radiofree.asia

Author: esoperations

  • Trump’s cuts halt UCSF study that gave Black young adults guaranteed income

    By Anna Bauman, Jack Lee

    See original post here.

    Tremon Chandler, a 25-year-old from Ohio, moved to San Francisco four years ago with $3,000 in his pocket to chase his dream of becoming a rapper. Quickly realizing his savings would not go far in California, he slept in his car and crashed with a co-worker before finding housing. 

    But life stabilized when Chandler enrolled as a participant in the Black Economic Equity Movement, a clinical trial run by UCSF, which aimed to measure the impact of guaranteed income on local Black young adults. 

    Over the past year, Chandler used monthly $500 payments from the program to cover studio time, music videos and performances. He said the extra income gave him a sense of security while allowing him to invest in his budding music career between work shifts at a Sonic restaurant. 

    Chandler and another study participant, a 26-year-old Emeryville woman, told the Chronicle that the guaranteed income trial has boosted their careers, mental health and living situations — but conclusive evidence from the large-scale UCSF study may never be available. 

    In late March, the National Institutes of Health notified UCSF that funding for the $9 million project had been terminated because it “no longer effectuates agency priorities,” according to the termination letter. The study is among nearly a hundred federally funded research projects in California, worth more than $300 million in total, that the Trump administration has canceled in an apparent effort to target science that relates to diversity, equity or inclusion. 

    Much of the study’s funding, including the guaranteed income for participants, has already been spent or distributed, but the research has been brought  to a halt shortly before the finish line, said Sheri Lippman, principal investigator for the project and a professor of medicine at UCSF. 

    Without funding to support them, she said, the research team can no longer conduct final interviews, analyze years worth of data, or disseminate their findings to participants and policymakers, effectively squandering millions in taxpayer money that was awarded to UCSF under the Biden administration. 

    “It was like your world crumbles,” Lippman said. “This is not just a job for our staff and for the investigators — this is work we really believe in.” 

    In total, UCSF has lost 14 NIH grants totaling nearly $46 million, according to the university. 

    In addition to terminating NIH and National Science Foundation grants, President Donald Trump’s administration has canceled others awarded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency, among others, public records show. Some of the cuts appear to be aimed at DEI-related research, some at research focusing on vaccine hesitancy, while with others the reasons are less clear.

    The White House said in February that the U.S. government spends “too much money on programs, contracts, and grants that do not promote the interests of the American people.”

    The Department of Government Efficiency, an office created by Trump through an executive order in January and headed by Elon Musk, is tracking the canceled grants online with a “Wall of Receipts,” which includes a savings estimate per termination. 

    In a February executive order, Trump directed federal agencies to review their grants and contracts “in consultation with the agency’s DOGE Team Lead,” modifying or cutting them as needed “to reduce overall Federal spending or reallocate spending to promote efficiency and advance the policies of my Administration.” 

    Across the Bay Area, grant termination notices have thrown organizations into chaos and uncertainty as they shutter projects, lay off employees, or scramble to shore up major gaps in funding. 

    Local impacted groups include San Francisco nonprofits that work with the homeless and conduct educational research with a focus on equity issues. An EPA-funded grant for improving air quality inside Oakland public schools was also terminated, according to the California Department of Public Health. 

    The idea for the UCSF project emerged about four years ago, when the NIH announced it was seeking to fund unusually innovative and transformative projects to address health disparities. The agency acknowledged in the funding announcement that structural racism and other social factors can impact public health. 

    When Lippman learned about the opportunity, she said, one topic immediately came to mind: guaranteed income, an intervention that provides low-income people with regular cash assistance, no strings attached, which was growing in popularity at the time. 

    Researchers had launched a wave of studies on the topic as cities such as Stockton and Oakland rolled out guaranteed income pilot programs, Lippman said, but none were focused specifically on Black young adults, who are at high risk for mental and other health issues as they transition to adulthood. 

    “It’s also a time when they get set on a trajectory — a little extra cash could be the difference between going to school and seeking training or abandoning education altogether,” Lippman said. 

    After a competitive and peer-reviewed selection process, Lippman and two other principal investigators, Margaret Libby and Marguerita Lightfoot, won an NIH grant in 2021 and launched a clinical trial in partnership with MyPath, a San Francisco nonprofit. The team provided optional financial mentoring alongside monthly payments to 300 low-income Black residents in San Francisco and Oakland between the ages of 18 and 24. 

    Researchers had spent two years collecting information from the young adults about their financial, emotional and physical well-being. Final interviews were scheduled throughout this summer for the last group of participants, but the NIH canceled the grant in a March 21 email to the university. 

    “Research programs based primarily on artificial and non-scientific categories, including amorphous equity objectives, are antithetical to the scientific inquiry, do nothing to expand our knowledge of living systems, provide low returns on investment, and ultimately do not enhance health, lengthen life, or reduce illness,” the NIH termination letter stated, adding that diversity, equity and inclusion studies “are often used to support unlawful discrimination on the basis of race … which harms the health of Americans.” 

    The university submitted an appeal on behalf of Lippman on April 15, arguing that researchers designed the trial with rigorous and evidence-based methods “at the core of scientific inquiry.” 

    “They’re on a mission to end anything they conceive to be even remotely DEI-related, and they have equated our project with a DEI initiative, even though we’re looking at an intervention that could benefit people across America,” Lippman said. 

    NIH said in a statement that the agency wants to “Make America Healthy Again,” and is prioritizing research that “directly affects the health of Americans.”

    “We remain dedicated to restoring our agency to its tradition of upholding gold-standard, evidence-based science,” the agency said. 

    It’s unclear where public support stands for Trump’s slashing of funding for research he dislikes. According to an April poll from Pew Research Center, more than half of Americans opposed cuts the administration has made to federal agencies. Republicans and Democrats were split on ending federal DEI initiatives. 

    In federal court, lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and California Attorney General Rob Bonta, among others, are seeking to restore funding for NIH grants canceled “without any reasonable explanations.” 

    In the meantime, MyPath and UCSF have laid off two project staff members and a postdoctoral researcher who is now hunting for other jobs in academia while working to finish a portion of the guaranteed income project without pay. 

    The postdoc, who spoke to the Chronicle on the condition of anonymity out of fear that doing so could hurt future grant prospects, said they were elated to work on a study with potential policy impact and disheartened by its sudden end. 

    “We’re losing what our participants gave us,” the researcher said. “They stayed with us for two years, completed surveys, gave of their time and effort — we’re losing an opportunity to share their story.” 

    Lippman said the research team worked with community leaders to design the study and developed close relationships with participants, offering supportive resources and staying in frequent communication with them. 

    But the termination has forced the team to break its commitment to members of the Black community, which has historically suffered from exploitative research practices, Lippman said. 

    “The community we’re working with hasn’t always trusted researchers,” she said. “Ethical researchers have been fighting to gain back trust.” 

    Without much faith in the appeal process, Lippman said she has created a fundraising page and contacted philanthropists in an effort to scrounge up dollars from alternative sources. The researcher hopes someone “sees an opportunity to finish something that really could make a huge difference.” 

    Participating in the guaranteed income trial has already had an impact for Chandler, who performs under the artist name BDNTre. He has now been signed by a Los Angeles management company and said he feels capable of breaking through in the music industry. 

    “Five-hundred dollars can take the right person a long way,” he said. “You can put yourself in better places.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Bill restricting North Carolina cities and counties from adopting guaranteed income programs advances.

    Original article here.

    By: Greg Childress

    A bill barring North Carolina cities and counties from adopting or enforcing guaranteed income programs won approval in the state House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development on Tuesday.

    House Bill 859 is sponsored by Rep. Cody Honeycutt (R-Montgomery). It would prohibit the establishment of guaranteed income programs without express authorization of “general or local law” — something that would require approval from the General Assembly. It was referred to the House State and Local Government Committee without discussion.

    Guaranteed income programs provide individuals or families with cash payments generally with no strings attached. The cash payments may be used for necessities such as food, childcare expenses, medicine and transportation.

    The goal is to provide low-income families or individuals with a steady income to increase financial stability.

    Supporters see such programs as a way to help lift families and individuals out of poverty and to address income inequality. Meanwhile, critics argue that such programs create a disincentive for work, are expensive and will not reduce dependency on welfare programs as some supporters claim.

    Under HB 859, programs under which an individual is required to seek reemployment, perform work or attend training as a condition of a cash payment would be exempt from the law.

    In North Carolina, the City of Durham launched a guaranteed income pilot program for formerly incarcerated individuals in March 2022 titled Excel. The pilot ended in August 2024.

    Assistant Durham City Manager Karmisha Wallace told NC Newsline that the city council allocated $1 million this fiscal year to continue the program, which the city would manage. A nonprofit administered the pilot program.

    Wallace said the city has neither determined the amount of the monthly stipend under the new program nor the number of participants. Under the pilot, 109 formerly incarcerated individuals received $600 a month for one year.

    She said training for justice involved individuals is already available through other city-run programs in which they participate.

    “We already have programming in place now that help justice involved individuals get IDs, get jobs, secure medical support, transportation and that sort of thing,” Wallace said.

    Wallace said HB 859 could be problematic.

    “I think it’s safe to say the city is concerned about any legislation that restricts our abilities to meet the needs of our constituents,” Wallace said.

    According to the Durham County website, the county is launching a guaranteed income pilot program called DCo Thrives that will provide $750 per month for one year to 125 randomly selected low-income families. That program is funded by the American Rescue Plan Act and will be administered by Durham Children’s Initiative, according to the website. 

    Guaranteed income programs gained steam during the pandemic. Large cities such as Los Angeles and Atlanta are among those that launched pilot programs.

    Michael D. Tubbs, founder and chair or Mayors & Counties for a Guaranteed Income, said last summer in a letter defending a program in Harris County (home to the city of Houston) that was blocked by the Texas Supreme Court that there were more than 100 pilot programs nationwide in-process or having concluded with “great success.”

    Tubbs is a former Stockton, California mayor who helped launch one of the country’s first guaranteed income programs in 2019.

    The Harris County program is still on hold due to the legal challenge. Last week, the Texas Senate approved a bill to ban local governments from adopting such programs.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Can $1,000 a month help more students land nursing careers? An L.A. pilot effort says yes

    By Rebecca Plevin

    See original post here.

    Community colleges play a critical role in addressing California’s persistent demand for healthcare workers, preparing students to become the state’s next generation of nurses, medical assistants and physical therapy aides.

    But in the Los Angeles Community College District, where more than half of all students report incomes near or below the poverty line, many people struggle to complete their degrees while also holding down jobs to pay rent, buy groceries and cover child-care costs.

    A pilot program at the L.A. district — the state’s largest, with nine colleges and 194,000 students — aims to address these seemingly intractable challenges with a targeted remedy: $1,000 a month in guaranteed income.

    Late last year, the district launched an initiative that provides cash payments for 12 months to 251 students with a demonstrated financial need who are pursuing health careers. The funding is unrestricted, so participants can use the money however they see fit.

    The goal of the effort, dubbed Building Outstanding Opportunities for Students to Thrive, or BOOST, is to eliminate financial insecurity so that students can focus on achieving their academic goals and the college system can deliver a diverse, multilingual healthcare workforce to serve L.A. in the process.

    The Times followed one student through the first months of the new initiative to learn how a guaranteed basic income might influence the lives and choices of L.A. community college students.

    Adriana Orea, 32, has known for years that she wanted to pursue a career in nursing. She had worked for a time as a licensed vocational nurse, and found the experience rewarding. But after giving birth to a son two years ago, she set her sights on a higher-paying position as a registered nurse, which generally requires a bachelor’s degree from an accredited nursing program.

    “I want to give him opportunities, and in order to do that, I have to get ahead,” said Orea, a single mother. “I don’t want him to feel like he’s missing out on something because I’m not able to provide it for him.”

    She had recently returned to school, enrolling at L.A. City College in the prerequisite courses she’ll need to get accepted into a nursing school, when she was selected for BOOST. She received her first cash payment on Thanksgiving.

    “I feel very blessed to have been picked,” she told The Times a few days later. “At the same time, I feel like I want to be very responsible with this, because it’s not something to be taken lightly.”

    Orea lives with her parents and her curly-haired 2-year-old, Kevin, in a rent-controlled building near MacArthur Park. In early December, she was taking three classes and working eight hours a week at the front desk of the college counseling department — a position she got through the state’s welfare-to-work program.

    She is quick to express gratitude for her parents, who are crucial partners in helping raise her son. Her parents, both Mexican immigrants who work night shifts as janitors, watch Kevin while Orea is on campus. She covers most of the family’s food expenses with her CalFresh benefits, spending between $500 and $600 a month on groceries, and also pitches in for rent.

    “It’s just been living on a budget, which is definitely doable, because I have so much support,” she said.

    Of the first $1,000 payment, she spent about $600 on outstanding bills for Kevin’s newborn check-ups that had resulted from a lapse in health insurance. She also used some of the money to buy Christmas gifts for her family and a holiday outfit for herself. She received the second payment in mid-December, and was determined to not dip into it.

    “I’m just treating it like I’m not receiving it,” she said.

    By January, she already felt more financially secure, having squirreled away $1,000 and knowing more would be coming.

    “I might actually have something in the back pocket,” she said. “It’s not just a paycheck-to-paycheck thing.”

    More than 150 guaranteed income pilot programs have launched nationwide in recent years, but BOOST is one of the first focused on community college students.

    Proponents tout unconditional cash as a way to provide greater stability to vulnerable community members. But as the concept has gained steam, it has also spurred backlash. Several Republican-led state legislatures are banning or trying to preempt cities and counties from launching direct cash initiatives, arguing publicly funded programs are a waste of taxpayer resources.

    The BOOST program is privately funded with more than $3.1 million from the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, and $867,500 from the California Community Foundation’s Young Adults Forward Fund. It represents a rare philanthropic investment in California community college students, who number 2.1 million statewide. Typically, more than half of California high school graduates start at a community college.

    There is a “massive mismatch of where private philanthropic dollars go and where students in California go to school, particularly if we think about low-income, first-generation and students of color,” said Kelly King, executive director of the Foundation for the Los Angeles Community Colleges. “This level of investment in community college students is very unusual, unfortunately, but it’s very much needed.”

    To be eligible for BOOST, students must have selected a health-related major and express interest in pursuing a health career, as well as have a demonstrated financial need and be considered low-income for L.A. County. Participants in the pilot were selected by lottery, with 251 receiving the monthly payments and an additional 370 enrolled in a control group.

    Of the total participants, 72% are female, 65% are Hispanic or Latino, and 29% report that the primary language in their household is Spanish, according to data provided by the community college district. The average annual household income is $31,853, and 47% report having children in the household.

    Like other pilots, BOOST is designed as a research study. In this case, the Center for Guaranteed Income Research at the University of Pennsylvania is analyzing how the unrestricted payments affect the well-being of students and what role it might play in keeping them on track in completing their healthcare degrees.

    “Lack of basic needs, food insecurity and unexpected financial shocks create barriers for students that often push them out of education,” said Amy Castro, the center’s co-founder and faculty director. “Dreaming about your future should be a feature of young adulthood that is open to all — not just the wealthy or those with the good fortune to have ironclad access to higher education.”

    By mid-February, the guaranteed payments had made a big difference in Orea’s life.

    Determined to take advantage of the financial support, she enrolled in four classes for the spring semester. She felt as if her momentum was snowballing, and realized that with better time management, she could also take on a few more hours at work and make a bit more money.

    Despite having more on her plate, Orea seemed less stressed. Knowing she didn’t need to hold down a full-time job, or a second part-time gig, to support her son was in itself a huge relief.

    “I can literally just concentrate on studying for my classes,” she said.

    She had started amassing an emergency fund in case she or Kevin gets sick and she’s unable to work.

    She was also feeling more comfortable spending the money. She bought her family a Valentine’s Day lunch at Sizzler, treating her mom to the buffet and her dad to his favorite steak and shrimp dish. She took Kevin to Big Bear to see snow. And if she ran out of time to pack a lunch from home, she didn’t stress about grabbing a sandwich at a doughnut shop near campus.

    “I see my bank account going up — I feel like I’m saving,” she said. So, she’s able to tell herself: “This is not a big splurge, I can treat myself.”

    By early April, Orea had received $5,000 through BOOST.

    She opened a high-yield savings account, with the goal of using her money to make money. She purchased Disneyland tickets to celebrate her mom’s 60th birthday. She had recently received two parking tickets, and while she said she was disappointed to lose money, it wasn’t the crisis hit to her budget that it would have been in the past.

    She said receiving the cash — and knowing it was temporary — has made her “laser-focused” on her goals: Finish her prerequisite courses this spring; work part-time as a licensed vocational nurse this summer while studying for her nursing school entrance exam; then apply to schools in the fall and start a nursing program next spring.

    “Having this opportunity made me take a hard look at myself and be like, ‘This is what you want. How are you going to get there? Take advantage that you have this,’” she said.

    At the same time, her horizons have expanded. Receiving the guaranteed income had freed her from the suffocating sensation of constantly worrying about money.

    “Once you feel like there’s one less thing stressing you out, you just feel this relief,” she said. “It clears your mind a little more and you just feel less stressed about everything else.”

    Orea said she expects the money she has saved through BOOST will smooth her transition to nursing school. She hopes to receive financial aid to attend a nursing program at L.A. City College or a Cal State university, but said she would take out loans if needed to attend a more expensive private school. She plans to live at home and pick up a couple of shifts each week as a licensed vocational nurse while in school, but said her savings from this year should help ensure she isn’t stretched thin during the two-year program.

    She will likely remain in L.A. County after nursing school, she said. She worked in geriatrics previously, but is interested in exploring work in a birthing or neonatal unit. No matter where she works, she will use her Spanish fluency to communicate with patients and their families.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Bill banning Harris County’s basic income program passes Texas Senate

    By John Lomax V.

    See original post here.

    The Texas Senate passed a bill Thursday prohibiting local governments from providing direct financial assistance to their residents. 

    It’s the latest blow to Uplift Harris, the county’s guaranteed income program that would have provided $500 per month to a random cohort of qualified residents. Texas Sen. Paul Bettencourt, one of Uplift Harris’ most vocal critics and the author of Senate Bill 2010, labeled the program “lottery socialism” in a Thursday news release. 

    “Public funds should advance public interests, not be handed out as blank checks in politically motivated pilot projects,” Bettencourt, a Houston Republican, said. “This bill defends taxpayers and reinforces our Constitution’s limits on government giveaways.”

    Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo and Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis championed the program, which was created in 2023. Uplift Harris was intended to provide direct financial assistance to up to 1,500 families living at 200% below the poverty line, according to an overview document published by Precinct 1. 

    Hidalgo’s office did not respond to the Houston Chronicle’s request for comment. A spokesperson for Precinct 1 said Ellis’ office is working on a public statement, but did not submit one by deadline. 

    Ellis previously said in a June 2023 news release that Uplift Harris was intended to address “unchecked and ongoing inequality.” 

    “Similar programs in other cities and counties have been shown to increase employment and the incentive to work while reducing poverty,” Ellis said. “But the benefits go even further. Families report improvements to their physical and mental health and are able to spend more time with their children. They also have a greater sense of self-determination when they are trusted with the resources they need to build a better life.”

    But the program faced opposition from conservative lawmakers who said it violated a clause in the Texas Constitution prohibiting the use of public funds to provide gifts. Following criticism from Bettencourt, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the county in early 2024.

    The lawsuit culminated in an order from the Texas Supreme Court that temporarily halted payments under Uplift Harris one day before they were scheduled to begin disbursing. 

    “This is quite unlike a food-stamp program, a housing voucher or a medical-care program, in which the public funds can only be directed 
    to their intended purpose,” wrote Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock, who authored the court’s opinion on Uplift Harris. “It appears that, for all practical purposes, there truly are ‘no strings attached,’ and we are directed to no precedent indicating that a government in Texas may make such payments without running afoul of our Constitution’s restrictions.”

    Following the Texas Supreme Court’s decision, county leaders launched a second, modified, version of Uplift Harris dubbed the “Community Prosperity Program.” Paxton filed a second lawsuit, and the case was sent to the Fifteenth Court of Appeals following a district judge’s ruling in favor of Harris County. The appeals court again ordered a temporary halt to the program in December. 

    Around $20.5 million from the American Rescue Plan Act, a federal stimulus package passed during the COVID-19 pandemic, were allocated to fund Uplift Harris. Bettencourt’s bill specifically bans using any government money, including federal dollars, to fund guaranteed income programs. It also prohibits officials from providing direct financial assistance to residents in the form of gift cards or indirect money transfers. 

    A companion bill introduced by state Rep. Ellen Troxclair, House Bill 530, is currently under consideration by the Texas House of Representatives. The legislation will need to pass both houses before it is sent to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to be signed into law. 

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • ‘It comforted me:’ Oakland’s guaranteed basic income program ends. Here’s who it helped

    By Sarah Ravani

    See original post here.

    Oakland’s pilot guaranteed income program — one of the largest in the country — allowed participants to stay housed and get employment, according to a study of the initiative released Tuesday.  

    Employment rose from 15% to 26% for those participating in the 18-month, $6.7 million program, according to UpTogether, a social services organization that oversaw Oakland’s guaranteed income plan. The program’s analysis also showed that 44% of the participants were less likely to experience homelessness. 

    But the program’s organizers acknowledged that guaranteed income isn’t a solution to addressing systemic issues. Despite successes with pilot guaranteed income programs across the country, the initiatives have trouble scaling up since most rely on philanthropy, and whether they can affect peoples’ lives long-term remains unclear. 

    Oakland and other cities that are struggling to balance their budgets are an unlikely source of funding for such programs. 

    “Even though guaranteed income works, it can’t solve everything on its own,” said Jesús Gerena, the CEO of UpTogether. Gerena added that guaranteed income isn’t enough “to counter decades of disinvestment and the rising cost of living.” 

    Oakland’s program, which was launched under former Mayor Libby Schaaf, gave 600 residents $500-a-month cash payments with no strings attached for 18 months.

    Participants had to be low-income with at least one child under 18 to be eligible for the program. It was open to anyone whose income qualified — a shift after the initial rollout spurred criticism that white residents wouldn’t be considered. For a family of three, annual income had to be below $61,650 and below $84,950 for a family of seven to qualify. 

    The study found that participants were more likely to save for the future, improve their health, support children in extracurricular activities and other benefits. 

    A similar study in Los Angeles, which paid 3,200 families $1,000 a month for a year, found that participants were more likely to secure full-time employment and find more stable housing.

    Guaranteed income projects have taken off in the Bay Area and nationwide. Some, including the one in Oakland, have modeled their programs after one in Stockton, which has seen success. That program, which gave residents $500 a month, showed that when people received additional funds, it helped them gain employment, address mental health needs and take care of their families. There are at least 150 guaranteed income pilots happening across the country in at least 27 states, Schaaf said Tuesday in a webinar about the program.

    But the long-term benefits of guaranteed income remain elusive. While participants in a program in Texas and Illinois gained flexibility to spend on basic needs, the cash didn’t change their net worth or mental or physical health, according to a 2024 study.

    Schaaf applauded the Oakland program and said guaranteed income and other forms of unrestricted cash transfers allow people to tap into their potential. She balked at criticism that giving people free money will encourage them to stop working. 

    “It’s the exact opposite,” Schaaf said. 

    Schaaf said after the pandemic decimated the city’s economy — an issue that Oakland continues to grapple with — she was searching for an opportunity to help families rebuild. She got a phone call from Blue Meridian Partners, a philanthropic organization focused on poverty, asking for a proposal on how to help build an equitable recovery post-pandemic. As a member of Mayors for Guaranteed Income, a network of mayors advocating for the initiative, Schaaf said she felt like the invitation was her gateway to launching a guaranteed income program in Oakland. Blue Meridian Partners raised more than $6.7 million for the pilot program and about 80% of those funds went directly to residents. 

    Gerena said his organization is boosting philanthropic efforts to launch different guaranteed income programs nationwide. 

    Marrio Fitzgerald, an Oakland resident who participated in the program, said Tuesday that the initiative helped him pay for sports and other extracurricular activities for his children. 

    “When I got the income, it was a hard time in life for me,” Fitzgerald said. “I was under a lot of anxiety and stress, it comforted me to know that I would be able to make it to the next month.” 

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Largest-scale cash transfer reentry program to date successfully reduced recidivism

    By Megan Schwartz

    See original post here.

    When people leave prison or jail, they need to find stable housing and a way to earn money, among other necessities. The extent to which they are able to accomplish these goals substantially impacts how likely they are to return to prison or jail. Unfortunately, formerly incar­cerated people face major challenges that the general population does not. A confluence of factors—including discrimination, restricted access to public benefits, compounding debt, and significant time spent out of the general job market—hinders returning citizens’ efforts to secure stable housing and employment, pay their bills, and maintain good physical and mental health upon their release. As a result, people leaving prison or jail often need immediate financial assistance.

    For decades, most states have made a practice of giving returning cit­izens a small amount of money, called “gate money,” to cover the cost of transportation and other immediate needs.  But recently, many legislatures have considered increasing the dollar amount of their cash assistance and offering this kind of support more widely. 

    The Returning Citizens Stimulus (RCS) program—funded by philanthropy, implemented in 28 cities across the United States, and administered by the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO)— was a pilot program for this larger-scale reentry cash support. It represents the largest-scale conditional cash transfer reentry program to date and an evolution of the burgeoning interest among practitioners and policymakers in cash assistance as reentry support.

    MDRC was contracted by CEO to conduct a two-part evaluation of the RCS program. This brief pre­sents findings from the second part of the evaluation, a recidivism impact study; it is the first-ever study known to the author to estimate the effect of a large-scale program of this kind on recidivism outcomes.

    Results from this analysis include the following:

    • In the first six months after being released from prison, people who participated in the RCS pro­gram had, on average, fewer parole violations than a similar group of recently incarcerated indi­viduals. Participants were also less likely to violate parole by committing violent infractions such as assault and battery;
       
    • In the first year after being released, participants in the RCS program committed fewer parole violations (both overall and for violent offenses) than their nonparticipant counterparts in the comparison group. Program participation was limited to three months, generally shortly after release, and thus, the program appears to reduce recidivism among participants beyond the period when participants were receiving the cash stimulus; and
       
    • The RCS program may have been effective at reducing reincarceration among program partic­ipants in the 18-, 24-, and 30-month follow-up periods. However, for methodological reasons explained in the Technical Supplement accompanying this brief, further study is needed to assess the reliability of this estimated effect. 

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Madison program gave away cash. People worked even more.

    By Danielle DuClos

    See original post here.

    When Vanessa Munsey applied for the state’s first guaranteed income program almost three years ago, she was living out of her car with her infant and three-year-old son.

    The program, known as the Madison Forward Fund, offered participants like Munsey $500 a month over a year that they could spend on anything.

    Around the same time Munsey was approved for the guaranteed income program, she had applied for a job as a legal assistant at a Madison law firm, she said. But she didn’t have a college degree.

    Using payments from the Madison Forward Fund, Munsey was able to afford paralegal classes while working at the law firm, though.

    “Being in school and being an active student is a really huge part of why I got this job,” she said.

    Almost two years after Munsey received her last $500 payment, she is in stable housing and about to graduate with a paralegal degree. Her kids also participate in extracurriculars like ballet and jiu-jitsu classes, she recently told a packed room at the Black Business Hub for an event about the guaranteed income program.

    “The (Madison Forward) Fund gave me a fighting chance to be successful and really changed the course of my life and the quality of life that my kids get to have now,” she said.

    The Madison Forward Fund marked Wisconsin’s first guaranteed income program with $930,000 in funding solely provided by private donors. Kick-started by Madison Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway, the program was a partnership between multiple groups including the city, the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Guaranteed Income Research and the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Institute for Research on Poverty.

    Now, the success of the Madison Forward Fund is leading the Foundation for Black Women’s Wellness to run a second iteration of the program, according to Michelle Robinson, the organization’s chief programs and partnerships officer.

    “We also know that guaranteed income is not just about money,” Robinson said at the Black Business Hub event April 8. “It’s about creating the conditions for healthy people and healthy communities. … It’s about what becomes possible when we stop punishing people for being poor or economically insecure and start investing in them as whole human beings.”

    Known as the Madison Forward Fund 2.0, the program focuses on pregnant people and mothers with at least one child aged 3 or younger. It will serve 42 randomly selected families in Dane County who make 200% or less of the federal poverty line and have participated in one of the foundation’s Maternal Child Health Programs. 

    This continuation of the program started in March and will run through February next year, providing $500 a month along with wraparound financial coaching and maternal health services. The program’s funders include UW Health, Madison Gas and Electric, and the Evjue Foundation.

    Of the 42 participating families, their median household income is $18,400. Almost a quarter of participants have experienced domestic violence in the last year and 60% have experienced food insecurity, according to the Foundation for Black Women’s Wellness.

    While results from the Madison Forward Fund pilot aren’t finalized, preliminary findings show a higher rate of families receiving payments were employed full-time halfway through the program, at the end of the year and six months later than families in the program’s control group. A report with more details is expected from the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Guaranteed Income Research at the end of this month.

    Initial findings suggest the $500 in guaranteed income each month provided financial support without reducing workforce participation, according to the Madison Forward Fund.

    Participants spent the bulk of their payments on retail goods and groceries at 29% and 27%, respectively. Transportation, housing and utilities were the next largest spending categories with less than 14% spent on entertainment, health care, financial transactions and education.

    To participate in the first round, families had to live in the city of Madison, have a child 17 years or younger in the household, and make no more than 200% of the federal poverty line. At the time, that income was $55,500 a year for a family of four in Wisconsin.

    The median household income of participants was $14,378 a year, according to a Center for Guaranteed Income website tracking the program.

    A living wage in Madison for a family of four with two working adults is $29 an hour, according to the Living Wage Calculator from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A living wage is how much each full-time worker must earn on an hourly basis to help cover the cost of their family’s minimum basic needs.

    A living wage in Madison translates to nearly $60,000 a year that each adult would need to make. For a single parent of two children, a living wage in Madison is considered $53 an hour, or $109,000 a year.

    “Families are working really, really hard,” said Blake Roberts Crall, program manager of the Madison Forward Fund. “But it doesn’t matter how hard families are working. They still can’t get ahead. And there’s a lot of important social safety net programs or other sorts of resources out there. But even with that, it’s not enough to be able to really thrive in the city or in the community.”

    The Madison Forward Fund was structured as a randomized control trial to study the effects the payments had on families. Of the 3,000 eligible applicants, 155 households were randomly chosen to receive the $500 monthly payments. Another 200 households didn’t receive payments and acted as a control group.

    Participants were surveyed throughout the year of payments and then for another six months afterward. Over 80% of participants were female and almost three quarters were single. About half of participants were Black, around a quarter were white, and the remaining quarter were mixed-race, Asian or Latino.

    Similar programs have been piloted across the country. Researchers of a guaranteed income program in Cambridge, Massachusetts, found participants reported higher incomes and full-time employment after receiving payments. A program in Rhode Island showed payments helped people transition out of homelessness as well as significantly increased their likelihood of attending their child’s school meetings.

    While those programs were short-term pilots, Alaska has run a universal basic income program since the 1980s, known as the Permanent Fund Dividend. The payments vary year to year and are funded by investment earnings from the state’s mineral royalties. All residents can receive a payment, regardless of income or employment status.

    Studies of Alaska’s payments show the income doesn’t negatively impact employment and can reduce rural poverty rates for Alaska Natives.

    Lawmakers seek to block guaranteed income programs

    A bill making its way through the state Assembly this year aims to ban municipalities from using state funds to support guaranteed income programs.

    The bill was introduced by Reps. Jim Piwowarczyk, R-Hubertus, and Dave Maxey, R-New Berlin. At a public hearing on the legislation April 10, they highlighted concerns about taxpayer dollars going to these types of programs.

    “Local governments should not be allowed to divert taxpayer dollars from critical programs to fund initiatives that encourage dependency on the government rather than fostering self-reliance,” Piwowarczyk said.

    The Madison Forward Fund relied solely on private philanthropy rather than taxpayer dollars for funding payments to its participants.

    At the legislative hearing, Piwowarczyk raised concerns about a similar, ongoing guaranteed income program in Milwaukee aimed at helping low-income pregnant mothers. That program, called the Bridge Project, received $350,000 in federal COVID-19 relief dollars from the city of Milwaukee and is otherwise supported by private funds, according to the Zilber Family Foundation, which is partnering on the project.

    The bill was moved out of the Assembly Committee on Public Benefit Reform April 15 with the committee’s four Republican members voting in favor. The committee’s two Democratic members — Reps. Ryan Clancy, D-Milwaukee, and Christian Phelps, D-Eau Claire — voted against the legislation, questioning the need for the bill.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Albuquerque City Council agrees to use weed tax revenue for basic income pilot

    By Elizabeth McCall

    See original post here.

    Council agrees to use weed tax revenue basic income pilot program

    Just in time for the 420 holiday, our City Council has found a way to employ the swelling coffers of cannabis tax money to the benefit of Albuquerque. After years in the works, recreational-use cannabis excise tax revenue can now start to be reinvested directly into Albuquerque communities — specifically in impoverished areas and toward youth substance use prevention, treatment and recovery services.

    In 2023 the City Council approved a bill to use tax revenue from marijuana sales for a permanent Marijuana Equity and Community Reinvestment Fund as a way to invest in those who have been “negatively impacted by the criminalization of marijuana.” 

    After multiple residents spoke in favor of the initiative during a council meeting in March, city councilors approved a bill that lays the groundwork for putting the money to use in the community. The bill — sponsored by Councilor Kalrissa Peña — passed on a tight 5-4 vote. 

    Voting yes were: Joaquín Baca, Tammy Fiebelkkorn, Klarissa Peña, Nichole Rogers and Louie Sanchez. Voting no were: Brook Bassan, Dan Champine, Renée Grout and Dan Lewis.

    “This money is aside from our budget, it’s a set amount of money that we’re going to be getting every year dedicated to really try to achieve justice where there was injustice,” Peña said. 

    The city anticipates the tax revenue to generate $4.02 million per year. According to Associate Chief Administrative Officer Carla Martinez, the funds will be “split equally between” the Office of Equity and Inclusion and the Department of Health, Housing and Homelessness to partner with multiple organizations. 

    “We want to ensure that people don’t have to pick medicine over rent, over other things, so it is to help supplement their income,” Martinez said. 

    The Office of Equity and Inclusion will use the funds to create a guaranteed basic income pilot program for low-income residents in the International District and the city’s Westside — specifically to families whose children attend Whittier Elementary School and Carlos Rey Elementary School. 

    “The schools were picked for the areas that they are in,” Martinez said during the March meeting. “One is in the South Valley, one is in the southeast and they particularly have their underrepresented, impoverished neighborhoods and so that’s why they were selected.”

    According to a news release from the Office of Equity and Inclusion, two cohorts will get $750 per month for three years. 

    “The first cohort will consist of 80 households that will receive monthly guaranteed income support of $750 for three years. The second cohort will consist of 20 families and up to 40 opportunity youth,” the release states.

    The Department of Health, Housing and Homelessness will use the funds toward seven programs mainly focusing on youth services that offer substance use prevention, treatment and recovery services. It includes programs from Youth Development Inc., the University of New Mexico’s Young Children’s Health Center and Enlace Communitario. 

    Some councilors raised concerns about how the departments will track the program successes or failures and if families are using the money appropriately. Martinez said the participants will fill out surveys and receive financial training and education. 

    “There’s the piece that is with [Office of Equity and Inclusion] related to the guaranteed basic income, and part of that will be tracking absenteeism, so hopefully, these individuals and students will not have chronic absenteeism,” Martinez said. “The other piece is that they need to participate in the Office of Financial Empowerment, so keeping track of that.” 

    Councilor Nichole Rogers, a proponent of the legislation, said data from other communities that have used similar programs show the additional income helps families thrive. Rogers said surveys showed participants used the money toward rent, food and transportation and that participants were fine with the temporary program because “they were able to get higher income.” 

    Rogers recounted a story she heard about a resident of Santa Fe — which has a basic income pilot program — who was able to buy a car with the additional money which then led to them getting a higher paying job. 

    “This isn’t a handout, this is a hand up to families who don’t qualify a lot of times for regular entitlement programs,” Rogers said. “We can really take a stance on poverty, because that is the root cause of a lot of the things that we’re facing in our community when it comes to homelessness, crime.” 

    Councilor Dan Lewis questioned why the funds are going to a guaranteed basic income, if there is an income requirement for participants and if they need to be a U.S. citizen. 

    Equity and Inclusion Director Sanya Lara said there is no income requirement and the office does not track U.S. citizenship, “so we wouldn’t begin tracking that there either.” 

    “With this work, we’d be able to follow through and make sure that people, as they are needing help and needing support while identifying gaps, we’d have the resources to help people to navigate those and give them that mentorship and support,” Lara said. “This experiment would be really informative to think about, as we pursue this on a longer term scale, how we can make adjustments and iterate from there.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Trump’s New Plan for Acquiring Greenland Is UBI for Its Residents—on Americans’ Dime

    By Lucas Ropek

    See original post here.

    It just gets crazier and crazier.

    President Donald Trump’s obsession with acquiring Greenland is ongoing, despite aggressive disinterest on the part of the territory’s inhabitants, or those of its parent country, Denmark. Indeed, the White House is reportedly considering some pretty creative tactics to sell Greenlanders on the deal, including paying them a regular annual stipend—on the U.S. taxpayer’s dime.

    The New York Times reported last week that the White House has a plan that sounds strikingly similar to a universal basic income scheme, or UBI. Such a program would represent the “carrot” approach, rather than the “stick” (Trump has also suggested a military invasion of Greenland, should Denmark refuse to sell). The newspaper reports that the Trump administration is:

    …studying financial incentives for Greenlanders, including the possibility of replacing the $600 million in subsidies that Denmark gives the island with an annual payment of about $10,000 per Greenlander. Some Trump officials believe those costs could be offset by new revenue from the extraction of Greenland’s natural resources, which include rare earth minerals, copper, gold, uranium and oil.

    For decades, proponents of basic income have encouraged the government to adopt such a program as a means of easing economic stress for millions of people here in America. Now, it seems the Trump administration is actually considering creating such a program—albeit for people living tens of thousands of miles away. The fact that the program would be funded with Americans’ money would presumably add insult to injury to the voters who thought Trump would shrink government spending, not add to it.

    Recent news suggests that the Greenland acquisition may not be all about extracting valuable mineral deposits from its frozen tundra. Last week, Reuters reported that Ken Howery, a former “PayPal mafia” member and the Trump administration’s pick for ambassador to Denmark, is officially involved in plans to use Greenland as a testbed for the development of so-called “freedom cities”—newfangled communities where government oversight and regulation are negligible and corporate profits and “freedom” are the priority. It was previously reported that Howery, who is a longtime friend of billionaires Peter Thiel and Elon Musk (both of whom have expressed interest in such communities), was in the running for the Danish ambassadorship. Howery previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Sweden between 2019 and 2021.

    Despite being geographically huge, Greenland only has a population of some 57,000 people. To deranged libertarian billionaires, it must seem like the perfect location to trial their utopian fantasies. Citing sources who are aware of the administration’s plans for the territory, Reuters reports:

    The vision for Greenland, one of the people said, could include a hub for artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles, space launches, micro nuclear reactors and high-speed rail. The discussions reflect a longstanding Silicon Valley movement to establish low-regulation cities globally, including in the United States, which Trump himself promised to do in a 2023 campaign video. Proponents use different names for variations on the idea, including startup cities or charter cities, with the common goal of spurring innovation through sweeping regulatory exemptions.

    Additionally, Reuters reports that Howery is taking these discussions “seriously”:

    The discussions are in early stages, but the idea has been taken seriously by Trump’s pick for Denmark ambassador, Ken Howery, who is expected to be confirmed by Congress in the coming months and lead Greenland-acquisition negotiations, the people said. Howery, whose involvement with the idea hasn’t been previously reported, once co-founded a venture-capital firm with tech billionaire Peter Thiel, a leading advocate for such low-regulation cities.

    The pursuit of the “freedom city” dream has been fueled by a bizarre ideological movement known as the “Network State movement.” True believers of said movement want to build their own privately owned, cryptocurrency-powered cities—the likes of which are untouchable by traditional open and democratic government structures. This movement has been partially funded by Howery’s pal and fellow “mafia” gang member, Thiel. Indeed, the organizations behind the Network State movement have received considerable financial support from the billionaire, who also financially supported Trump during his first presidential run in 2016. In a statement to Reuters, Thiel’s spokesperson denied he was involved in “freedom city” plans: “Peter isn’t involved in any plans or discussions regarding Greenland,” they said.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Universal Basic Income Could Slash UK Benefit Costs and Boost Economy, Studies Show

    By Kaiden-Chase

    See original post here.

    Implementing a Universal Basic Income (UBI) in the UK could significantly reduce the administrative burden and costs of the current benefit system while stimulating economic growth, according to recent research and pilot programs. Advocates argue that a well-designed UBI would streamline welfare payments, lift millions out of poverty, and increase financial security for workers—ultimately benefiting the broader economy.

    UBI: A Cost-Effective Alternative to the Current System

    The UK’s existing welfare system is complex, costly, and often inefficient, with means-testing, sanctions, and bureaucratic overheads consuming substantial resources. A UBI—a regular, unconditional payment to all citizens—could replace much of this structure, reducing administrative expenses while ensuring a safety net for all.

    A 2020 study by economists Georg Arendt and others found that a full UBI (providing £7,706 per adult and £3,853 per child annually) would cost the UK £67 billion per year (3.4% of GDP) after accounting for tax adjustments and savings from scrapping existing benefits. This is far less than the often-cited “gross cost” of UBI, as it factors in the redistribution of funds through taxation and the elimination of redundant welfare programs.

    Another report by economists Stewart Lansley and Howard Reed estimated that a moderate UBI scheme—paying £60 per adult, £175 for pensioners, and £40 per child weekly—would cost just £28 billion net, less than the total welfare cuts since 2010. This model suggests that UBI could be funded by reversing austerity-era reductions in social security spending while maintaining fiscal sustainability .

    Economic Benefits: Reducing Poverty and Increasing Stability

    Beyond cost savings, UBI could have transformative economic effects:

    1. Poverty Reduction – A UBI set at or near the poverty line would drastically lower deprivation rates. Research indicates that such a system could reduce UK poverty from 16% to just 4%, virtually eliminating child and elderly poverty .
    2. Simplified Welfare System – By removing means-testing and conditionality, UBI would cut bureaucratic costs and reduce errors, delays, and sanctions that currently push many into financial hardship .
    3. Labour Market Flexibility – Unlike traditional benefits, which can create “welfare traps” (where people lose support upon finding work), UBI provides a stable income floor, encouraging more people to take on part-time or flexible work without fear of sudden income loss .
    4. Boost to Local Economies – Low-income households are likelier to spend additional income immediately, stimulating demand for goods and services. This could help revitalize struggling high streets and small businesses .
    5. Health and Wellbeing Improvements – Studies from Finland’s UBI trial showed recipients experienced better mental health and higher trust in institutions—factors that could reduce NHS pressures and improve workforce productivity .

    Challenges and the Path Forward

    Critics argue that UBI could discourage work or require substantial tax hikes. However, evidence from pilot schemes suggests minimal negative employment effects, with some participants working more due to reduced financial stress . Funding options—such as reforming corporate tax breaks (currently costing £93 billion annually) or adjusting income tax bands—could make UBI feasible without drastic fiscal changes .

    The Welsh Government is already trialling a UBI for care leavers, while Scotland explores broader pilots. If successful, these experiments could pave the way for a national rollout, offering a more efficient and humane alternative to the UK’s strained welfare state .

    Conclusion

    As the UK faces rising inequality and an overstretched benefits system, UBI presents a compelling solution: cutting bureaucratic waste, reducing poverty, and fostering economic resilience. With careful design, it could transform social security from a costly burden into a driver of prosperity.

    Sources:

    • BIEN (2020), The Cost of a Full Basic Income for the UK
    • Compass & New Economics Foundation reports (2019-2023)
    • Institute for Employment Studies (2023)
    • Welsh and Scottish UBI trials

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • The first German long-term study on unconditional basic income ended after three years. And it refutes a central argument from the critics.

    By Matthias Pöls

    See original post here.

    The first long-term study on the unconditional basic income in Germany shows that it improves people’s happiness and mental health. Despite the financial support, recipients do not reduce their working hours more than others.

    The unconditional basic income has a “significantly positive” effect on people. This is the conclusion of the first German long-term study, the results of which were presented on Wednesday by the association “My Basic Income.” According to the study, recipients do not work less than others, but are overall happier and mentally healthier.

    Nearly 1,700 people participated in the study on the “Basic Income Pilot Project.” 122 of them received an unconditional basic income (UBI) of €1,200 per month tax-free for three years, from June 2021 to May 2024. The focus of the now published study was on employed individuals between the ages of 21 and 40 with a monthly net income of €1,100 to €2,600—the younger middle class.

    Leipzig woman fulfilled her dream with basic income

    Since 2014, millions of people have applied to participate in the donation-funded project – and thus receive an unconditional basic income. Romy from Leipzig’s lottery number was also drawn. Since June 2024, the 34-year-old has been receiving a so-called “utopian basic income.” This means 1,000 euros every month for a year. “I’ve fulfilled a dream with this,” says the psychologist.

    This allowed her to establish a part-time freelance artist career, Romy explains. “I took a career break at the end of last year to do this.” She primarily paints with acrylic and oil paints on canvas, and her website will be online soon. Nevertheless, Romy has been able to build up a financial cushion.

    Participants did not reduce working hours more than others

    A frequently voiced criticism of an unconditional basic income for everyone is that it would cause people to reduce their working hours, which could lead to problems for the economy. However, the study participants did not reduce their working hours any more than other people. There was no difference in this regard between the basic income group and the comparison group, according to the association “My Basic Income.” However, the UBI recipients continued their education more often and were more satisfied with their employment situation.

    It would be desirable if in the future there would be more fact-based debate in science, politics and society.Jürgen Schupp, Head of Studies

    “The results contribute to an evidence-based, objective approach to the debate surrounding the basic income narrative,” explained Professor Jürgen Schupp, who led the study at the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin). “It would be desirable for debates in academia, politics, and society to be increasingly based on facts in the future,” he continued.

    More peace in everyday life and greater self-confidence

    “It gives you a lot of peace in your everyday life and has also boosted your self-confidence,” says Romy. She and a friend won the basic income at the same time, and both of them have made many steps forward as a result. Her friend was able to start university at 40, something that would otherwise have been much more difficult to achieve.

    We didn’t have to keep a close eye on our money and whether it would be enough at the end of the month.Romy receives basic income

    But there were also smaller things that made life more pleasant overall. Romy and her friend enjoy going to concerts. “That way, we didn’t have to keep a close eye on our money and whether we’d have enough at the end of the month,” Romy said. On the other hand, it wasn’t a million euros, so “you’re very conscious about using the basic income.”

    First fulfill your wishes, then build up a financial cushion

    According to the study, the randomly selected participants initially fulfilled long-held dreams with their basic income. However, many later saved and invested, thus building sustainable financial security.

    During the study period, the proportion of those with assets of less than €10,000 reportedly fell to 13 percent, compared to 27 percent in the comparison group. In addition, those receiving a UBI shared more than twice as much money with their friends and family or through donations than the comparison group—about €125 per month.

    According to the association, the participants were able to significantly expand their scope of action and improve their overall well-being. This was also reflected in reduced stress, better sleep, and a more fulfilling social life.

    Regular online questionnaires formed the central component of the data collection. Participants in the study on the impact of the UBI included the DIW Berlin, the Vienna University of Economics and Business, the Institute for Employment Research, and the University of Oxford.

    What consequences the introduction of an unconditional basic income could have

    Klara Simon, chairwoman of “My Basic Income,” says: “A UBI can lead to massive savings in the health and social care systems. Because mentally stable people can work more productively and innovatively.” Furthermore, the UBI could increase equal opportunities in a modernized social system. “Thus, it can be an effective tool against the growing social inequality in this country, which is currently eroding our democracy from within.”

    From the association’s perspective, an unconditional basic income of €1,200 per month for all citizens is affordable. This was shown by a financing calculator developed jointly with the DIW in 2023. Over 80 percent of the population would ultimately have more money, while seven percent would see nothing change, and ten percent would have to pay more.

    According to “My Basic Income,” the whole thing could be financed primarily through higher income taxes, the abolition of tax privileges, and social benefits that are no longer necessary.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • N.Y.C. Mayor Candidate Pitches Largest Guaranteed Income Program in U.S.

    By Emma G. Fitzsimmons

    See original post here.

    Adrienne Adams, the New York City Council speaker who is running for mayor, proposed on Monday a guaranteed basic income program that would be the largest of its kind in the United States.

    It would aim to help more than 21,000 homeless children and young adults.

    The idea of giving families monthly checks — with no strings attached — took off across the nation during the pandemic after many people lost their jobs. Ms. Adams’s plan is her top campaign proposal as she tries to stand out from a crowded field of Democrats running in the June primary as the best alternative to former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, who leads in polls.

    As Council speaker, Ms. Adams helped fund a guaranteed income program for 161 pregnant women.

    “Ideology doesn’t solve problems: proven solutions do,” Ms. Adams said in a statement, adding that she wants to make sure that “we can end homelessness for the next generation by leading with what works.”

    The program would help 15,000 homeless children who are 5 years old and younger, 6,000 unaccompanied homeless youth who are ages 18 to 24 and about 500 young adults who exit the foster system care on their own each year. It would provide an initial one-time stipend of $2,500, followed by monthly payments over three years that start at $1,000 per month and then fall to $500 per month.

    Many of the other mayoral candidates have released ambitious policy plans. Zohran Mamdani, a state lawmaker from Queens, wants to make buses free; Brad Lander, the city comptroller, has pledged to end street homelessness for people with severe mental illness.

    Guaranteed income programs have been popular among liberal Democrats as a way to offer a lifeline to vulnerable people and to help put them on a more stable path. Dozens of cities have started such programs, including Los Angeles and Chicago. Conservatives have argued that the programs are wasteful and have pushed for work requirements.

    During New York City’s 2021 mayoral race, Andrew Yang, the former Democratic presidential candidate, proposed a guaranteed income plan that would have offered some New Yorkers roughly $2,000 per year. It was a pared-down version of his earlier universal basic income plan to give every American $1,000 per month.

    Ms. Adams has been a fierce critic of Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat who announced recently that he will run as an independent in the general election in November. Ms. Adams, who is not related to the mayor, entered the Democratic primary late and has trailed in polling and fund-raising.

    She has argued that her experience negotiating the $114 billion city budget and thwarting cuts to libraries and preschool makes her the strongest candidate. She is also running on a message of integrity and “no drama,” criticizing Mr. Adams, whose administration has been marred by corruption investigations, and Mr. Cuomo, who resigned in 2021 after sexual harassment allegations that he denies.

    Affordability has been a central issue in the race. Rents and child care costs have soared, and one in eight public school students in New York City is homeless.

    Ms. Adams has also highlighted her support for the City of Yes housing proposal, an ambitious and contentious plan that was approved last year and could help create 80,000 new homes over the next 15 years.

    Under Ms. Adams, the Council is spending $1.5 million this fiscal year to support a nonprofit called the Bridge Project that provides cash to new mothers. It was the first time that city funds were used on a guaranteed income program.

    Her new proposal would cost the city roughly $430 million over two years and rely on social impact bonds, where private investors pay for early costs and the government repays them, and other private partnerships for the third year, her campaign said.

    Much of the money in the existing program, which was paid to new mothers who were struggling to secure stable housing, was spent on basic baby supplies. But recipients said the checks also helped them cover housing, education and food costs. One mother bought a special high chair for her child, who was showing signs of cerebral palsy.

    Ms. Adams argues that a guaranteed income not only helps families, but also reduces homelessness, improves public safety and could help bring down city spending on shelters. Many mothers who were in the program have moved to permanent housing and reported improvements in their mental health and stress levels.

    Briana Drummer, 33, began receiving $1,000 per month through the City Council program last year when she was pregnant with her daughter. She grew up in foster care and was living in a family shelter before moving into an apartment in Harlem.

    Ms. Drummer has used the money to pay for baby clothing, diapers and books for college, where she is studying psychology and expects to graduate next month.

    “It’s been very helpful,” she said. “This is helping women have less stress on their shoulders.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Cook County leaders are touting the success of their guaranteed income pilot program

    By Kristen Schorsch

    See original post here.

    With federal funding for guaranteed income spent, a committee will determine what’s next for the county program.

    Cook County’s pilot program to provide guaranteed income to more than 3,000 people did what it was intended to do, early findings suggest — it helped provide some economic stability.

    “We got to make the case that these are great investments in our residents and our citizens,” Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle said.

    For two years as part of an initiative called Cook County Promise, recipients who had low to moderate income received $500 a month, which they could spend on whatever they wanted. They mostly used the funds on food, rent, utilities and transportation, according to preliminary survey results. People said the infusion of money helped reduce stress and helped them feel more financially secure.

    But after the last payments arrived in January, the county is forming an advisory committee to figure out what’s next for the program.

    Cook County Promise is one of Preckwinkle’s signature initiatives, and it received national attention. She has vowed to make it permanent.

    “I think it’s really important that we be part of the national conversation around guaranteed income,” Preckwinkle said in an interview. “We’re the richest country in the world … and we don’t take care of our own. And we got to do better.”

    She points out the expanded child tax credit in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic helped reduce poverty.

    Cook County Promise began in 2022 and was paid for with $42 million from the federal government to help recover from the pandemic. Governments across the U.S. used pandemic funding to pilot guaranteed income programs. Chicago had a program, too, but that has ended, much to the ire of advocates.

    Sabrina Eve Panariella, a single mother of two boys, got into the county’s program through a lottery after she lost her job. Her rent had just gone up by $250 a month and she was in school to become a certified yoga teacher. She remembers the moment she was standing in her kitchen when she got a text alerting her she won a spot in Cook County Promise.

    “I just kind of dropped down on my knees, and I was like, thank you God,” said Panariella, 45, who lives in west suburban River Grove. “I just really was so excited that the universe gave me this opportunity to get, you know, some help financially.”

    She found a job just before getting into Cook County Promise. But Panariella said she was making half as much as she did at her previous job. Her savings were depleted and she used state assistance to help buy food and get medical care.

    Panariella said she used her monthly payments from the county to pay for rent, bills and groceries, and feels more confident after going through the program. She said she works hard to fill the $500 monthly gap in her budget now that her payments have ended.

    “I have this positive mentality that it’s going to work out,” Panariella said. “I just work my butt off until I can earn what I need to earn to take care of myself and my two kids and my two cats.”

    That includes building her yoga business.

    The county released survey results from GiveDirectly, which administered Cook County Promise and checked in with recipients a few times during the program. At one point roughly 94% of participants said they used the money to manage a financial emergency or unexpected expense, while 73% said they believed the payments would impact them after the program ended.

    Separately, researchers at University of Chicago’s Inclusive Economy Lab are evaluating the program and plan to reveal their findings this year. Initial findings showed that when the program first started, participants most commonly prioritized paying bills, followed by paying off debt.

    Some of that came to fruition, according to GiveDirectly’s survey results. Around 45% of people said they were able to avoid debt, while another 31% say they reduced their debt.

    More than 300 participants in the program used financial counseling, and almost 60% who worked with the non-profit Working Credit for at least a year increased their credit score on average nearly 40 points, according to the county.

    The advisory committee is set to meet later this spring. They will look at everything from the scale of a future guaranteed income program to who would be eligible depending on where they live. For example, that might include more participants who live in Chicago now that the city’s program has ended. About 15% of people in Cook County Promise lived in Chicago and the rest lived in the suburbs, said Dominic Tocci, deputy bureau chief in the county’s Bureau of Economic Development.

    The committee also will determine how to pay for the program, which could be from a mix of general operating funds and philanthropy, Preckwinkle and Tocci said.

    It’s not clear yet when the next iteration of the county’s guaranteed income initiative would start. More than 230,000 people applied for the pilot program, which county leaders say underscores the need for financial assistance.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Cook County leaders are touting the success of their guaranteed income pilot program

    By Kristen Schorsch

    See original post here.

    With federal funding for guaranteed income spent, a committee will determine what’s next for the county program.

    Cook County’s pilot program to provide guaranteed income to more than 3,000 people did what it was intended to do, early findings suggest — it helped provide some economic stability.

    “We got to make the case that these are great investments in our residents and our citizens,” Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle said.

    For two years as part of an initiative called Cook County Promise, recipients who had low to moderate income received $500 a month, which they could spend on whatever they wanted. They mostly used the funds on food, rent, utilities and transportation, according to preliminary survey results. People said the infusion of money helped reduce stress and helped them feel more financially secure.

    But after the last payments arrived in January, the county is forming an advisory committee to figure out what’s next for the program.

    Cook County Promise is one of Preckwinkle’s signature initiatives, and it received national attention. She has vowed to make it permanent.

    “I think it’s really important that we be part of the national conversation around guaranteed income,” Preckwinkle said in an interview. “We’re the richest country in the world … and we don’t take care of our own. And we got to do better.”

    She points out the expanded child tax credit in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic helped reduce poverty.

    Cook County Promise began in 2022 and was paid for with $42 million from the federal government to help recover from the pandemic. Governments across the U.S. used pandemic funding to pilot guaranteed income programs. Chicago had a program, too, but that has ended, much to the ire of advocates.

    Sabrina Eve Panariella, a single mother of two boys, got into the county’s program through a lottery after she lost her job. Her rent had just gone up by $250 a month and she was in school to become a certified yoga teacher. She remembers the moment she was standing in her kitchen when she got a text alerting her she won a spot in Cook County Promise.

    “I just kind of dropped down on my knees, and I was like, thank you God,” said Panariella, 45, who lives in west suburban River Grove. “I just really was so excited that the universe gave me this opportunity to get, you know, some help financially.”

    She found a job just before getting into Cook County Promise. But Panariella said she was making half as much as she did at her previous job. Her savings were depleted and she used state assistance to help buy food and get medical care.

    Panariella said she used her monthly payments from the county to pay for rent, bills and groceries, and feels more confident after going through the program. She said she works hard to fill the $500 monthly gap in her budget now that her payments have ended.

    “I have this positive mentality that it’s going to work out,” Panariella said. “I just work my butt off until I can earn what I need to earn to take care of myself and my two kids and my two cats.”

    That includes building her yoga business.

    The county released survey results from GiveDirectly, which administered Cook County Promise and checked in with recipients a few times during the program. At one point roughly 94% of participants said they used the money to manage a financial emergency or unexpected expense, while 73% said they believed the payments would impact them after the program ended.

    Separately, researchers at University of Chicago’s Inclusive Economy Lab are evaluating the program and plan to reveal their findings this year. Initial findings showed that when the program first started, participants most commonly prioritized paying bills, followed by paying off debt.

    Some of that came to fruition, according to GiveDirectly’s survey results. Around 45% of people said they were able to avoid debt, while another 31% say they reduced their debt.

    More than 300 participants in the program used financial counseling, and almost 60% who worked with the non-profit Working Credit for at least a year increased their credit score on average nearly 40 points, according to the county.

    The advisory committee is set to meet later this spring. They will look at everything from the scale of a future guaranteed income program to who would be eligible depending on where they live. For example, that might include more participants who live in Chicago now that the city’s program has ended. About 15% of people in Cook County Promise lived in Chicago and the rest lived in the suburbs, said Dominic Tocci, deputy bureau chief in the county’s Bureau of Economic Development.

    The committee also will determine how to pay for the program, which could be from a mix of general operating funds and philanthropy, Preckwinkle and Tocci said.

    It’s not clear yet when the next iteration of the county’s guaranteed income initiative would start. More than 230,000 people applied for the pilot program, which county leaders say underscores the need for financial assistance.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • SFCC student says guaranteed basic income pilot ‘helpful in every way’

    By Carina Julig

    See original post here.

    Leslye Melchor de Cardona had a lot going on in 2022.

    Pregnant with her third child, she was pursuing a credential in early childhood education at Santa Fe Community College to qualify to be an at-home child care provider, something she was hoping to do after her baby was born.

    In the midst of it all and just 29 years old, she was diagnosed with breast cancer.

    She also was selected to be one of 100 participants in a pilot program funded by the city of Santa Fe in which students with children at the community college were given $400 a month for a year — between October 2021 and September 2022 — with no restrictions on how the funds could be spent.

    A new report by the Center for Guaranteed Income Research at the University of Pennsylvania found the participants were more likely to be employed, more likely to be able to withstand a financial emergency and more able to financially help other people in their community after it ended.

    Melchor de Cardona described the guaranteed income program as a lifeline during a difficult time for her and her family.

    “Even though I was going through chemotherapy and radiation and all that, I was still going to school — I never stopped,” she said in a recent interview.

    She said the extra money “came at a time when I needed it the most.”

    It went toward bills, groceries and other expenses: “It was helpful in every way.”

    The pilot program was spearheaded in 2021 by the city, the Santa Fe Community Foundation and the community college as a project of Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, a national coalition that includes Santa Fe Mayor Alan Webber.

    Webber and college officials said they were encouraged by the results and hope it will be a catalyst for more guaranteed income programs throughout New Mexico.

    “You think $400 is not a lot of money, but the amount of impact each of these dollars had on the student parents and their kids, it’s just pretty amazing,” said Yash Morimoto, a college vice president.

    The participants were overwhelmingly Hispanic women living below the poverty line, and each had an average of two children. More than 70% were receiving federal food assistance.

    The report by the Center for Guaranteed Income Research said the majority of participants used the extra income on household items and food, and by the end of the program most participants were more financially stable, had more money in savings and were able to spend more time with their children.

    The study did not compare the participants to a control group of nonparticipating students, but Morimoto and SFCC President Becky Rowley said they believe the money increased the participants’ chances of completing a degree program.

    Rowley noted external financial challenges are the biggest impediment to students staying in school, something that is especially difficult for students supporting a family. About 40% of SFCC students have children.

    “We’re trying to keep people from being in the position where they feel like they have to choose between their family and finishing what they’ve started with us,” she said. “And so if we can provide a little bit of extra income, then they may not have to make that choice.”

    Morimoto said students who leave college with a credential can earn $10,000 to $15,000 more in their careers.

    “That could really mean a difference between living in poverty to having a livable wage,” he said.

    But a perennial challenge for the community college is student retention, with its current fall-to-fall retention rate hovering slightly below 60%.

    Webber said that the pilot was specifically geared toward parents helped combat generational poverty, something he identified as one of New Mexico’s most significant challenges.

    He described the program’s results as “a really powerful confirmation that we do have tools at our disposal that will benefit families across Santa Fe” and potentially the state.

    Beyond helping students complete their education, Webber said the guaranteed income stipends gave people more control over their future.

    “Rather than having to simply accept whatever comes their way, they get to choose, and that’s a huge change in people’s lives,” he said.

    Rowley said she believes the study will make it easier for the college to fundraise for future initiatives.

    The city is also committed to keeping the program going, allocating an additional $1 million in February.

    Webber said there’s no reason the guaranteed income program couldn’t be replicated on a larger scale, something he believes would pay dividends.

    “People could actually be in the middle class, have a good-paying job with benefits and pass that on to their children, and you’d see a spiral of success that would change the trajectory for people all across our city and potentially all across the state,” he said.

    After completing her early childhood care credential, Melchor de Cardona completed about half of an associate degree before leaving school. With her cancer now in remission, her time is occupied by recovering from the grueling cancer treatments she went through and raising her four children, including a 1½-year-old boy she described as the family’s “miracle baby.”

    She said she hopes to go back to school to finish not just that degree but eventually a master’s degree, which would allow her to work with children in the school system.

    Melchor de Cardona said she isn’t the type of person who likes to leave things half-finished and said she is proud of how much she accomplished.

    “It was a happy time, but at the same time it was a sad situation,” she said. “But I’m glad I made it and I’m alive.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • In new guaranteed basic income pilot, some Brookline Housing Authority residents will get direct monthly payments

    By Sam Mintz

    See original post here.

    Up to 60 residents of Brookline Housing Authority properties will start receiving monthly payments of $250 for a year as part of a new project the organization is kicking off this month.

    BHA’s new “Resident Opportunity Initiative” is an expansion of its existing “Self Sufficiency Program” which is geared toward helping residents establish long-term financial stability.

    The rent payments of BHA residents are tied to their income, so typically, when their incomes increase, so do their rents. Since 2021, the program has worked with some 65 residents to set employment goals, and when their income increases as a result, rather than put the funds in rent increases, it is put into an escrow account. Residents can access those funds at the end of the multi-year program.

    Now the public housing agency is adding a new experiment with a modified guaranteed basic income.

    “What we were finding is that even with this ability to accrue the savings, people might not be able to see that for three to five years,” said Danielle Mendola, BHA’s director of resident services. “And in the meantime, they’re just feeling the hit. Their rent is going up. They’re having more costs to pay for child care and transportation. It felt like two steps forward to go one step back.”

    Hence the idea to give direct payments to the program’s participants to help them build long-term savings.

    A guaranteed basic income has been tried in many other places, including Cambridge, where recent research  found that the city’s $500 per month payments to 130 families created “significant improvements in financial health, higher rates of employment, increased time and space for parenting, and improved educational outcomes for children.”

    For the BHA, the $250 monthly payments are key.

    “What if we could do more than just help build savings? What if we could also help people in that period while they’re in the process of advancing,” said Mendola.

    With the new funding, which comes from federal ARPA and block grant funds distributed by the town of Brookline, the organization will also be adding a coach toto expand its team to two. The coaches help participants break down their goals and set strategies for saving.

    “Their goals are different: personal, financial, education, employment,” said Jacqueline Lara, the program’s coordinator and lead coach.

    Of the 65 past participants, 90% are women, and 80% are Black or Latino. They have an average starting income of $13,000, and have collectively saved more than $400,000 in the escrow accounts. Four households participating in the program have moved out of public housing, and three have purchased homes.

    Kimberley Richardson, a BHA board member and resident who completed the program, said it helped her get closer to her goals.

    “$15,000 isn’t wealth. However, it is a stepping stone,” Richardson said. “It can put you on a path toward paying off debt or even making a down payment on a home. And that down payment can be the beginning of an opportunity to create real, lasting wealth.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • The history of universal basic income: The concept of UBI has been debated for centuries

    By Katie Balevic

    See original post here.

    • The concept of universal basic income has a long history.
    • Figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and Richard Nixon supported versions of UBI.
    • Now, the US and other countries have experimented with active basic income programs.

    Over the last few years, as average Americans have wrestled with a growing wealth gap and rising prices, policymakers have been tossing around an audacious idea: What if we just give people money to help them?

    The concept of a universal basic income is pretty simple. To help support a population, the government gives it no-strings-attached funds to bolster their finances.

    Despite vigorous debate over UBI, some American cities and counties are now experimenting with guaranteed basic income, a pared-down version of UBI in which a subset of the population receives funds for a limited time period, usually about 12 to 18 months.

    In the cities and US states that have tried basic income programs, recipients have said it helped them secure better housing and jobs, improved their food security, and ultimately live healthier lives.

    A basic income, whether guaranteed or universal, may seem like a revolutionary concept, but it’s actually been debated in American politics for centuries, dating back to the nation’s founding.

    A concept as old as the nation itself

    In the 1790s, Thomas Paine, one of the country’s Founding Fathers, argued in favor of multiple lump sum payments similar to a modern UBI. One of the payments would have been dispersed when a person reached adulthood, paid for with funds from property taxes.

    In his pamphlet called “Agrarian Justice,” Paine said people were owed this money because private land ownership prevented them from hunting and farming freely. Paine suggested another series of payments for people at retirement age.

    One of Paine’s contemporaries, Thomas Spence, an English activist in the mid-19th century, called for payments that mirrored the modern idea of UBI much more directly: He suggested higher property taxes to support an unconditional cash income for the entire population.

    It took centuries, but Paine’s and Spence’s ideas hit the mainstream in the 20th and 21st centuries.

    Martin Luther King Jr. and Richard Nixon supported a basic income

    Martin Luther King Jr. promoted a basic income in the 1960s as a form of economic equality, noting that poverty impacts both white and Black Americans.

    “I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective — the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income,” King wrote in his 1967 book, “Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?”

    Two years later, President Richard Nixon issued a similar proclamation with some caveats that reflect modern-day objections, like the idea that direct cash payments will discourage recipients from working. He called it a “Family Assistance Plan.”

    “For a family of four now on welfare, with no outside income, the basic federal payment would be $1,600 a year,” Nixon said. “A guaranteed income would undermine the incentive to work; the family assistance plan that I propose increases the incentive to work. A guaranteed income establishes a right without any responsibilities; family assistance recognizes a need and establishes a responsibility.”

    Despite years of advocacy, Congress never passed Nixon’s plan. Instead, conservatives like President Ronald Reagan ushered in a new era of anti-welfare sentiment, though UBI and welfare differ in many ways.

    That didn’t stop states and cities from trying, however.

    Another program launched in the 1970s that shares the spirit of universal basic income is the Alaska Permanent Fund, which distributes lump sums of money to residents as annual dividends depending on the state’s oil revenue.

    While American politicians and public figures have scratched their heads on whether and how to implement basic income in the United States in modern times, other countries have made it work at varying scales.

    A number of countries have tried basic income programs. For instance, Canada launched a basic income experiment about 50 years ago that continues today. It helps youth transitioning out of foster care. Nations such as Finland, Italy, and Uganda, among others, have also implemented pilot programs in the past.

    Modern iterations of UBI

    Andrew Yang, an entrepreneur, revived the debate around a universal basic income when he ran for president in 2020. He proposed giving every adult $1,000 a month as part of what he called a “Freedom Dividend.” Yang’s candidacy ultimately fizzled, along with the basic income debate.

    After the success of pandemic-era stimulus checks, however, as well as interest from Silicon Valley leaders like Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman — who worry AI could make UBI necessary if humans lose their jobs en masse — basic income experiments are now popping up around the country.

    The Stanford Basic Income Lab says the United States now has the most active basic income programs in the world. The programs vary in scale, targeting hundreds to thousands of people. Altman backed one of the largest basic income programs ever. It spanned three states and targeted 3,000 people.

    More localized programs have also seen success. A Birmingham basic income program helped single mothers afford childcare, for instance, and a similar basic income program in New Mexico helped immigrant families pay their rent and secure work. A program in Los Angeles prompted local officials to try a basic income program for survivors of domestic violence.

    Basic income has also been on political ballots. A recent basic income proposal in Oregon would have given all state residents a $1,600 annual rebate by implementing a 3% tax on corporations in the state once they hit a certain revenue threshold. The opposition effort raised millions to fight the ballot measure, which was ultimately defeated in the November election.

    “Oregonians overwhelmingly believe that corporations should start paying their fair share in taxes and that today’s economy is rigged against us,” the organizers behind the proposal said after its election defeat. “We will continue to fight for a fairer and more just economy for Oregon.”

    While interest in a basic income is growing, so is political opposition. There have been legal challenges to basic income programs in Houston and San Francisco and legislation introduced in Iowa and elsewhere that would prevent local governments from launching basic income studies.

    And as President Donald Trump’s administration looks to reduce government spending, the possibility of a federal universal basic income is likely on hold.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Rashida Tlaib calls for cash payments to young people experiencing homelessness

    By Lee DeVito

    See original post here.

    U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib wants to give rent money to young adults and youth experiencing homelessness.

    The Detroit Congresswoman has reintroduced her Youth Homelessness Guaranteed Income Pilot Program Act, which calls for direct cash payments to adults under 30 and emancipated minors experiencing homelessness.

    The payments would be $1,400, or the adjusted fair market rent, per month for up to three years.

    “Now, more than ever, we need federal programs that address the growing housing crisis,” U.S. Rep. Tlaib said in a statement. “Youth homelessness is at an all-time high while the Trump Administration is slashing federal support and gutting the Department of Housing and Urban Development. By providing direct cash assistance, we can address our housing crisis with the urgency this moment demands.”

    Tlaib said the bill was inspired by talking to youth.

    “This bill came directly from young people with lived experience who helped craft the bill to ensure that it meets the real needs of our unhoused neighbors,” she continued. “In the richest country in the history of the world, it’s time to eradicate homelessness. The Youth Homelessness Guaranteed Income Pilot Program Act brings us closer to that goal.”

    The legislation is cosponsored by Representatives Yassamin Ansari (AZ-03), Sylvia Garcia (TX-29), Hank Johnson Jr. (GA-04), Jim McGovern (MA-02), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC), Delia Ramirez (IL-03), Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12). It is also endorsed by organizations including Detroit’s Ruth Ellis Center and the Michigan Coalition Against Homelessness, among others.

    According to the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, more than 3.5 million young adults and about 700,000 young people experience homelessness each year. The risk is 83% higher for Black young adults and youth and 120% more for LGBTQ+ youth.

    The number of unaccompanied youth experiencing homelessness increased 10% from 2023-2024 — an all-time high, Tlaib’s office says.

    While studies have found that providing cash assistance has saved money by reducing strains on housing shelter systems, Tlaib’s office says more analysis is needed. The legislation also calls for a study of the effects of the program.

    “It is time to demonstrate the benefits of direct cash assistance for young people experiencing homelessness, which is why the Youth Homelessness Guaranteed Income Pilot Program Act is needed,” Tlaib’s office says. “More importantly, participants in past cash assistance programs have described the impact as life changing. Cash assistance provides individuals with the freedom to make their own choices about how to address their unique circumstances.”

    The full text of the bill is available below.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • New research will examine the use of welfare reform to tackle health inequalities

    By NIHR

    See original post here.

    As debate over changes to Britain’s welfare system continues to dominate the news, members of a multidisciplinary team of researchers are beginning a two-year study to examine the case for transformative welfare policy and the impact on public health outcomes.

    Led by public policy researchers at Northumbria University and funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the study brings together experts in economics, behavioural science, health history and epidemiology to carry out analysis of a growing body of research which suggests establishing a universal support system to provide people with more financial certainty could have a positive effect on mental and physical health, while saving the NHS money.

    One option for reform is the introduction of a Basic Income, which is a regular cash payment from government to all citizens, regardless of whether they are in employment or how much they earn. However, while policies like Basic Income have been the subject of several localised pilots, they have yet to be trialled nationally in Britain. As a result, policymakers require new types of evidence on impact to determine whether the costs and benefits to public health add up.

    Leading academics from the universities of Northumbria, York, Warwick, Strathclyde, Birmingham and University College London (UCL), are now working to establish the latest evidence for government and policymakers in the study titled, Examining credibility of current evidence for welfare as a public health measure: pathways, causation and cost benefit of further research.

    Matthew Johnson, Professor of Public Policy at Northumbria University and research group Chair of the Common Sense Policy Group, said: “At a time in which there is a real need to support government in taking the difficult decisions it needs to take in order to resolve our era of crisis, this award is remarkable: the NIHR is supporting a programme of research examining the possibility of reversing decades of direction in social security policy by introducing regular payments to British citizens, including those in work.

    “This bold award provides an opportunity for an interdisciplinary panel of experts to interrogate thinking on this topic: Are estimates for potential impacts of Basic Income schemes correct? Might there be more or less impact than projections currently suggest? How might our assumptions of impact change when we are forced to consider as potential biases the social, disciplinary and ideological framings of our thinking? The outcome of this project will be a much clearer assessment of whether and in what ways we might promote public health through a reformed social security system.”

    The study will use expert panels and surveys of public opinion on welfare policies alongside economic modelling and analysis to generate a new body of evidence on options for reform. Findings will then be incorporated into an interactive microsimulation model known as the Triple PC: Public Policy Preference Calculator. This allows individual policies to be assessed on economic and health impact, as well as popularity among the public.

    Dr Howard Reed, Senior Research Fellow in Public Policy at Northumbria and Economics Lead for the Common Sense Policy Group, said: “Discussion of social security reform almost always focuses on significant costs. The long-term benefits of that reform are generally overlooked, with the potential health impacts of transformative public policy poorly understood within economics. This project presents an opportunity to upgrade economic understanding of the impact of social security reform, casting new light on the way in which changing rates of poverty and inequality has an effect on public health.”

    Dr Elliott Johnson, a Vice Chancellor’s Fellow in Public Policy at Northumbria and Impact Lead for the Common Sense Policy Group, said: “Government faces myriad pressures on its thinking at present. Budgets are strained and there is understandable concern about making largescale investment in social security given the associated necessity of reforming tax, particularly on wealth. Yet, this is an opportunity to support a new government in taking a bold, but necessary step, toward assessing options for national renewal. This will give us the ability to put a figure on the cost of doing nothing.”

    Research which informs how policymakers might review existing welfare programmes or adopt and deploy basic income schemes is at the heart of activity from the team of researchers, led by Professor Johnson, at Northumbria University. Whilst being involved in evaluating a Basic Income pilot for young people leaving care in Wales, Northumbria researchers have also supported a research report presented to Greater Manchester Mayor, Andy Burnham, which outlines a plan for a Basic Income pilot in the city. In 2023, they carried out extensive research and community consultation exercises, in partnership with communities in Jarrow, South Tyneside and East Finchley, London to develop community-led proposals for a two-year Basic Income pilot on a smaller scale.

    As well as publishing reports on regional transport policy, democratic reform and the use of Radical Prevention Funds, the Northumbria team have also led the development of a blueprint for policy reform aimed at bringing an end to poverty and inequality in Britain. Act Now: A vision for a better future and a new social contract was published as a book before last year’s General Election. A second book, Basic Income: The Policy That Changes Everything, is due to be published later this year.

    Northumbria University is dedicated to reducing health and social inequalities, contributing to the regional and national workforce and improving social, economic and health outcomes for the most marginalised in society. Through its new Centre for Health and Social Equity, known as CHASE, researchers will be delivering world-leading health and social equity research and creating innovative, evidence-based policies and data-driven solutions to bring impactful change across the region, the UK and globally.

    Dr Joanne Atkinson, Head of Department for Social Work, Education and Community Wellbeing at Northumbria University, added: “This NIHR funding award is fundamental to expanding the Common Sense Policy Group’s work and contributing to the Centre for Health and Social Equity as Northumbria strives to create world-leading knowledge that drives social mobility and powers an inclusive economy. This is an example of how high-quality interdisciplinary research on the key issues of our age can inform discussions on national policy.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Bill Gates: Within 10 years, AI will replace many doctors and teachers—humans won’t be needed ‘for most things’

    By Tom Huddleston Jr.

    See original post here.

    Over the next decade, advances in artificial intelligence will mean that humans will no longer be needed “for most things” in the world, says Bill Gates.

    That’s what the Microsoft co-founder and billionaire philanthropist told comedian Jimmy Fallon during an interview on NBC’s “The Tonight Show” in February. At the moment, expertise remains “rare,” Gates explained, pointing to human specialists we still rely on in many fields, including “a great doctor” or “a great teacher.”

    But “with AI, over the next decade, that will become free, commonplace — great medical advice, great tutoring,” Gates said.

    In other words, the world is entering a new era of what Gates called “free intelligence” in an interview last month with Harvard University professor and happiness expert Arthur Brooks. The result will be rapid advances in AI-powered technologies that are accessible and touch nearly every aspect of our lives, Gates has said, from improved medicines and diagnoses to widely available AI tutors and virtual assistants.

    “It’s very profound and even a little bit scary — because it’s happening very quickly, and there is no upper bound,” Gates told Brooks.

    The debate over how, exactly, most humans will fit into this AI-powered future is ongoing. Some experts say AI will help humans work more efficiently — rather than replacing them altogether — and spur economic growth that leads to more jobs being created.

    Others, like Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman, counter that continued technological advancements over the next several years will change what most jobs look like across nearly every industry, and have a “hugely destabilizing” impact on the workforce.

    “These tools will only temporarily augment human intelligence,” Suleyman wrote in his book “The Coming Wave,” which was published in 2023. “They will make us smarter and more efficient for a time, and will unlock enormous amounts of economic growth, but they are fundamentally labor replacing.”

    AI is both concerning and a ‘fantastic opportunity’

    Gates is optimistic about the overall benefits AI can provide to humanity, like “breakthrough treatments for deadly diseases, innovative solutions for climate change, and high-quality education for everyone,” he wrote last year.

    Talking to Fallon, Gates reaffirmed his belief that certain types of jobs will likely never be replaced by AI, noting that people probably don’t want to see machines playing baseball, for example.

    “There will be some things we reserve for ourselves. But in terms of making things and moving things and growing food, over time those will be basically solved problems,” Gates said.

    AI’s development does come with “understandable and valid” concerns, Gates wrote in a 2023 blog post. Today’s top-of-the-line AI programs are rife with errors and prone to enabling the spread of falsehoods online, for example.

    But if he had to start a new business from scratch, he’d launch an “AI-centric” startup, Gates told CNBC Make It in September 2024.

    “Today, somebody could raise billions of dollars for a new AI company [that’s just] a few sketch ideas,” he said, adding: “I’m encouraging young people at Microsoft, OpenAI, wherever I find them: ‘Hey, here’s the frontier.’ Because you’re taking a fresher look at this than I am, and that’s your fantastic opportunity.”

    Gates predicted AI’s potential years ago

    Gates saw the AI revolution coming nearly a decade ago: When asked which industry he’d focus on if he had to start over from scratch, he quickly chose AI.

    “The work in artificial intelligence today is at a really profound level,” Gates said at a 2017 event at Columbia University alongside Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett. He pointed to the “profound milestone” of Google’s DeepMind AI lab creating a computer program that could defeat humans at the board game Go.

    At the time, the technology was years away from ChatGPT-style generative text, powered by large language models. Yet by 2023, even Gates was surprised by the speed of AI’s development. He’d challenged OpenAI to create a model that could get a top score on a high school AP Biology exam, expecting the task to take two or three years, he wrote in his blog post.

    “They finished it in just a few months,” wrote Gates. He called the achievement “the most important advance in technology since the graphical user interface [in 1980].”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Opinion: A formula to end childhood poverty in Connecticut through cash and generational wealth building

    By Holly Foggle and Derrick Hamilton

    See original post here.

    One of the many groups awaiting the results of the recent presidential election with bated breath were those invested in eradicating childhood poverty. Both parties referenced implementing a version of the expanded Child Tax Credit if elected, a policy that could finally end the shameful prevalence of millions of American children growing up hungry and without their basic needs met in the wealthiest country in the world.

    Now that the Trump and Vance administration has taken office, we are eager for them to fulfill their promises of an enhanced Child Tax Credit. To extend this Biden-era enhancement that marked our country’s most powerful tool ever in fighting child poverty would be a fitting result of the aisle-crossing history of the program, which was based on the recommendations more than three decades ago of the bipartisan National Commission on Children.

    We urge federal leaders to learn from current successes in this space and heed expert guidance when crafting policies to better support families.

    The most recent data in the U.S. shows we are losing the battle against childhood poverty, with a troubling rise in the number of kids who live in households that are struggling to put food on the table and pay for the rising cost of basic expenses like rent. The effects of this are not just on the individuals experiencing what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. referred to as the “violence of poverty,” but society as a whole with a whopping price tag of $1 trillion in lost productivity and increased costs in areas ranging from health to homelessness.

    To finally bring an end to the devastating toll we all bear due to the ongoing childhood poverty crisis, a groundbreaking initiative in Connecticut offers a blueprint for transformative change. By combining guaranteed income with wealth-building strategies, the state is pioneering a comprehensive approach that could revolutionize how we tackle economic inequality and create opportunities for future generations. Winning the fight against childhood poverty is also an issue of racial justice, as children living in poverty are more likely to experience childhood trauma and children of color are overrepresented in the childhood poverty rate.

    With the recent launch of The Bridge Project’s guaranteed income program across Connecticut along the state’s existing Baby Bonds initiative, we are witnessing the country’s largest test of pairing income and wealth-building programs. This represents a pivotal moment in the fight against childhood poverty as this dual approach addresses both immediate needs and long-term wealth accumulation, providing a robust foundation for economic mobility.

    The Bridge Project is providing 500 pregnant individuals with a guaranteed income totaling more than $20,000 in monthly payments across three years, beginning during pregnancy. The first round of payments began this month. This immediate financial support is crucial for families facing economic hardship, with one in four Connecticut residents unable to meet their basic needs and more than 15,000 babies born into poverty each year. Results from prior cohorts of the program find significant positive impact on families receiving funds, with a 242% increase in savings as well as significant increases in the ability to afford child care and increase food security.

    Complementing this income support, Connecticut’s Baby Bonds program, launched last year, invests $3,200 for each baby born into a family covered by Medicaid. By the time these children reach adulthood, their accounts are projected to grow to between $11,000 and $24,000 — a significant sum that can be used for education, homeownership, or entrepreneurship. We are already seeing a bipartisan group of leaders nationwide recognize the potential impact of such a policy, with at least 19 states that have introduced or are considering similar legislation.

    The synergy between these short and long-term programs is powerful. While guaranteed income provides immediate relief and stability, baby bonds build generational wealth and expand future opportunities. This combination addresses both the symptoms and root causes of intergenerational poverty. A key commonality of these programs is that neither imposes a work requirement, which has been proven to actually hinder a recipient’s ability to pull themselves out of poverty. Caring for a baby should be a universally accepted moment in one’s life to completely focus on the wellbeing of the child — something that leaders on both sides of the aisle have said is a shared goal.

    Research underscores the value of layering support to address root causes of poverty and inequality. Studies have shown that guaranteed income can improve maternal mental health, reduce postpartum depression, and enhance infant brain activity. Meanwhile, wealth-building initiatives like baby bonds have the potential to dramatically narrow the racial wealth gap, with one study suggesting they could shrink the wealth gap between Black and white young adults by more than 90%.

    By investing in children from birth, we’re investing in our collective future. It’s been proven that early childhood investments yield the highest returns, both in terms of individual outcomes and societal benefits. By combining income support with wealth-building, we’re not just alleviating immediate hardship — we’re creating a foundation for long-term economic growth and stability.

    Beyond the financial, there is a psychological impact of these programs. Knowing that a child has access to both immediate support and future capital can positively influence family planning, aspirations, and decision-making from birth. Having a nest egg to fall back on can supplement growth throughout a child’s development — influencing health, educational, and career outcomes long before the funds are even accessed.

    As we look to the future, it’s clear that solving childhood poverty requires bold, bipartisan solutions. Supporters of similar programs are as varied as Richard Nixon and his Family Security Act, which included a version of a guaranteed income; to Sen. Cory Booker and Rep. Ayanna Pressley, who have introduced a federal Baby Bonds policy that would extend the benefits of wealth-building to children born into poverty across the country.

    As researchers and funders, we’ll be watching closely to see how Connecticut’s innovative pairing of these income and wealth-building policies unfolds. The lessons learned here could shape the future of anti-poverty efforts across the country, offering hope for a more equitable and prosperous future for American children. It is incumbent upon all of us who wish to see a future in which no child endures the violence of poverty to hold the incoming Trump/Vance administration accountable in delivering on the promise to create more robust programs to protect the health and development of future generations.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Independent Candidate For Parliament in Germany Runs on Universal Basic Income as a Human Right to Exist

    By Ulrike Kiefert

    Translation by Raymond R. Watson, M.A.

    See original post here.

    Many independent candidates are running in the federal election, although they have little chance of making it in the German parliament. Two of these lone wolves are Frigga Wendt and Christian Pape. Berliner Woche (Berlin Weekly) spoke to them. Independent candidates are heavily involved in the election campaign. However, mathematically speaking, they have little chance of being elected to Bundestag, the German Parliament. There are well over 2,500 individual candidates running nationwide. In Berlin, 121 candidates in twelve constituencies are vying for the first vote. So why would someone take on the exhausting election campaign when they know they have little chance of success?

    Frigga Wendt, who signs her emails with “FriGGa”, probably has better chances than most. The 44-year-old has already campaigned in two federal elections. In 2017, she didn’t do too badly for an independent candidate with 1,200 votes. Four years later, she only received 120 votes. Nevertheless, Wendt is running again on February 23 for the federal electoral district 82 in Friedrichshain/Kreuzberg and Prenzlauer Berg East. She’s competing against eight contenders there, including an independent candidate like herself. According to the official gazette, in all of Berlin four independent candidates are trying their luck. Wendt firmly believes that she will be elected to the Bundestag. Her motivation? To actively shape politics, to make what the German parliament offers “more extensive” and therefore more diverse, to “shed light on aspects that are missing in big politics as a little independent.” She is also frustrated with the established parties. Frigga Wendt wants to use her candidacy to “make the unconditional basic income as a human right, electable and visible.” This is what the German state of Schwerin native is advocating for. The key phrase next to her name on the ballot is: “Bedingungsloses- Grundeinkommen-als- Menschenrecht.de” (Unconditional basic income as a human right). Her vision: the basic income as a right to exist for all, direct democracy and an election campaign in which people vote on issues and content, “not on people.” This is important to her and that is why Frigga Wendt has decided to take on the task of an election campaign without the structural and financial support of a party.

    “Parties take themselves far too seriously,” says Wendt. And besides, who can represent her ideas and needs better than herself? “Of course, even if I were elected, I as an individual cannot automatically convince the rest of the Bundestag that it is finally time to recognize a human right to economic existence,” says Wendt. “But I can give my own concerns and that of many other people national attention and foster discussion.” But there’s also a hint of satire when the “freelancer, who supplements her welfare, and tutor for basic and human rights” – this is how the ballot describes Wendt’s professional background – promises voters “everything they want to hear” before the election. Or when she states on her website that her motive for running is “to have a well-paid job.” Like Frigga Wendt, Christian Pape is also a maverick. The economist is running in the Berlin district Neukölln. The catchphrase link for his election campaign is ”www.abgeordnetenwatch.de/profile/christian- pape” (representative-watch.de/…). Wendt and Pape know each other from previous election campaigns, events, petition drives and initiatives. They’ve also collected signatures together. In order to qualify as an independent candidate in your constituency, you need 200 so-called supporting signatures. Normally, this is easy to do in time. Especially in summer. This time, however, the deadline was rather tight due to the early election date, which both criticize. It’s cold outside and it gets dark quickly. Not everyone likes to be chatted up by strangers without a campaign booth.

    Christian Pape, who has written an entire book, „Die Grenzen des deutschen Wirtschaftswachstums’’, (The Limits of German Economic Growth) about his reasons for running for the German parliament, would like voters to be informed early on about the parties and candidates they can choose from. “For example, a booklet could be sent with the election voting card in which all parties and district election candidates are named and can present themselves via a short text,” Pape points out. Including a link for further information. This helps the independent candidates who otherwise hardly anyone – neither politicians nor the media – has on their radar. And the voters benefit from it too. According to Pape, they would not just see all the choices when they first get to the voting booth.

    In the last few weeks before the federal election, Frigga Wendt and Christian Pape will be campaigning, campaigning, campaigning. She wants to hang posters painted herself, distribute flyers, and advertise online. He, on the other hand, is not using posters this time, preferring to campaign in person and “approach people directly”. Christian Pape feels he’s better remembered that way. In any case, both of them have to invest “an incredible amount of time” so that voters might vote for them in the end.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • The Road Not Taken is Guaranteed Minimum Income

    By Jeff Atwood

    See original post here.

    The following is drawn from a speech I delivered today at Cooper Union’s Great Hall in New York City, where I joined Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman to discuss the future of the American Dream:

    What is the American Dream?

    In 1931, at the height of the Great Depression, James Truslow Adams first defined the American Dream as

    “[…] a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. […] not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which [everyone] shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position”

    I wanted to know what these words meant to us today. I needed to know what parts of the American Dream we all still had in common. I had to make some sense of what was happening to our country. I’ve been writing on my blog since 2004, and on November 7th, I started writing the most difficult piece I have ever written.

    I asked so many Americans to tell me what the American Dream personally meant to them, and I wrote it all down.

    Later in November, I attended a theater performance of The Outsiders at my son’s public high school – an adaptation of the 1967 novel by S.E. Hinton. All I really knew was the famous “stay gold” line from the 1983 movie. But as I sat there in the audience among my neighbors, watching the complete story acted out in front of me by these teenagers, I slowly realized what “stay gold” meant: sharing the American Dream.

    We cannot merely attain the Dream. The dream is incomplete until we share it with our fellow Americans. That act of sharing is the final realization of everything the dream stands for.

    Thanks to S.E. Hinton, I finally had a name for my essay, “Stay Gold, America.” I published it on January 7th, with a Pledge to Share the American Dream.

    In the first part of the Pledge, the short term, our family made eight 1 million dollar donations to the following nonprofit groups: Team Rubicon, Children’s Hunger Fund, PEN America, The Trevor Project, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, First Generation Investors, Global Refuge, and Planned Parenthood.

    Beyond that, we made many additional one million dollar donations to reinforce our technical infrastructure in America – Wikipedia, The Internet Archive, The Common Crawl Foundation, Let’s Encrypt, pioneering independent internet journalism, and several other crucial open source software infrastructure projects that power much of the world today.

    I encourage every American to contribute soon, however you can, to organizations you feel are effectively helping those most currently in need.

    But short term fixes are not enough.

    The Pledge To Share The American Dream requires a much more ambitious second act – deeper, long term changes that will take decades. Over the next five years, my family pledges half our remaining wealth to plant a seed toward foundational long term efforts ensuring that all Americans continue to have the same fair access to the American Dream.

    Let me tell you about my own path to the American Dream. It was rocky. My parents were born into deep poverty in Mercer County, West Virginia, and Beaufort County, North Carolina. Our family eventually clawed our way to the bottom of the middle class in Virginia.

    I won’t dwell on it, but every family has their own problems. We did not remain middle class for long. But through all this, my parents got the most important thing right: they loved me openly and unconditionally. That is everything. It’s the only reason I am standing here in front of you today.

    With my family’s support, I managed to achieve a solid public education in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and had the incredible privilege of an affordable state education at the University of Virginia. This is a college uniquely rooted in the beliefs of one of the most prominent Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson. He was a living paradox. A man of profound ideals and yet flawed – trapped in the values of his time and place.

    Still, he wrote “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” at the top of the Declaration of Independence. These words were, and still are, revolutionary. They define our fundamental shared American values, although we have not always lived up to them. The American Dream isn’t about us succeeding, alone, by ourselves, but about connecting with each other and succeeding together as Americans.

    I’ve been concerned about wealth concentration in America ever since I watched a 2012 video by politizane illustrating just how extreme wealth concentration already was.

    I had no idea how close we were to the American Gilded Age from the late 1800s. This period was given a name in the 1920s by historians referencing Mark Twain’s 1873 novel, The Gilded Age, A Tale of Today.

    During this time, labor strikes often turned violent, with the Homestead Strike of 1892 resulting in deadly confrontations between workers and Pinkerton guards hired by factory owners. Rapid industrialization created hazardous working conditions in factories, mines, and railroads, where thousands died due to insufficient safety regulations and employers who prioritized profit over worker welfare.

    In January 2025, while I was still writing “Stay Gold, America”, we entered the period of greatest wealth concentration in the entirety of American history. As of 2021, the top 1% of households controlled 32% of all wealth, while the bottom 50% only have 2.6%. It’s difficult to find more recent data, but wealth concentration has only intensified in the last four years.

    We can no longer say “Gilded Age”.

    We must now say “The First Gilded Age”.

    Today, in our second Gilded Age, more and more people find their path to the American Dream blocked. When Americans face unaffordable education, lack of accessible healthcare, or lack affordable housing, they aren’t just disadvantaged – they’re trapped, often burdened by massive debt. They have no stable foundation to build their lives. They watch desperately, working as hard as they can, while life simply passes them by, without even the freedom to choose their own lives.

    They don’t have time to build a career. They don’t have time to learn, to improve. They don’t get to start a business. They can’t choose where their kids will grow up, or whether to have children at all, because they can’t afford to. Here in the land of opportunity, the pursuit of happiness has become an endless task for too many.

    We are denying people any real chance of achieving the dream that we promised them – that we promised the entire world – when we founded this nation. It is such a profound betrayal of everything we ever dreamed about. Without a stable foundation to build a life on, our fellow Americans cannot even pursue the American Dream, much less achieve it.

    I ask you this: as an American, what is the purpose of a dream left unshared with so many for so long? What’s happening to our dream? Are we really willing to let go of our values so easily? We’re Americans. We fight for our values, the values embodied in our dream, the ones we founded this country on.

    Why aren’t we sharing the American Dream?

    Why aren’t we giving everyone a fair chance at Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness by providing them the fundamentals they need to get there?

    The Dream worked for me, decades ago, and I deeply believe that the American Dream can still work for everyone – if we ensure every American has the same fair chance we did. The American Dream was never about a few people being extraordinarily wealthy. It’s about everyone having an equal chance to succeed and pursue their dreams – their own happiness. It belongs to them. I think we owe them at least that. I think we owe ourselves at least that.

    What can we do about this? There are no easy answers. I can’t even pretend to have the answer, because there isn’t any one answer to give. Nothing worth doing is ever that simple. But I can tell you this: all the studies and all the data I’ve looked at have strongly pointed to one foundational thing we can do here in America over the next five years.

    Natalie Foster, co-founder of the Economic Security Project, makes a powerful case for the idea that, with all this concentrated wealth, we can offer a Guaranteed Minimum Income in the poorest areas of this country – the areas of most need, where money goes the farthest – to unlock vast amounts of untapped American potential.

    This isn’t a new idea. We’ve been doing this a while now in different forms, but we never called it Guaranteed Minimum Income.

    In 1797, Thomas Paine proposed a retirement pension funded by estate taxes. It didn’t go anywhere, but it planted a seed. Much later we implemented the Social Security Act in 1935 . The economic chaos of the Great Depression coupled with the inability of private philanthropy to provide economic security inspired Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal government programs. The most popular and effective program to emerge from this era was Social Security, providing a guaranteed income for retirees. Before Social Security, half of seniors lived in poverty. Today only 10% of seniors live in poverty.

    In his 1967 book Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community, Martin Luther King Jr made the moral case for a form of UBI, Universal Basic Income. King believed that economic insecurity was at the root of all inequality. He stated that a guaranteed income — direct cash disbursements — was the simplest and best way to fight poverty.

    In 1972, Congress established the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, providing direct cash assistance to low-income elderly, blind, and disabled individuals with little or no income. This cash can be used for food, housing, and medical expenses, the essentials for financial stability. As of January, 2025, over 7.3 million people receive SSI benefits.

    In 1975, Congress passed the Tax Reduction Act, establishing the Earned Income Tax Credit. This tax credit benefits working-class parents with children, encouraging work by increasing the income of low-income workers. In 2023, it lifted about 6.4 million people out of poverty, including 3.4 million children. According to the Census Bureau, it is the second most effective anti-poverty tool after Social Security.

    In 2019, directly inspired by King, mayor Michael Tubbs – at age 26, one of the youngest mayors in American history – launched the $3 million Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration. It provided 125 residents with $500 per month in unconditional cash payments for two years. The program found that recipients experienced improved financial stability, increased full-time employment, and enhanced well-being.

    In my “Stay Gold, America” blog post, I referenced the Robert Frost “Stay Gold” poem and S.E. Hinton’s famous famous novel The Outsiders, urging us to retain our youthful ideals as we grow older. Ideals embodied in the American Dream.

    Which brings us to another Robert Frost poem, the Road Not Taken. Our proposal to ensure access to the American Dream is to follow the path less travelled by: Guaranteed Minimum Income. GMI is a simpler, more practical, more scalable plan to directly address the root of economic insecurity with minimum bureaucracy.

    We are partnering with GiveDirectly, who oversaw the most GMI studies in the United States, and OpenResearch, who just completed the largest, most detailed GMI study ever conducted in this country in 2023. We are working together to launch a new Guaranteed Minimum Income initiative in rural American communities.

    Network effects within communities explain why equality of opportunity is so effective, and why a shared American Dream is the most powerful dream of all. The potential of the American Dream becomes vastly greater as more people have access to it, because they share it.

    They share it with their families, their friends, and their neighbors. The groundbreaking, massive 2023 OpenResearch UBI study data showed that when you give money to the poorest among us, they consistently go out of their way to share that money with others in desperate need.

    The power of opportunity is not in what it can do for one person, but how it connects and strengthens bonds between people. When you empower a couple, you allow them to build a family. When you empower families, you allow them to build a community. When you guarantee fundamentals, you’re providing a foundation for those connections to grow and thrive. This is the incredible power and value of community. That is what we are investing in – each other.

    A system where there are no guarantees creates conflict. It creates inequality. A massive concentration of wealth in so few hands weakens connections between us and prevents new ones. America began as a place of connection. Millions of us came together to build this nation, not individually, but together. Equality is connection, and connection is more valuable than any product any company will ever sell you.

    You may ask, why focus on rural communities? There are consistently higher poverty rates in rural counties, with fewer job opportunities, lower wages, and worse access to healthcare and education. It’s not a new problem, either — places like Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, and American Indian reservations have been stuck in poverty for decades, with some counties like Oglala Lakota, SD (55.8%) and McDowell, WV (37.6%) hitting extreme levels. Meanwhile, urban counties rarely see numbers that high. The data from the US Census and USDA Economic Research Service make it clear: if you’re poor in America, being rural makes it even harder to escape.

    Rural areas offer smaller populations, which is helpful because we need to start small with lots of tightly controlled studies that we can carefully scale and improve on for larger areas. We hope to build a large body of scientific data showing that GMI really does improve the lives, and the communities, of our fellow Americans.

    The initial plan is to target a few counties that I have a personal connection to, and are still currently in poverty, decades later:

    • My father was born in Mercer County, West Virginia, where the collapse of coal mining left good people struggling to survive. Their living and their way of life is now all but gone, and good jobs are hard to find.
    • My mother’s birthplace, Beaufort County, North Carolina, has been hit just as hard, with farming and factory jobs disappearing and families left wondering what’s next.
    • Our third county is yet to be decided, but will be a community also facing the same systemic, generational obstacles to economic stability and achieving the American Dream.

    We will work with existing local groups to coordinate GMI studies where community members choose to enroll. We will conduct outreach and and provide mentorship to these opt-in study participants. It will be teamwork between Americans.

    We hope Veterans will play a crucial role in our effort. We plan to work with local communities and veteran-serving organizations to engage veterans to support and execute our GMI programs – the same veterans who served our country with distinction, returning home with exceptional leadership skills and a deep commitment to their communities. Their involvement ensures these programs reflect core American values of self-reliance and community service to fellow Americans.

    We’ll also partner with established community organizations — churches, civic groups, community colleges, local businesses. These partnerships help integrate our GMI studies with existing support systems, rather than creating new ones.

    GiveDirectly and OpenResearch will build on their existing body of work, gathering extensive data from these refined studies. We’ll measure employment, entrepreneurship, education, health, and community engagement. We’ll conduct regular interviews with participants to understand their experience. How is this working for you? How can we make it better? You tell us. How can we make it better together?

    Economic security isn’t only about individual well-being – it’s the bedrock of democracy. When people aren’t constantly worried about feeding themselves, feeding their family, having decent healthcare, having a place to live… we have given them room to breathe. We have given them freedom. The freedom to raise their children, the freedom to start businesses, the freedom to choose where they work, the freedom to volunteer… the freedom to vote.

    This isn’t about ideology or government. It’s about us, as Americans, working together to invest in our future – possibly the greatest unlocking of human potential in our entire history. I do not say these things lightly. I’ve seen it work. I’ve looked at all the existing study data. A little bit of money is incredibly transformational for people in poverty – the people who need it the most – the people who cannot live up to their potential because they’re so busy simply trying to survive. Imagine what they could do if we gave them just a little breathing room.

    GMI is a long term investment in the future of what America should be, the way we wrote it down in the Declaration of Independence, perhaps incompletely – but our democracy was always meant to be malleable, to change, to adapt, and improve.

    I’d like to conclude by mentioning Aaron Swartz. He was a precocious teenage programmer much like myself. Aaron helped develop RSS web feeds, co-founded Reddit, and worked with Creative Commons to create flexible copyright licenses for the common good. He used technology to make information universally accessible to everyone.

    Aaron created a system to download public domain court documents from PACER, a government database that charged fees for accessing what he believed should be freely available public information. A few years later, while visiting MIT under their open campus policy and as a research fellow at Harvard, he used MIT’s network to download millions of academic articles from JSTOR, another fee-charging online academic journal repository, intending to make this knowledge freely accessible. Since taxpayers had funded much of this research, why shouldn’t that knowledge be freely available to everyone?

    What Aaron saw as an act of academic freedom and information equality, authorities viewed as a crime—he was arrested in January 2011 and charged with multiple felonies for what many considered to be nothing more than accessing knowledge that should have been freely available to the public in the first place.

    Despite JSTOR declining to pursue charges and MIT eventually calling for leniency, federal prosecutors aggressively pursued felony charges against Aaron with up to 35 years in prison. Facing overwhelming legal pressure and the prospect of being labeled a felon, Aaron took his own life at 26. This sparked widespread criticism of prosecutorial overreach and prompted discussions about open access to information. Deservedly so. Eight days later, in this very hall, there was a standing room only memorial service praising Aaron for his commitment to the public good.

    Aaron pursued what was right for we, the people. He chose to build the public good despite knowing there would be risks. He chose to be an activist. I think we should all choose to be activists, to be brave, to stand up for our defining American principles.

    There are two things I ask of you today.

    • Visit https://www.givedirectly.org/rural-us where we’ll be documenting our journey and findings from the initial three GMI rural county studies. Let’s find out together how guaranteed minimum income can transform American lives.
    • Talk about Guaranteed Minimum Income in your communities. Meet with your state and local officials. Share the existing study data. Share outcomes. Ask them about conducting GMI studies like ours in your area. We tell ourselves stories about why some people succeed and others don’t. Challenge those stories. Economic security is not charity. It is an investment in vast untapped American potential in the poorest areas of this country.

    My family is committing 50 million dollars to this endeavor, but imagine if we had even more to share. Imagine how much more we could do, if we build this together, starting today. Decades from now, people will look back and wonder why it took us so long to share our dream of a better, richer, and fuller life with our fellow Americans.

    I hope you join us on this grand experiment to share our American Dream. I believe everyone deserves a fair chance at what was promised when we founded this nation: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of The American Dream.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Tennessee General Assembly passes Guaranteed Basic Income Act for eligible residents

    By Scribe from Workplace AI & TN General Assembly

    See original post here.

    Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1355, introduced on March 19, 2025, is making waves as it proposes a groundbreaking “Guaranteed Basic Income Act,” aimed at providing financial assistance to eligible residents. This legislation seeks to address economic disparities and the growing concerns surrounding job displacement due to automation.

    At its core, SB1355 establishes a program where eligible residents—defined as full-time Tennessee residents aged 18 and older with valid identification—will receive annual guaranteed income grants starting in 2026. The bill mandates the Department of Human Services to develop guidelines for applications and eligibility, marking a significant shift in how the state approaches financial support for its citizens.

    The introduction of this bill has sparked notable debates among lawmakers and constituents alike. Proponents argue that a guaranteed basic income could alleviate poverty and provide a safety net for those affected by technological advancements in the workforce. Critics, however, raise concerns about the financial implications of such a program, questioning its sustainability and potential impact on state budgets.

    The economic implications of SB1355 are substantial. If enacted, Tennessee could become a pioneer in implementing a statewide basic income program, potentially influencing other states to follow suit. Experts suggest that this initiative could stimulate local economies by increasing consumer spending, but it also raises questions about the long-term viability of funding such a program.

    As discussions continue, the significance of SB1355 cannot be understated. It represents a bold step towards addressing economic inequality and adapting to the challenges posed by automation. With the bill now under consideration, Tennessee residents and lawmakers alike are watching closely to see how this innovative proposal unfolds and what it could mean for the future of financial assistance in the state.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • What Would the Proposed Basic Income Pilot in Greater Manchester Mean for the UK?

    By Louis Strappazzon

    See original post here.

    The UBI Lab Network, Northumbria University and the Common Sense Policy Group have launched a pilot proposal for a Basic Income pilot in Greater Manchester. Mayor Andy Burnham has repeatedly shown support for a Basic Income pilot in the region. However, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority would require either central government or private funds to commence the pilot. This makes testing the idea difficult.

    But if we are to find alternative ways to tackle poverty, we need to be able to test ideas like UBI efficiently and effectively.

    What would a (Universal) Basic Income (UBI) pilot mean for Greater Manchester and the rest of the country? What is its role in tackling poverty? UBI would provide every individual an unconditional and regular cash payment to cover necessities. UBI is not just a safety net, it is a springboard to build a stable life because with additional income comes less stress and more time to take opportunities and be innovative.

    UBI has gained popularity since the COVID-19 pandemic started in 2020. There have been roughly 160 Basic Income pilots across the world with dozens happening in the USA. In the USA, pilots have shown that unconditional and regular cash payments increase employment, financial well-being, housing and food security, mental health and make care much easier. In Kenya, the largest and longest UBI trial in the world has shown people are more productive, can save more money, start more businesses and have better mental health.

    The benefits of UBI are clear- individuals are happier, more productive and financially secure. Economist Karl Widerquist found that a UBI could significantly reduce poverty. For example, UK families with incomes below the official poverty line would drop from 16% to 4% and poverty among children and the elderly would all but disappear. Greater Manchester has a very high rate of homelessness and reducing it significantly is a key ambition of Mayor Andy Burnham. Innovative ideas, such as Housing First and Youth Homelessness Pathfinders Prevention scheme combined with a UBI would be extremely effective in tackling homelessness.

    To tackle poverty we need to understand that poverty is predominantly a lack of cash. Without a Basic Income, there is no universal right to live a decent life. A UBI provides a stable income floor for everyone. However, it does not significantly reduce employment because it still requires individuals to work for a truly stable life. Instead, it allows individuals to spend more time doing important things that are not paid for, such as caring for children or relatives. A UBI Plus would provide extra support for those who need it, such as single mothers.

    Many agree that a UBI is effective, but argue it’s too expensive. This is probably the hardest point to discuss because it requires changing the way we think of the national economy as similar to a household. There are many points to be made on this here. But by far the most important is that a UBI would cut costs significantly in the long term because it requires looking at issues holistically. For example, the Denver Basic Income Project found that public spending would be reduced because of fewer visits to hospitals and jails. There was also a sharp reduction in homelessness. Tackling poverty means we will lower public spending. This is backed by research from Northumbria University, on modelling that shows a UBI would cut costs for the NHS.

    But a UBI will only be effective if it is part of a larger vision for creating greater respect for human dignity. To live a dignified life, we need affordable housing, communities of care, worker-owned cooperatives, affordable and efficient public transport, community centres and free and effective health services. This requires changing how we do politics, moving from a focus on scandal and despair to talking about ideas that can provide us with hope for a better future.

    There is only one Basic Income pilot in the UK, targeting young care leavers in Wales. We have global evidence that a UBI significantly reduces poverty without reducing employment and that it can restore trust in politics is there. But, we need to test this idea in innovative ways and in different communities to understand the best ways to implement it. Testing ideas like UBI will show what a better society for all could be like providing hope that things can get better.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • I Worked Hard My Entire Life — Now I’m 70 And Broke. Something Has To Change In This Country.

    By Michael Borden

    See original post here.

    “I don’t own a house. My IRA is long gone. The only thing my kids are likely to inherit right now is a pretty good object lesson in what not to do financially.”

    It looks like I won’t be participating in what is being called the largest generational transfer of wealth in U.S. history. Younger generations are estimated to inherit more than $27 trillion within the next 20 years. None of it, unfortunately, will be coming from me.

    I don’t own a house. My IRA is long gone. The only thing my kids are likely to inherit right now is a pretty good object lesson in what not to do financially.

    It’s not that I didn’t know about preparing for retirement. I’m an advertising copywriter. For years I reminded customers that a 65-year-old ending a work career will need over $1 million to maintain a modest $50,000-a-year lifestyle for the next 20 years. But life happens. Houses get lost in divorces. Investments falter. And the workflow you’ve taken for granted for 40 years suddenly falls off a cliff and takes you along with it.

    Sometimes I think I’m retired and nobody told me. Gone are the good old days ― was it only two years ago? ― when I’d respond to five freelance job leads and three of them would turn into interviews. Is it age-ism? I doubt it. Half of my clients have never seen me. The other half are as old as I am. What’s going on, I believe, is the “algorithmization” of the recruiting process. A job gets listed on LinkedIn or Indeed and within an hour there are hundreds of applicants, many of whom are using AI to apply to dozens of jobs. All but a few will be rejected by robots who couldn’t care less about charming personalities. At least give me the chance to come in and tap dance.

    These days I work part time in a deli to make up for the shortfall between my rent and my Social Security. It’s the same job I had when I was 20 and the minimum wage was $2 an hour. Today I earn $17 for every hour I make sandwiches, slice turkey and mop floors. I get SNAP benefits (that sounds better to me than “food stamps”) to help paying for groceries. But the $900 a month I bring in pushing macaroni salad and brooms is apparently too much, and now those benefits might be cut.

    What’s a boomer to do? Knock wood, I’m in good health. The $180 a month the government takes out for Medicare A&B and the $293 per month United Healthcare charges for Part C are a relatively good deal compared to the thousands a month some of my less superannuated friends pay. But unless the universe has some miracles in store for me, I’m soon pretty likely to make more use of the health care system than the simple physical checkups I now get twice a year. And that could mean facing crushing medical debt on top of everything else.

    I watch every penny as I walk the tightrope between income and bills. The sandwiches we sell at my deli are now out of my price range. Streaming programming is a luxury. Staying within my budget often depends on the price of gas. The margin for error is frighteningly thin. It’s rough living life in mortal fear of the check engine light.

    I decided to see a therapist to help me “adjust” to this dislocation of the middle-class professional I thought I was. Pete has me going for walks and cultivating gratitude for the things I do have. He talks to me about “catastrophizing,” the “recency bias” as a cognitive distortion, “all-or-nothing-thinking” and “fortune telling.” I’m guilty of all of them. He suggests broadening my possibilities by “thinking out of the box.” All I can think is I’ll be living in one if things don’t pick up soon. I am determined, though, to use this as a learning opportunity. I’ve only come up with “having no money totally sucks” and “more people than ever in America are in the same boat.”

    So, forgive me if I have a hard time when I see tech giants sitting down for interviews wearing $900,000 watches or hear billionaire broligarchs extolling the virtues of belt-tightening sacrifice. Read the room, dudes. Millions of hard-working Americans are barely scraping by — and cutting SNAP, Medicaid or Social Security certainly won’t help.

    I try to remain optimistic by telling myself more productive fairy tales about the way the universe works. Maybe I’ll write a book about this. Maybe I’ll win the lottery. Maybe I’ll sell a quart of macaroni salad so delicious that the customer immediately offers me a copywriting job in an advertising agency.

    I don’t mind selling out. The problem right now is nobody’s buying.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • OpenAI declares AI race “over” if training on copyrighted works isn’t fair use

    By Ashley Belanger

    See original post here.

    OpenAI is hoping that Donald Trump’s AI Action Plan, due out this July, will settle copyright debates by declaring AI training fair use—paving the way for AI companies’ unfettered access to training data that OpenAI claims is critical to defeat China in the AI race.

    Currently, courts are mulling whether AI training is fair use, as rights holders say that AI models trained on creative works threaten to replace them in markets and water down humanity’s creative output overall.

    OpenAI is just one AI company fighting with rights holders in several dozen lawsuits, arguing that AI transforms copyrighted works it trains on and alleging that AI outputs aren’t substitutes for original works.

    So far, one landmark ruling favored rights holders, with a judge declaring AI training is not fair use, as AI outputs clearly threatened to replace Thomson-Reuters’ legal research firm Westlaw in the market, Wired reported. But OpenAI now appears to be looking to Trump to avoid a similar outcome in its lawsuits, including a major suit brought by The New York Times.

    “OpenAI’s models are trained to not replicate works for consumption by the public. Instead, they learn from the works and extract patterns, linguistic structures, and contextual insights,” OpenAI claimed. “This means our AI model training aligns with the core objectives of copyright and the fair use doctrine, using existing works to create something wholly new and different without eroding the commercial value of those existing works.”

    Providing “freedom-focused” recommendations on Trump’s plan during a public comment period ending Saturday, OpenAI suggested Thursday that the US should end these court fights by shifting its copyright strategy to promote the AI industry’s “freedom to learn.” Otherwise, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) will likely continue accessing copyrighted data that US companies cannot access, supposedly giving China a leg up “while gaining little in the way of protections for the original IP creators,” OpenAI argued.

    “The federal government can both secure Americans’ freedom to learn from AI and avoid forfeiting our AI lead to the PRC by preserving American AI models’ ability to learn from copyrighted material,” OpenAI said.

    In their policy recommendations, OpenAI made it clear that it thinks funneling as much data as possible to AI companies—regardless of rights holders’ concerns—is the only path to global AI leadership.

    “If the PRC’s developers have unfettered access to data and American companies are left without fair use access, the race for AI is effectively over,” OpenAI claimed. “America loses, as does the success of democratic AI. Ultimately, access to more data from the widest possible range of sources will ensure more access to more powerful innovations that deliver even more knowledge.”

    OpenAI asks Trump for more legal protections

    Currently, US-based AI companies are strained, OpenAI suggested, as hundreds of state laws attempt to regulate the entire AI industry. One legislative tracker from MultiState flagged 832 laws introduced in 2025 alone.

    Some of these laws, OpenAI warned, are modeled after strict European Union laws that OpenAI claimed the federal government should reject replicating due to alleged limits on innovation. Altogether, the patchwork of laws “could impose burdensome compliance requirements that may hinder our economic competitiveness and undermine our national security” since they will likely be harder to enforce against Chinese companies, OpenAI said.

    If Chinese models become more advanced and more widely used by Americans, China could manipulate the models or ignore harms to American users from “illicit and harmful activities such as identity fraud and intellectual property theft,” OpenAI alleged. (OpenAI has accused DeepSeek of improperly using OpenAI’s data for training.)

    To prevent the threatened setbacks to US innovation and risks to national security, OpenAI urged Trump to enact a federal law that preempts state laws attempting to regulate AI threats to things like consumer privacy or election integrity, like deepfakes or facial recognition. That federal law, OpenAI suggested, should set up a “voluntary partnership between the federal government and the private sector,” where AI companies trade industry knowledge and model access for federal “relief” and “liability protections” from state laws.

    Additionally, OpenAI wants protections from international laws that it claims risk slowing down America’s AI development.

    The US should be “shaping international policy discussions around copyright and AI and working to prevent less innovative countries from imposing their legal regimes on American AI firms and slowing our rate of progress,” OpenAI said.

    OpenAI suggested that this effort should also include the US government “actively assessing the overall level of data available to American AI firms and determining whether other countries are restricting American companies’ access to data and other critical inputs.”

    According to OpenAI, the Trump administration must urgently adopt these recommendations and others regarding rapidly adopting AI in government and methodically building out AI infrastructure, as China’s open-sourced advanced AI model DeepSeek “shows that our lead is not wide and is narrowing.”

    “The rapid advances seen with the PRC’s DeepSeek, among other recent developments, show that America’s lead on frontier AI is far from guaranteed,” OpenAI said.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • O’Gorman calls for basic income for artists scheme to be extended in Ireland

    By Mike Finnerty

    See original post here.

    The Greens’ most recent stint in government may have ended in tears for the party, but their legacy of securing a basic universal income for artists has been hailed as one of the most transformative events for the Irish arts industry in decades.

    With the parties’ Dáil influence greatly reduced and Fine Gael now running the Arts sector, the Greens’ sole survivor, Roderic O’Gorman, has asked if the government were going to extend the trial further.

    The trial was established in August 2022, and 2,000 artists and creative arts workers have benefited from the payment of €325 a week since August 2022.

    The trial is due to conclude in August.

    “The basic income for the arts scheme is a proud legacy of the Green Party’s time in Government. It benefits more than 2,000 artists with a monthly payment. I believe this scheme should be maintained and, indeed, enhanced,” O’Gorman told Arts Minister Patrick O’Donovan. 

    O’Donovan responded that the Programme for Government will compel the government to examine the scheme and what impact it has had on artists.

    The outgoing government designated a total of €35 million to the pot in October’s budget, and O’Donovan said there have been tangible benefits to the recipients.

    O’Donovan said government data shows that the scheme payment is having a “consistent” positive impact across almost all indicators affecting practice development, sectoral retention, well-being and deprivation.

    “Artists in receipt of the support are typically able to devote more time to their art, experience a boost to their well-being through greater life satisfaction and reduced anxiety, and are protected from the precarious nature of incomes in the sector to a greater degree than those not receiving the support,” he noted.

    Advertisement

    The Fine Gael minister said that his department will publish a cost-benefit analysis later this year.

    O’Gorman replied, “the minister also touched on a slightly intangible aspect; namely, the well-being impacts for artists.”

    “We know many types of artistic practice can be tenuous, precarious and lonely, and, therefore, the well-being impacts are something we can welcome too. There is a really strong campaign in this regard.”

    O’Donovan said that the government’s priority is carrying out both qualitative and quantitative research about the scheme’s output before it makes a decision.

    “I am not going to pre-empt the outcome of the research, which is looking at the scheme under a variety of headings, including practice development, well-being, deprivation, sectoral retention and others.”

    “People outside the scheme now might ask if it is their turn or is it somebody else’s turn. All these aspects will have to be looked at in the round,” he told the Dublin West TD.

    O’Gorman said, “from the start of 2026, though, a clear decision will have to be taken.”

    “I think the evidence to date points to the benefits of the scheme and suggests we should be looking to grow it. I look forward to engaging further with the minister when additional information is provided.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Kamala Harris Mentions UBI at AI Conference

    By Rob Pegoraro

    See original post here.

    LAS VEGAS—Former Vice President Kamala Harris showed up at a conference about artificial intelligence this week to urge the people most invested in it to work on two more organic features: trust and empathy.

    In a roughly 45-minute talk at the HumanX conference here, Harris voiced support for the potential of AI to transform society—comparing it at one point to the electrification of rural America—but warned that strained relationships between industry, government, and people could squander that potential.

    “If we don’t figure this out, I think we are losing this very specific moment in time,” she told her interviewer, Nuno Sebastião, CEO and co-founder of the financial fraud-detection firm Feedzai.

    Much of the problem, Harris said, is due to a communication breakdown between Washington and Silicon Valley. “Right now, that’s a really bad relationship,” she said, noting that the last decade has eroded decades of government support for research and innovation.

    .Gov Gripes

    The government deserves some of that blame, Harris said, in the sense of failing to appreciate the utility of AI and of data in general. She cited her experience as California’s attorney general, when she fought to set up a data portal called Open Justice that made the vast reserves of data from the state’s Justice Department available to researchers and advocates.

    “Government has a way of collecting extraordinary amounts of data,” she said. “And then we put it in a box, in a room, and we shut the door.” 

    Bureaucracy in state and federal offices can slow things down further. “It can actually be antithetical to…its purpose.” And it doesn’t help when officials reply to tech with a version of “What is that? What language are you speaking?”

    Harris did not share any second thoughts on the Biden administration’s approach to security, capped off by a lengthy executive order—since repealed by the Trump administration—that attempted to elevate safety and privacy standards for AI systems.

    In her first notable public appearance since a brief speech at the NAACP’s Image Awards ceremony in February, Harris didn’t mention the current administration at all. Except, perhaps, for a lesson that she credited to her mother. “We cannot conflate disruption with destruction”—a possible brushoff of Elon Musk’s “DOGE” government-disruption project.

    Tech’s Trust Gap

    As for tech-industry types, Harris said they don’t help this relationship when they decide “that government poses one thing and only one thing, which is an impediment to innovation.” Or, in some cases, even wonder if it’s even that necessary. 

    She saved her strongest words for an even more frayed relationship: the one between tech firms and their customers and users, who she also described as “the people who are not in that room.” 

    They often feel little agency in their interaction with tech services, an issue she brought up in a story about watching the Oscars at home with her husband, Doug Emhoff. She realized she was out of her favorite junk food, and opted to Doordash a giant bag of Doritos. “I was willing to give up whatever might be the tracking of Kamala Harris’s particular fondness for nacho cheese Doritos for getting a big bag of Doritos as I watched the Oscars,” she said. (We trust that Harris and Emhoff tipped well.) 

    Those feelings of mistrust are strongest relative to AI, Harris noted: “The polling tells us, I think, it’s 70% of the American people don’t trust AI.” 

    AI fueling misinformation and disinformation is part of the problem; Harris cited “incredibly harmful” lies about federal responses to Hurricane Helene but didn’t mention that much of it was spread by Musk. But fears about job loss loom much larger.

    Work’s Worth in an AI Economy

    “Our identity, in many, many ways, is connected to the job we do,” she said, quickly adding: “I, for example, right now am unemployed.” The audience LOLed.

    “There are some people with a very big bully pulpit who have been very dismissive on this point, [saying] ‘get over it, it’s happening,’” she continued. “Let’s start with a little more empathy and a little more respect for the righteous fear that people have about losing their everything.”

    Instead, Harris urged them to consider the people not in the room. “Can you articulate your vision of the future in a way that other people can see themselves?” she said. “Excuse my language, don’t bullshit me; I need to…see myself in your vision of the future.”

    Proposals to replace paychecks lost to AI with a Universal Basic Income scheme don’t cut it. “You know what people hear when you talk about UBI?” Harris said. “You want to take my job and put me on welfare.”

    But she ended the talk optimistically, saying she wished her mother, a biomedical researcher, were alive today to see how AI is advancing things in that field and others. AI developers, however, need to work harder to involve other people instead of expecting them to sit back and appreciate their work. 

    “Let’s please understand there are many stakeholders in this work,” she said. “Your enthusiasm about this will be shared if people know what you know.” 

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • New Brunswick poverty reduction plan stops short of universal income support

    By David Gordon Koch and Ryan Hillier

    See original post here.

    Emergency income support programs caused poverty rates to “plummet” in New Brunswick, but those gains vanished after the programs ended. 

    That’s one of the takeaways from New Brunswick’s newly released poverty reduction plan. 

    The Economic and Social Inclusion Corporation, a provincial Crown corporation, recently launched the plan at a new conference in Campbellton. 

    It aims to cut poverty in half by 2030, and outlines a series of so-called priority actions. While some of the commitments seem vague, the report calls in particular for improvements to income support for people with disabilities, a change that advocates say is badly needed. 

    The poverty reduction plan comes at a time when the threat of widespread job losses looms large over the Canadian economy, thanks to President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Canadian goods. The threat of a recession has prompted renewed calls for some kind of income support from labour and social justice groups.

    Data in the new report shows that poverty was on the decline for several years after peaking in 2015, when 119,000 people were living in poverty in New Brunswick. That figure dropped to 58,000 in 2020 and 51,000 in 2021, at the height of the pandemic, and then surged to 85,000 in 2022, the latest year with available data. The report draws a direct link between those trends and emergency programs introduced in response to COVID-19.

    “Initially, poverty numbers plummeted, reflective of pandemic related income supports from the federal and provincial government,” the report states. “As these supports were withdrawn, however, the poverty numbers began to climb again. In addition, inflation increased across the country, along with interest rates.” 

    The report also notes that initiatives such as improved child benefits and the national daycare program played a role in poverty reduction after 2015.

    At the news conference announcing the new poverty reduction plan, the NB Media Co-op asked if the idea of a guaranteed livable income or universal basic income had arisen during consultations.

    “We did hear about it a certain number of times,” said Stephane Leclair, CEO of Economic and Social Inclusion Corporation. “Our best answer to this is, how can we better connect people to the existing services?” 

    Connecting people with benefits that already exist is among 16 “priority actions” listed in the plan, one of several that seem focussed on individual behaviours, rather than structural problems. Other examples include a commitment to “work with community partners to improve financial literacy.” 

    Measures outlined in the plan also include the creation of a new “advisory committee on income security,” which will “study options for a cost-shared program for sick leave, explore options to better connect citizens to programs and benefits, and review existing program eligibility thresholds and make recommendations for required changes.”

    While the wording is often vague, the report also includes a commitment that could potentially improve material conditions for people with disabilities. “Recognize the unique challenges faced by individuals living with disabilities and implement changes that improve their access to income and resources.”

    Leclair noted at the media conference that the provincial Liberal government has committed to “look at the guaranteed basic income for people who are living with a handicap.” Minister of Social Development Cindy Miles has instructions in her mandate letter from Premier Susan Holt to “explore a plan for basic income for New Brunswickers living with disabilities.”

    Increased income support is badly needed for a group that faces twice the national poverty rate. Shelley Petit, chair of the NB Coalition of Persons with Disabilities, said that her group participated in roundtable consultations leading to the report last year. She expressed cautious optimism that the Holt government’s efforts will result in meaningful change. 

    “They did ask us for our opinions and they are now calling us a prime stakeholder in this endeavor, so they are listening a bit,” she said. “That’s a step in the right direction.”

    She noted that people struggling at the intersections of disability and poverty face higher costs of living, resulting in a vicious socio-economic cycle. “If you need a cab to go to a doctor’s office, you can do that for $10, $15,” she said. 

    “If a person in a wheelchair has to take a mobility transit service, that same trip could be $100. So what happens? You choose not to go. We eventually end up in the hospital at a very expensive cost.”

    She expressed support for a guaranteed basic income but said it should be universal. 

    “Something along the lines of a universal basic income will not only increase the money that goes into people’s pockets — whether it’s a person with a disability or low income earner — it adds money back into society because people spend money in the community, which then creates jobs.”

    On St. George Street in downtown Moncton, the NB Media Co-op asked people for their take on the issue. 

    One man called for a “reverse income tax, so when you make too little money, you get money back from the government. ” He also called income tax exemptions to be lifted to $24,000, and commented ambiguously that the government should “send a lot of freeloaders home.” (A reference to Canada’s corporate welfare recipients, perhaps? -Ed.) 

    Few were willing to speak on-camera and some were clearly uncomfortable with the presence of a video camera. Others railed against fentanyl users or made obscure comments about birth rates. Nearby, people queued up in the cold weather for food from a soup kitchen. 

    One man, who said he operates a local rooming house, said that simply giving people money “is not going to work” if they have severe mental illnesses or drug addictions, for example. He said the answer to poverty is “not so simple.” 

    Another man, who said he’s currently on EI, said it’s hard to find decent work and affordable housing, noting that he would “probably be homeless” if he didn’t currently have roommates. 

    Commenting on the housing crisis, he noted that some units at the Three Sisters – an upscale apartment tower complex on Foundry Street in downtown Moncton – are renting for upwards of $2,000 per month. “That’s totally too expensive,” he said. 

    He emphasized people’s common humanity, noting the phenomenon of trauma and broken homes leading to poverty and homelessness, while music played on his portable speaker (“Nothing Else Matters” by Metallica). 

    “We’re all human, right?” he said. “Some of us had hard times when we were younger… problems with family and stuff, and that’s what comes out in the long run.” 

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.