I attended the big rally they organized on the mall in Washington DC last September. I listened to the speakers and talked with attendees. I was and continue to be disappointed by the absence of specific policy proposals. Anger is not enough to build a movement that makes a real positive contribution.

Anger, moreover, is easily manipulated to serve special interests. Big special interests that are clearly seeking to exploit Tea Party anger include the Republican Party, several DC-based nonprofit organizations, and Fox news. Other special interests are more obscured, and perhaps more likely to profit. They include Wall Street, the insurance industry, weapons contractors, and the other big corporations and industries that are profiting from government paralysis.

For Tea Party activists who want to make history in a positive, meaningful way, I’ll offer some ideas toward the end of this blog post.

The Coffee Party is something I first learned about two days ago, Friday February 26, when I read a story in the Washington Post. It started with an idea from a filmmaker who lives in Silver Spring MD, who posted something on her Facebook page and made a short video which she posted on You Tube. The idea is simple: We have to get beyond the anger and engage in civil discourse about how to make our government more effective, efficient, and accountable.

Annabel Park’s Facebook friends responded promptly and enthusiastically, and a new movement is being born. The Coffee Party now has a website, with the video on the home page, and people are organizing meetings and events around the country. I attended their first meeting in Washington DC yesterday. About 40 people were there, including Annabel, and we took a picture of the group that should be posted on their web page. Some of the participants volunteered to commit 10 or 20 hours a week to the cause.

Here’s my comment from their Facebook fan page:

“I am a citizen and an active participant in We the People.” The Coffee Party is an opportunity for every American to make such a declaration.
Let’s talk with our neighbors, respectfully, with civility, about what we want for America and from our government. Effective, accountable democratic government is impossible without civil discourse.

It’s not possible to introduce new ideas into the political discourse, or to revive forgotten but still important ideas, when there is no civil discourse, when there is only anger and shouting and talking past one another.

The Coffee Party people are, wisely in my opinion, committed to civil discourse first, and therefore deferring discussions of specific policies. I hope they will eventually see the logic and power of reviving the guaranteed basic income ideas that are the theme of this website and my book, Peaceful, Positive Revolution.

Tea Party activists — those who are sincerely committed to creating a smaller, more accountable government, with lower taxes — also ought to endorse some form of basic income.  Basic income, Citizen Dividends, will make a lot of government programs superfluous, including individual welfare and corporate welfare. Every American will have a guaranteed income for food and shelter, at least, and therefore less reason to expect or demand additional aid from government. Government will be out of the business of trying to create jobs. We the People will be able to demand and get a government that is much smaller  and more accountable.

Steven Shafarman

Over the past few months I’ve realized that the campaign for income security for all is unlikely to gain any traction for a few more years. That might be different, probably would be very different, if I had millions of dollars to put into the campaign. Or if I had a TV network backing me, the way Fox News promotes the Tea Party movement. If you know anyone who has millions of dollars, or even thousands, or a few hundred, or five or ten, or has a TV network, please respond promptly and let’s get to work.

It’s February 26, 2010. Congress is polarized and paralyzed, yesterday was the big health care summit between President Obama and leading members of Congress, the Tea Party movement is brewing up increasing anger at Obama and everything he’s doing, and economic conditions continue to be extremely precarious for most Americans. Even so, I’m predicting that Obama will be reelected in 2012 by a comfortable margin. I base that on the fact that neither the Tea Party movement nor the Republican Party is presenting any concrete, specific policies that can bring about the fundamental changes people desire.

After the 2012 election is when I expect there to be a real opening for these ideas. Over the next few years,  I will continue to post occasionally, perhaps often, though in a different voice than before. As you might already notice, this post is very different than previous pieces. My plan is to make this blog somewhat more personal. Until now, I’ve avoided the word “I,” choosing to stay in the background while maintaining a focus on the issue of income security. My goal and practice, which was quite valuable to me and some other people, was to present ideas that anyone might take up and make his or her own.

Now I intend to be more public. I hope you’ll keep reading. Perhaps the new style, as it evolves, will attract more readers, and more donations, and that’s certainly one way to encourage me to post more. I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about the strategy for 2014 and 2016, and look forward to sharing those ideas with you.

Steven Shafarman

More information is at www.usbig.net and at http://bigmontreal.wordpress.com/

2. BIEN, the Basic Income Earth Network, will be holding its next Congress in Sao Paulo Brazil July 1-2. President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva will address the Congress, which is likely to attract a great deal of attention from people around the world.

The theme is Basic Income as an Instrument for Justice and Peace. Perhaps we’ll meet there, as well.

More information is at http://www.bien2010brasil.com/

The irony is that Herbert seems to have forgotten King’s emphasis on guaranteed income in addition to jobs. Here are the last few paragraphs.

Speaking about one of his many antipoverty initiatives, Dr. King told Look magazine in 1968: “We called our demonstration a campaign for jobs and income because we felt that the economic question was the most crucial that black people, and poor people generally, were confronting.”

That was then. The loudest voices against poverty and economic injustice of all kinds have long since faded. The government, reclining comfortably on a vast cushion of campaign contributions, has allied itself with big business and the big banks against the interests of ordinary Americans. Millions upon millions of families are suffering, but mostly in silence.

We honor Dr. King with a national holiday, but his long campaign for economic justice has been all but forgotten.

Here’s Herbert’s complete piece.

Guaranteed income is necessary. That’s the only way to ensure dignity for all. There will never be enough jobs for everyone because in most situations employers profit by cutting jobs, not creating them. I present that logic in more detail in Peaceful, Positive Revolution: Economic Security for Every American.

Steven Shafarman

Most Americans do not know of Dr. King’s strong endorsement of guaranteed income, and on this day when we commemorate his birth most of the invocations of his life ignore that aspect of his legacy. An internet search on”Martin Luther King” and “guaranteed income” yields a few blog posts and a couple of stories in fairly small publications.

There were several more prominent articles that talked about his campaign to end poverty, though none of them said anything specific about guaranteed income. Here are a two examples by writers who mention his book, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? and must therefore know about the guaranteed income, though they don’t mention it.

A piece by Dedrick Muhammad in CommonDreams.org.

A piece by Sam Fulwood in the online magazine The Root.

Here’s a piece that has a nice title, “Martin Luther King’s other dream: Economic justice for all.” It’s by John Gehring and is on the Washington Post website, but nothing specific about King’s book or guaranteed income.

Perhaps next year this aspect of King’s legacy will receive more attention.

Steven Shafarman

Following is a link to a talk he gave in November 2009 in London. After opening with a somewhat general discussion of modern capitalism, particularly the fact that consuming is now a lifestyle activity, he discusses basic income. That part of the talk is great. Zizek mentions developments in Brazil, South Africa, and Europe, and then discusses the work of Philippe Van Parijs, who’s cited in several places at www.IncomeSecurityForAll.org.

This mostly theoretical talk, which is increasingly abstract after the section on basic income, was featured on New Year’s Day on a popular progressive political website, CommonDreams.org. The basic income idea is spreading, even in the United States.

After that section of the talk, Zizek returns to his theme of the contradictions in post-1968 capitalism, using the work of a contemporary German philosopher, Peter Sloterdijk (who I had not previously heard of). Sloterdijk and Zizek seem to believe that the modern social welfare state, with its taxes, infrastructure, rule of law, and so on, must be preserved by the good works of the rich, people such as Bill Gates and George Soros.

Zizek then states that he agrees most with some ideas from Oscar Wilde’s “The Soul of Modern Man Under Socialism,” specifically the notion that charity degrades and demoralizes and merely prolongs the contradictions and injustices of capitalism.

Thus, asserting that basic income is a form of charity that will leave people envious and demoralized, Zizek concludes that it’s an attractive idea but can’t work. His argument reflects three misconceptions about basic income. First, he seems to think that the basic income is little more than taxing the rich to subsidize the poor, and would therefore prolong or increase envy, greed, and demoralization. He thus ignores the fact that the rich will benefit enormously from basic income, because they will have greater security and a more stable and sustainable society, along with opportunities to become even richer.

Second, the funds don’t have to come from taxing income and labor. Society can charge some rent or fees on what people take from nature and the community. Such takings include oil, land, timber, minerals, electromagnetic spectrum, and so on. The opening section of Zizek’s talk suggests that he ought to be sympathetic to this point. This is the idea of carbon fee and dividend that I’ve posted about a few times in recent weeks, and the idea of Thomas Paine, Henry George, and other people who are discussed elsewhere on this site.

Finally, he seems to view basic income only as a form of charity. It’s not. Instead, it would ensure that everyone can participate as citizens within the economic, social, and political activities of the modern state. It would be transformative in just the ways Zizek and Wilde appear to desire.

I hope Zizek continues to read and think about basic income, and to spread the word. His criticisms, particularly because of their contradictions and blind spots, mostly serve our interests.

The whole tape is 29:24.

Here’s the link:

http://vimeo.com/8073858

(I tried to upload the video so you could view it here, but had some trouble with that. Sorry.)

Steven Shafarman

Here’s a piece by Peter Barnes that a friend sent me: http://www.grist.org/article/why-cantwell-collins-is-best-and-how-it-just-might-win

At the bottom of that one are links to several other articles.

As I’ve written several times, any dividend from oil caps or fees or taxes or royalties can be a real step toward a basic income. It will be interesting to follow this debate as it moves forward.

Steven Shafarman

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

Namibia, in southwest Africa, is one of the poorest countries in the world, with a high rate of AIDS and many of its 2.1 million people living on less than $1 a day. But it may be leading the world in showing a way to end hunger and poverty.

The German magazine Der Spiegel has an article about the remarkable successes of a Basic Income Grant experiment in the village of Otjivero. I’ve been following the program since shortly after it began in January 2008, and I contributed money to help fund it. It’s scheduled to run through the end of this year, and the organizers hope it will become a model for the nation, the continent, and the world.

As the article describes, moreover, the program is doing much more than ending hunger and poverty. There have been dramatic improvements in health outcomes, school attendance, reduced crime and alcoholism, and a significant increase in entrepreneurial activity and employment.

This is one of the most hopeful and important breakthroughs in the world today, though it has not been reported by any American news outlet (there have been earlier stories in the BBC and AllAfrica.com). Please circulate this news widely.

This is how our government ought to be investing our foreign aid dollars, and what the Gates Foundation, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and other aid agencies and charities ought to be supporting. They should pay for expanding the Otjivero program to the whole country — and could do so for less money than they are currently spending on piecemeal programs.

The Der Spiegel article is here. (It’s in three parts: Part one is “How a Basic Income Program Saved a Namibian Village. Part two is “A Village of Entrepreneurs.” Part three is “‘I’m Doing Very Well.’”)

The Namibia pilot program was organized by a coalition of church, labor, health, and social justice organizations. The coalition’s web site has a good description of the program and its advantages compared with conventional aid programs reasons, here.

The coalition recently prepared a comprehensive assessment report that includes a  discussion of how it could be implemented nationwide. For your convenience, copied below are the executive summary and concluding remarks. The complete report is a 103 page pdf, here .

Similar ideas can be applied in any country, including the United States. That’s the subject of my blog, IncomeSecurityForAll.org, and my book, Peaceful, Positive Revolution: Economic Security for Every American.

Steven Shafarman

MAKING THE DIFFERENCE! THE BIG IN NAMIBIA.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In January 2008, the Basic Income Grant (BIG) pilot project

commenced in the Otjivero-Omitara area, about 100 kilometres

east of Windhoek. All residents below the age of 60 years receive

a Basic Income Grant of N$100 per person per month, without

any conditions being attached. The grant is being given to every

person registered as living there in July 2007, whatever their

social and economic status.

This BIG pilot project is designed and implemented by the Namibian

Basic Income Grant Coalition (established in 2004) and is

the first universal cash-transfer pilot project in the world. The

BIG Coalition aims to practically pilot the Namibian Government's

NAMTAX recommendation of a BIG for Namibia. Thus the

BIG Coalition regards this project as the first step towards a BIG

for all. The BIG Coalition consists of four big umbrella bodies in

Namibia, namely, Council of Churches (CCN), the Namibian

Union of Namibian Workers (NUNW), the Namibian NGO Forum

(NANGOF) and the Namibian Network of AIDS Service Organisations

(NANASO). Funds to start the pilot project were raised

through voluntary contributions from supporters of the idea

from all sections of Namibia's society, and by support from

people, churches, organisations and donors in other countries.

The BIG pilot project will run for a period of 24 months up to

December 2009.

The effects of the BIG pilot project are evaluated on an on-going

basis. Four complementary methods were used. First, a baseline

survey was conducted in November 2007. Second, panel surveys

were conducted in July and November 2008. Third, information

was gathered from key informants in the area. Fourth, a series of

detailed case studies of individuals living in Otjivero-Omitara

was carried out.

This report presents the socio-economic results after the implementation

of the BIG for 12 months. The key findings include

the following:

➢ Before the introduction of the BIG, Otjivero-Omitara was

characterised by unemployment, hunger and poverty.

Most residents had settled there because they had

nowhere else to go, their lives were shaped by deprivation

and they had little hope for the future.

➢ The introduction of the BIG ignited hope and the community

responded by establishing its own 18-member

committee to mobilise the community and to advise residents

on how to spend the BIG money wisely. This suggests

that the introduction of a BIG can effectively assist

with community mobilisation and empowerment.

➢ As the BIG was only introduced in one particular location,

there was a significant migration towards Otjivero-

Omitara. Impoverished family members moved into

Otjivero, attracted by the BIG, even if migrants themselves

did not receive the grant. This points to the need

to introduce the BIG as a universal national grant in order

to avoid migration to particular regions, towns or

households.

➢ The migration to Otjivero-Omitara affected the data obtained

for this study. Per capita income from the BIG

dropped from N$ 89 per month in January 2008 to N$ 67

in November 2008. We thus analysed the impact of the

BIG, taking the influence of migration into consideration.

➢ Since the introduction of the BIG, household poverty has

dropped significantly. Using the food poverty line, 76% of

residents fell below this line in November 2007. This was

reduced to 37% within one year of the BIG. Amongst

households that were not affected by in-migration, the

rate dropped to 16%. This shows that a national BIG

would have a dramatic impact on poverty levels in Namibia.

➢ The introduction of the BIG has led to an increase in

economic activity. The rate of those engaged in incomegenerating

activities (above the age of 15) increased from

44% to 55%. Thus the BIG enabled recipients to increase

their work both for pay, profit or family gain as

well as self-employment. The grant enabled recipients to

increase their productive income earned, particularly

through starting their own small business, including

brick-making, baking of bread and dress-making. The

BIG contributed to the creation of a local market by increasing

households' buying power. This finding contradicts

critics' claims that the BIG would lead to laziness

and dependency.

➢ The BIG resulted in a huge reduction of child malnutrition.

Using a WHO measurement technique, the data

shows that children's weight-for-age has improved significantly

in just six months from 42% of underweight

children in November 2007 to 17% in June 2008 and

10% in November 2008.

➢ HIV positive residents' access to ARVs was hampered by

poverty and a lack of transport before the BIG was introduced.

The BIG enabled them to afford nutritious food

and gain access to the medication. This was further enhanced

by government's decision to make ARVs available

in Otjivero, freeing residents from the need to travel to

Gobabis.

➢ Before the introduction of the BIG, almost half of the

school-going children did not attend school regularly.

Pass rates stood at about 40% and drop-out rates were

high. Many parents were unable to pay the school fee.

After the introduction of the BIG, more than double the

number of parents paid school fees (90%) and most of

the children now have school uniforms. Non-attendance

due to financial reasons dropped by 42% and this rate

would have been even higher without the effects of migration

towards Otjivero-Omitara. Drop-out rates at the

school fell from almost 40% in November 2007 to 5% in

June 2008 and further to almost 0% in November 2008.

➢ The residents have been using the settlement's health

clinic much more regularly since the introduction of the

BIG. Residents now pay the N$4 payment for each visit

and the income of the clinic has increased fivefold from

N$ 250 per month to about N$ 1,300.

➢ The BIG contributed to the reduction of household debt

with the average debt falling from N$ 1,215 to N$ 772

between November 2007 and November 2008. Savings

increased during that period, which was reflected in the

increasing ownership of large livestock, small livestock

and poultry.

➢ The BIG has contributed to a significant reduction of

crime. Overall crime rates – as reported to the local police

station – fell by 42% while stock theft fell by 43%

and other theft by nearly 20%.

➢ The introduction of the Basic Income Grant has reduced

the dependency of women on men for their survival. The

BIG has given women a measure of control over their

own sexuality, freeing them to some extent from the

pressure to engage in transactional sex.

➢ The criticism that the BIG is leading to increasing alcoholism

is not supported by empirical evidence. The community

committee is trying to curb alcoholism and has

reached an agreement with local shebeen owners not to

sell alcohol on the day of the pay-out of the grants.

➢ The BIG is a form of social protection, which reduces

poverty and supports pro-poor economic growth. As a

national policy it would greatly assist Namibia in achieving

the Millenium Development Goals to which the country

has committed itself.

➢ The costs of a national BIG in Namibia are substantial.

The net costs will be between N$ 1,2 – 1,6 billion per

year, equivalent to 2,2 – 3% of Namibia's GDP. There are

various options to finance such a national grant. A moderate

adjustment of VAT combined with an increase in

income taxes is one option. This would benefit all middle

and lower income households in terms of available incomes.

Other financing options include a re-prioritisation

of the national budget and the introduction of a special

levy on natural resources.

➢ An econometric analysis revealed that Namibia's tax capacity

exceeds 30% of the national income. The current

collection rate is below 25% and thus Namibia's excess

capacity to raise tax revenue significantly exceeds the

net costs of a Basic Income Grant. This makes the BIG

affordable in Namibia.

➢ A national BIG would have several medium to long-term

benefits. Based on the developments in Otjivero-Omitara,

it is safe to argue that the BIG will reduce poverty

and unemployment, increase economic activities and

productivity, improve educational outcomes and the

health status of most Namibians.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The BIG pilot project in Otjivero-Omitara has shown

the wide-ranging benefits of a universal income grant in

addressing poverty. The findings contained in this report

document the social and economic changes that

occurred during the past 12 months – some of them being

nothing less than spectacular.

The Basic Income Grant is more than an income support

programme. It provides security that reinforces human

dignity and empowerment. It has the capacity to

be the most significant poverty-reducing programme in

Namibia, while supporting household development,

economic growth and job creation. A BIG has various

developmental impacts. A grant of N$ 100 per person

per month would generate a net benefit of over N$ 900

million a year reaching the rural communities in Namibia.

It can be argued that this would work as an engine

for local economic development. The poor would have

the ability to spend larger amounts on locally produced

goods and services. This would create more viable and

sustainable opportunities for employment in the rural

areas. Furthermore, if people are constantly confronted

with economic insecurity, they will not be able to engage

in entrepreneurial activities. The BIG would therefore

provide income security, which has the ability to

free resources for entrepreneurial risk taking. A BIG is

not an added burden at a time of economic crisis, but

an appropriate intervention that will stimulate demand

- particularly for basic consumer goods.

The BIG is a form of social protection which reduces extreme

poverty and supports pro-poor economic growth.

As a national policy it would greatly assist Namibia in

achieving the Millenium Development Goals to which

the country has committed itself. These goals include

the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger, the pro-

motion of gender equality, the reduction of child mortality,

combating diseases like HIV/AIDS and malaria,

and ensuring environmental sustainability. The empirical

results in Otjivero-Omitara have shown that a BIG

will have a positive impact in all these areas.

While the BIG alone cannot solve all of Namibia's social

and economic problems, it will certainly make a substantial

contribution. One of our findings in Otjivero-

Omitara was that the grant has reduced the dependency

of young women on men for their survival. The

BIG has given women a measure of control over their

own sexuality, freeing them to some extent from the

pressure to engage in transactional sex.

There is no doubt that the cost of a BIG is substantial -

ranging from 2.2% to 3.0% of national income. As

shown by the calculations in this report, Namibia has

the capacity to mobilise the necessary resources

without undermining financial stability. On the contrary,

over time, as Namibia benefits from the long term

growth impact, the Basic Income Grant will become increasingly

more affordable. Moderate adjustments to

VAT and income tax, alternatively royalties levied on

natural resources, or a shift in budget priorities or a

combination of these interventions, will make a national

BIG an immediate option for Namibia. Its implementation

is thus merely a question of political will.

“The economy,” as that term is used by economists, politicians, pundits, and ordinary people, generally refers to GDP, gross domestic product.

Here’s an op-ed from the New York Times entitled “G.D.P R.I.P” that discusses why GDP is seriously flawed as a measure of national welfare.

After discussing some of the flaws, the author states that:

[I]t would be fairly easy for President Obama to convene a panel of economists and other experts to join the Bureau of Economic Analysis in creating a new, more accurate measure. Call it net economic welfare. On the benefit side would go such nonmarket goods as unpaid domestic work and ecosystem services; on the debit side would go defensive and remedial expenditures that don’t improve our standard of living, along with the loss of ecosystem services, and the money we spend to try to replace them.

The complete piece is here.

That would be a good step in the direction of more meaningful and useful discourse. Though it’s just a small step, it would almost surely make a real difference in helping people understand the value of income security for all. Guaranteed income is the most direct way to promote economic welfare for individuals and society as a whole.

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