil, gas and coal used in the United States in 2007, that carbon fee would yield about $600 billion per year. The resulting dividend for each adult American would be as much as $3,000 per year.

The complete piece, with the title “Cap and Fade” is here.

Fee and dividend, cap and dividend, tax and dividend — whatever you call it, and whatever the size of the dividends — this is the most direct and politically-feasible way to move toward a basic income in the United States.

The idea is so simple and powerful.  Tax fossil fuel consumption and redistribute the revenues on a per capita basis. The net effects would reduce consumption and pollution and climate change overall, while promoting social justice and a stronger democracy.  I discuss this in more detail in my book, Peaceful, Positive Revolution: Economic Security for Every American.

Steven Shafarman

Here’s the opening paragraph of an op-ed piece in today’s Washington Post:

Americans should look carefully at the anti-politician, anti-government mood exhibited in California this week. Just as Proposition 13 and the anti-tax movement of 1978 were the forerunners of the Reagan presidential victory, so the results of Tuesday’s vote are a harbinger of things to come.

The complete piece is here. The author is Newt Gingrich.

The column ends on a note I consider extremely hopeful, though it fails completely in a most important way.  The future cannot be built on a platform of “anti”. We have to get past the anti-tax, anti-government, anti-politician sentiments of the moment. Anger motivates, but is not enough to build a movement and bring real change.

If people are serious about shrinking government, disciplining elected officials, and taking our government back from the special interests – the stated goals of Gingrich and so many others – they ought to endorse income security for all.

A few sentences from Gingrich’s column illustrate the anger:

“The states with huge government machines … have become castles of corruption, favoritism and wastefulness.”

“Elections have become so rigged by big money and clever incumbents that the process of self-government is threatened.”

“The special interests that own the legislators in both parties have been exploiting New York for two generations.”

“Watch the arrogance of the elites in Washington as they impose their costs and special deals on the American people.”

And here’s the final paragraph:

In the great tradition of political movements rising against arrogant, corrupt elites, there will soon be a party of people rooting out the party of government. This party may be Republican; it may be Democratic; in some states it may be a third party. The politicians have been warned.

That new or renewed party will be built on a promise of income security for all. That’s the only platform sturdy enough. The basic ideas are on the home page of this web site, IncomeSecurityForAll.org.

The complete proposal, the benefits, and the plan to make it happen is in my book, Peaceful, Positive Revolution,.

Think about it: We can give every adult citizen a basic income of, say, $1,000 a month.

The amount should be enough so the poor and unemployed can afford food and shelter, at least. But we give it everyone, even Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey, to create a baseline of economic justice and economic equality.

We pay for it by ending the bailouts and subsidies, and cutting government programs that become superfluous. With this basic income, which I call Citizen Dividends, there will no longer be any rationale for individual welfare or corporate welfare. We’ll be able to cut or eliminate hundreds of federal, state, and local government programs. Every citizen will have an income independent of those programs and independent of any job.

This is a platform that can appeal to Democrats and Republicans who sincerely want to take their parties back from the special interests. It can also appeal to Greens, Libertarians, and independent candidates who seek to overthrow the Democrats and Republicans.

This is actually not such a radical idea. Earlier versions of guaranteed income were mainstream ideas in the 1960s, supported by moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans, Martin Luther King Jr., and more than 1,200 economists from across the political spectrum. Earlier proposals for income security go back to Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine.

Please explore the web site, read the book, and help spread the word.

This will happen when enough of us demand it, when We the People demand it.

Steven Shafarman

If anyone still doubts the power of viral social marketing, there’s a nice example in today’s New York Times, and it relates directly to several aspects of income security for all. The Times story is about a video that was released on the Internet in December 2007, and is now being used in classrooms around the country and elsewhere, and stirring up lots of controversy.

The video is called “The Story of Stuff,” and I first watched it many months ago. Here’s the Times story. Here’s a direct link to the video.

The Times piece discusses the political aspects of the video, and notes that it does not engage in any specific issue advocacy. The video is not calling for political change, though it is clearly seeking to educate, inspire, and motivate social and cultural transformation. Currently, however, major obstacles to that transformation are the paralysis of our political system and the power of the special interests that profit from the status quo.

When the basic “stuff” for survival, an income for food and shelter at least, is guaranteed and provided to everyone, it will be a lot easier for everyone to be more responsible for our social, economic, and political acts. We can do that while preserving and strengthening free markets and individual liberties.

What we need to achieve all this, it seems, is a good viral video that presents income security for all.

Consider this a call for volunteers, suggestions, and contributions.

To learn more about these ideas, visit the home page and other material on this web site, www.IncomeSecurityForAll.org.

You can read the complete plan, the idea and how we can implement it, in Peaceful, Positive Revolution, which is available from Tendril Press.

I hope you’ll also comment on this blog. And please help spread the word.

Steven Shafarman

As you’d expect, there’s a lot of economic anxiety in the country, spanning every income category. Sixty-four percent of Americans believe there are more risks that endanger their standards of living today than in their parents’ time.

…

When asked what could best enhance income security, half of all Americans said it was a matter of individual responsibility, 19 percent said government regulations like increasing the minimum wage were most effective and 15 percent said government programs.

…

My friend Ron Brownstein of The National Journal looks at the data and concludes that while Americans are still skeptical of government, they are open to rethinking what the social safety net should look like in the 21st century.

Americans appear to be looking for something like Citizen Dividends — an absolute personal and social safety net, plus greater individual liberty and personal responsibility.

I’m eager to read the complete column, and may post something about it tomorrow.

Steven Shafarman

If those protesters sincerely seek to cut government, they ought to endorse Citizen Dividends.

When every citizen has a guaranteed basic income, hundreds of programs, even whole agencies and departments, will become unnecessary.

No more bailouts for Wall Street. No more subsidies to big corporations. We’ll be able to cut or eliminate various welfare programs for individuals – without harming current beneficiaries of those programs. This is a conservative, anti-government approach that ought to appeal equally to liberals.

The anti-tax, anti-government protesters won’t get very far unless they also present some specific positive demand. They have to be for something, not just against stuff. Getting them to endorse Citizen Dividends won’t be easy, because of the knee-jerk objection that it’s a big government program, but it’s important to try. Those who are serious about cutting government will, let us hope, see that this one program will let us eliminate hundreds of others. Plus, this one program, because it will be so big and universal, will be much more transparent and accountable than the hundreds of smaller programs it replaces. If they really want to cut government, this is the way to do it.

A second set of knee-jerk objections is that some of the money will go to the poor and undeserving, to the lazy, alcoholics, drug addicts. One answer is that it’s a matter of human decency and dignity to care for everyone. Read the Bible, old Testament or new. When everyone has an income for food and shelter at least, and that income is guaranteed and unconditional, it will be a lot easier to address people’s psychological and spiritual needs.

The next time there are anti-tax protests, it would be good to attend, even if they don’t serve any tea, and to use that opportunity to encourage the protesters to support basic income.

Steven Shafarman

The title on their web site is “Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism.” Citizen Dividends will be the best of both. Everyone will have the freedom of a free market society, and the absolute safety net of socialism. The benefits of both for the very rich and the very poor, and the rest of us, as well.

The details of the Rasmussen poll suggest that a majority will endorse this synthesis. Plus, the poll shows that people are more likely today than a few years ago to doubt and question capitalism.

Here’s a link to the Rasumussen Reports site.

A story about the poll was posted on the progressive site CommonDreams.org, and that link is here.

A huge problem with the poll is that the researchers didn’t define either capitalism or socialism. Many Americans use “socialism” to describe Social Security and just about every program to help ordinary people or promote common interests. Others among us use that label only when talking about state-owned businesses.

With “capitalism,” some people use it as a synonym for “free market economy,” but fail or refuse to consider the different forms that market economies take. In America today, as the financial crisis and government response to it clearly indicate, some very big corporations, finance corporations in particular, are “too big to fail.” The very big get special protections from government, protections that are never available to smaller companies.

A few noteworthy paragraphs from the Rasmussen site:

Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.

…

It is interesting to compare the new results to an earlier survey in which 70% of Americans prefer a free-market economy. The fact that a “free-market economy” attracts substantially more support than “capitalism” may suggest some skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today relies on free markets.

Other survey data supports that notion. Rather than seeing large corporations as committed to free markets, two-out-of-three Americans believe that big government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.

[The above was posted on April 10, 2009. In an April 15 column in the Washington Post, Harold Meyerson reviewed the Rasmusson data and presented some compatible insights. Here.

Steven Shafarman