11 thoughts on “Oh look! It’s an open thread!

  1. IMHO, a “basic income guarantee” aka a “negative income tax” is an issue Dems can win on at the local, state and federal level. Link below contains strong support from conservatives and Republicans.

    “Rethinking the Idea of a Basic Income for All”
    “In October, Swiss voters submitted sufficient signatures to put an initiative on the ballot that would pay every citizen of Switzerland $2,800 per month, no strings attached. Similar efforts are under way throughout Europe. And there is growing talk of establishing a basic income for Americans as well. Interestingly, support comes mainly from those on the political right, including libertarians.
    The recent debate was kicked off in an April 30, 2012, post, by Jessica M. Flanigan of the University of Richmond, who said all libertarians should support a universal basic income on the grounds of social justice. Professor Flanigan, a self-described anarchist, opposes a system of property rights “that causes innocent people to starve.”
    She cited a paper by the philosopher Matt Zwolinski of the University of San Diego in the December 2011 issue of the journal Basic Income Studies, which also contained other papers by libertarians supporting the basic income concept. While acknowledging that most libertarians would reject explicit redistribution of income, he pointed to several libertarians, including the economists F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman, who favored the idea of a basic universal income.
    Friedman’s argument appeared in his 1962 book, “Capitalism and Freedom,” based on lectures given in 1956, and was called a negative income tax. His view was that the concept of progressivity ought to work in both directions and would be based on the existing tax code. Thus if the standard deduction and personal exemption exceeded one’s gross income, one would receive a subsidy equal to what would have been paid if one had comparable positive taxable income.
    In 1965, Sargent Shriver, director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, recommended to President Lyndon Johnson that he support Friedman’s idea of a negative income tax. Friedman provided illustrative figures to The New York Times showing how his plan would work. The maximum benefit would be $1,500 per year for someone with zero gross income, which would be about $11,500 in today’s dollars.
    Ultimately, Johnson rejected the negative income tax but appointed a commission that later recommended one. Johnson also supported an experiment by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare that would run small pilot negative income tax programs in various cities and states to see how people responded.
    The negative income tax was revived by President Richard Nixon in an August 1969 proposal called the family assistance plan that had been developed by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. The New York Times columnist James Reston called it a “remarkably progressive welfare policy.”

    Even if we don’t get a “basic income guarantee,” the effort pushes the less controversial “federal job guarantee,” to the political middle.

    “…The government could serve as the “employer of last resort” under a job guarantee program modeled on the WPA (the Works Progress Administration, in existence from 1935 to 1943 after being renamed the Work Projects Administration in 1939) and the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps, 1933-1942). The program would offer a job to any American who was ready and willing to work at the federal minimum wage, plus legislated benefits. No time limits. No means testing. No minimum education or skill requirements….”

  2. This place should be considered the least accurate site ins tat, filled with constant lies, the latest about sex assaults reports from UW, before that it was constant lies about Walker and his college, Act 10, RTW. what trash you post.

  3. If you feel like spending part of your day angrily crunching numbers and making charts, I found UW System state funding, tuition, cost of instruction, and enrollment data going back to 1973:

    Feel free to copy and share this far and wide. Note that in the ’70s UW students paid 25% of the cost of instruction, and today it’s as high as 80% at UW-Milwaukee.

    Also, looks like the new FWDA (WEDC+WHEDA) will have even more loosey-goosey accountability and reporting than present-day WEDC. And it won’t be subject to financial audits by the legislature! Check out # 6, 7, & 10:

  4. So, Scotty Boy is just not that into Wisconsin these days — “was” governor? WTH?

    From today’s New York Times:

    In an interview, Mr. Walker said he was unconcerned about the appearance of spending so much time and energy courting donors, noting that he expected to do plenty of retail campaigning in the months ahead.

    “Oh, I think along the way I’ll be at plenty of dairy events and farm events and factories just like when I was governor,” Mr. Walker said.

  5. 1. Great that plans to go forward with this very destructive mine are being tabled.

    2. Deep appreciation to the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians and others for getting this story out.

    3. I recall that this much hyped mining = jobs for WI had another damaging outcome. More Republican state legislators won in the election of 2012 based on these now obviously empty promises of jobs. Here’s looking at you, Rick Gudex.

Comments are closed.