How to frame a UBI public policy for successfully passing a new law

[thx64536]

1. Part I The Wrong Language to use for Promoting UBI

Here are some of the benefits of having UBI but also the wrong way of framing the issue. Wrong meaning using certain language will guarantee it will never become public policy. Here are examples of the wrong way to promote UBI as a public policy with commentary:

"The Universal Income Project is devoted to the expansion of economic security and human dignity through the implementation of a universal basic income in America. We build networks and use creative tools to educate, popularize, and organize around this radically common-sense idea." (1)

Economic security and human dignity are good aspirations. But no bill will ever be passed using this language. Also, it is important to avoid using words like "radically" when it comes to trying to get support from conservatives. UBI may seem to be a "common-sense idea" but only from a certain point-of-view. For example, if massive tax increases are needed for funding UBI, then UBI is not considered to be a common-sense idea to conservatives.

"Universal basic income is a simple idea that could have a radical impact on our society: give people enough money to meet their basic needs, providing everyone in the country with an income floor. Basic income could eliminate absolute poverty, support entrepreneurship and creativity, and allow every American to share in the prosperity that we have created together as a nation." (2)

UBI is not a simple idea because of how it will be funded. The word "radical" will kill any effort. The phrase "give people enough money" will shut down conservative support. Language like this is often criticized with derogatory comments like "communism", "tax increase", "socialism", or "redistribution of wealth". No matter how admirable, moral, or needed, using language like this will go nowhere. Nobody is going to disagree with the idea babies should have enough food to eat. Eliminating poverty is certainly a desirable goal but it has to be talked about tactfully and with sophistication. The people in power, that is, people with real money and influence are simply not going to accept "allow every American to share in the prosperity that we have created together as a nation" as a valid argument. Conservatives do not think in terms of "we". They believe they are personally and solely responsible for all their own wealth creation. Suggesting otherwise to a conservative is seen as or experienced as a personal attack. This is why the language used in promoting UBI must be finely crafted so that conservative elements of society see it as a positive for their well-being the same way tax-cuts are perceived.

"UBI has potentially profound ramifications for inequality. Poverty is eliminated, the labour contract becomes more nearly voluntary, and the power relations between workers and employers become less unequal since workers have the option of exit." (3)

Nobody making the median wage is going to deny the economy is tilted not in their favor. Every year the rich get richer. Wealth inequality is at all-time highs. (4) The thing is, people with power and privilege are not going to support any public policy that will change the "power relations between workers and employers." This is simply not going to happen without a massive bloody revolution, economic collapse, and/or a complete rewrite of our government's Constitution. And the military will be used without hesitation in preventing a any kind of leftist revolution from occurring in this country.

Anyway, you get the idea. In spite of hundreds of articles promoting UBI, outlining all its moral benefits, the power structures of society will not allow it. I claim the language used in these articles is the wrong approached for bringing about a successful UBI public policy. For decades conservative have been preventing any public policy addressing wealth inequality. The people with power and privilege do not want anything to change since everything is already tilted in their favor. This is what it means to be a conservative.

However, maybe we can construct a framing and a set of language describing a UBI public policy the conservative elements of our society are willing to accept. I think the first step towards this end begins by reducing or limiting any grandiose goal of completely eliminating poverty. Despite the intellectual appeal of Karl Marx, people on the left are being completely delusional if they think neoliberalism or laissez faire capitalism are going to go away any time soon. So it is important to understand before we can achieve any substantial transformation we must first accept our current reality.

So rather than ending poverty, a better approach is to at least prevent it from getting worse. Consider the following snippet from an article which I would generally consider as having unacceptable language in terms of promoting a successful UBI public policy:

"The results show large effects from even modest UBIs. For example, a $200 per month payment would more than halve the black poverty rate, putting it below the current white poverty rate. This would cost about $800 billion per year. A $1,000 monthly UBI would reduce the poverty rate from its current 13 percent to roughly 1 percent for all racial groups, costing about $4 trillion." (5)

Although the article falls short in tackling the problem of how UBI would be funded, it is still an excellent piece of work because it talks about the estimated costs.

So with this commentary in mind I will present what I am proposing as a UBI public policy. Notice the language I am using doesn't contain the of the usual trigger words or phrases known for provoking a negative reaction from conservatives. I am purposely avoiding using language conservatives will find offensive while attempting to appeal to their direct interests as well as their enlightened self-interests.