Published: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 00:00:00 -0400
Last Build Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:24:12 -0400
Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:45:00 -0400This week in ginned-up Donald Trump administration outrage that distracts from actual issues: The Census will continue to not ask questions that they haven't been asking about LGBT people. This in some quarters has been presented as some sort of LGBT "erasure." It's not. At least when activists within the LGBT and progressive community freaked out about the possibility of an anti-gay executive order coming from President Donald Trump's administration, there was actual documentation. It turned out that Trump was not interested in signing such an executive order and it never came to be. But at least there was smoke to be concerned about if not an actual fire. Such is not the case with this week's LGBT anti-Trump outrage, which turns out to fundamentally be less about gay and transgender rights and more about organizations who want a slice of the great federal spending pie. To explain: The U.S. Census put out a proposal earlier in the week for questions it may ask during the 2020 census. Sexual orientation and gender identity were among the potential discussion topics. This was not something the Census had asked previously, which you know if you've participated in a census, ever. Then, the Census quickly explained that it had not intended to include the questions about sexual orientation and gender identity this time and withdrew the topics. So the Census, which had never asked people if they were LGBT before, is not planning to ask in the 2020 census either. Cue the outrage. The first headline I saw came from Out Magazine, a top gay-targeted publication. The headline read "Trump Administration Omits LGBTQ People from the 2020 Census." My initial reaction was "Woo hoo! I don't have to participate in the census!" But even before reading I suspected that wasn't what the story actually meant. The Trump administration is not omitting LGBT people from the census, and a writer actually analyzing how the announcement played out notes that the Trump administration might not have even played any role in the consideration of the questions at all. Even Snopes has gotten into the act with an explainer. What actually happened is that the National LGBTQ Task Force, an activist group with an open, stated agenda of having these questions added to the census, put out a press release declaring their unhappiness in seeing the questions get deleted. I don't use "agenda" as a negative here, and I don't necessarily see an issue with the Census Bureau asking people their orientations for demographic purposes, as long as it's made very, very clear that answers are completely voluntary. But there is a deliberately misplaced outrage here that wants to trick LGBT people into thinking that their rights and equal protection under the law is dependent on whether the federal government knows that they're gay or transgender. This is a seriously unsettling proposition. Here's a quote from Meghan Maury, criminal and economic justice project director of the National LGBTQ Task Force: "Today, the Trump Administration has taken yet another step to deny LGBTQ people freedom, justice, and equity, by choosing to exclude us from the 2020 Census and American Community Survey. LGBTQ people are not counted on the Census—no data is collected on sexual orientation or gender identity. Information from these surveys helps the government to enforce federal laws like the Violence Against Women Act and the Fair Housing Act and to determine how to allocate resources like housing supports and food stamps. If the government doesn't know how many LGBTQ people live in a community, how can it do its job to ensure we're getting fair and adequate access to the rights, protections and services we need?" What does demographic inclusion in a study have to do with whether LGBT people are treated equally under the law? Nothing. The Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage, for example, is a ruling precedent that makes it clear that rights and privileges extended by the government are to apply equally. It doesn't actually matter how many gay marriages there are (which, interesting[...]
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:30:00 -0400The central project of the liberal welfare state is to build a society based on a high-minded ethic of altruism rather than narrow self-interest. The whole point is to create a new kind of person whose humane commitments are driven by a more cosmopolitan sensibility beyond his parochial attachments to self, family, and clan. But the opposite has happened: Protecting the welfare state from foreign moochers has become the single biggest stimulus for nativism in the West. That's true in America, Europe, and, most surprisingly, the paragon of compassion to America's north, Canada. The more the welfare state has tried to elbow self-interest out of our accepted understanding of a "just society," the more this self-interest has asserted itself — and in ever-more vexing ways. In America, the notion that immigrants are a drain on social welfare programs is as popular as it is fallacious. Literally every credible study shows that compared to similarly situated natives, not only do fewer immigrants use welfare, but the average value of the benefits they receive is lower too, including for low-skilled immigrants (many of whom are undocumented). Indeed, the taxes and economic contributions of immigrants — including the low-skilled — dwarf what they consume in public services. This is partly because the 1996 welfare reform act barred immigrants from most means-tested benefits. But the bigger reason is that immigrants come to America for jobs, not welfare benefits. The labor force participation rate of foreign-born men in 2010 was 80.1 percent, a full 10 percentage points higher than that of native-born men. Furthermore, immigrants tend to gravitate to states with the lowest per capital welfare spending — maybe because they have more jobs. Nonetheless, the mere fact that the welfare state exists and that immigrants may theoretically become a drain on it has been enough to trigger a bad case of us-versus-them in this Land of Immigrants. It has become the gateway argument that seduces people to a more general nativist suspicion of foreigners — which is why nativist outfits such as the Federation for Immigration Reform and quasi-nativist ones such as the Center for Immigration Studies constantly pump out studies about immigrant welfare use. One of President Trump's leaked executive order drafts contemplated not only barring immigrants likely to use public assistance, but deporting those who do, perhaps even if no fraud is involved. The situation is even worse in Europe, where nativist politicians have made even deeper inroads — and this despite the fact that many European countries need immigrants even more than America, thanks to their below-replacement fertility rates and aging populations. Austria, Spain, and France — which have never been super-friendly to immigrants — are tightening up. And so are more open nations like Denmark and Sweden, which have introduced a complex set of measures to control their borders. The latest example of this anti-immigrant trend came in the recent Dutch elections, where the incumbent Prime Minister Mark Rutte defeated the ultra-restrictionist Geert Wilders — the Dutch Donald Trump — but only after promising to impose stiff restrictions on migrant benefits to stop alleged welfare tourism. Likewise, although Germany has been heroic in its commitment to absorbing refugees fleeing the war-ravaged Middle East, it is also seeking to expel EU citizens who remain jobless for six months out of fear that they are simply hanging around for welfare benefits — never mind that there is little evidence of mass welfare abuse. Sweden, which prides itself on its cradle-to-grave welfare social programs, is flirting with new restrictions on immigrant benefits — as is England. But the nation that takes first prize in welfare-state protectiveness is the putative paragon of human kindness: Canada. Canada cannot afford a full-blown case of restrictionism because it is underpopulated and aging fast — and thus admits more than twice as many immigrants as America, in terms of [...]
Wed, 22 Mar 2017 13:00:00 -0400
The 21st C West is experiencing a 19th C worthy nativist spasm that few thought imaginable two decades ago. There are many reasons for it of course: The rise of global terrorism, the(image) alleged ravages of globalization etc. But one big reason is the welfare state. Indeed, protecting social programs from foreign moochers has become the biggest rallying cry for restrictionists in Europe, America and even Canada – the paragon of human compassion, I note in my column at The Week.
Whether immigrants really strain – rather than strengthen – the welfare state is debatable. (In America, where the welfare state is relatively smaller, all credible studies suggest that they strengthen it. The situation may vary in different European countries.)
But what is not debatable is that the welfare state has failed in its central project to create a new kind of person whose humane commitments are driven not by parochial attachments to self, family, and clan – but a more cosmopolitan sensibility. In fact, far from making people more benevolent, just the theoretical possibility that foreigners may flock to these social programs is generating a fierce us-versus-them politics -- showing that the more you try and take self-interest out of politics, the more this interest asserts itself in ever uglier ways.
And this is the case not only in America and Europe but also in Canada. Indeed, the lengths that this sweet land of maple syrup goes to protect its social programs – especially its national health system – would give even Scrooge a sour taste in his mouth.
Go here to read the piece.
Tue, 03 Jan 2017 15:50:00 -0500
The short answer: Most did leave. In the last half-century, about 80 percent of the population of McDowell County, West Virginia, departed as jobs disappeared and civic life frayed, writes Reason's Ron Bailey in "Stuck," a story in our January 2017 issue. So why does the other 20 percent stay put?
Bailey's grandparents left McDowell County around 1950, at a time when the town of Welch was known to locals as "Little New York." When Bailey visited recently, he found only empty streets with the exception of a lone pickup truck.
Today, "nearly 47 percent of all personal income in the county is from Social Security, disability insurance, food stamps...and other federal programs," Bailey writes. Twenty-five percent of residents under 65 are considered disabled, and only 32 percent of those over 16 are part of the workforce.
In our latest podcast, Bailey talks with Nick Gillespie about those who stayed behind and what it says about American poverty. Part of the problem is that "at this point, the government is paying poor people to stay there and remain poor," Bailey argues.
The interview touches on the role of welfare, the federal disability program, and how Bailey's research relates to Charles Murray's Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980, and Hillbilly Elegy, J.D. Vance's blockbuster 2016 memoir of growing up in rural Ohio (which Bailey reviewed for Reason).
Click below to listen to that conversation—or subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.
src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/300773636%3Fsecret_token%3Ds-vf06i&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true" width="100%" height="450" frameborder="0">
Don't miss a single Reason podcast or video! Subscribe, rate, and review!
Sat, 10 Dec 2016 07:00:00 -0500I last visited McDowell County, West Virginia, over 40 years ago. Even then, I was already an outsider, a visitor to my family's past. Sometime around 1950, my grandparents and all six of their grown children pulled up stakes and left McDowell behind. My grandfather bought a dairy farm 100 miles away in Clinchburg, Virginia, and my father joined him after he left the Air Force in the mid-1950s. The house I grew up in didn't have a bathroom until I was 5. My sisters and I bathed in a zinc washtub using water warmed on the chunk burner in our kitchen. Since our house was heated entirely by two wood-burning stoves, I spent a good portion of my summers chopping and stacking cordwood. My upstairs bedroom was unheated, so I slept in a cast-iron bed beneath three heavy unzipped U.S. Army canvas sleeping bags to stay warm. We got a telephone when I was 13 years old; it was a five-party line. But it was the folks in McDowell—including many of my relatives—whom I thought of as poor. To my eyes, a huge number of the houses we drove past in hamlets like Squire, Cucumber, English, Bradshaw, Beartown, and Iaeger on our way to visit my father's hometown of Panther were little more than shacks. Many were covered with tarpaper. Indoor bathrooms and running water were luxuries. The houses that did have bathrooms more often than not simply ran a pipe from their sinks, tubs, and commodes directly to the nearest stream. My grandparent's old home was a nice and pretty spacious white clapboard house, but they got water from an outside hand pump and resorted to a first-class outhouse to answer nature's call. The water tasted distinctly of iron and sulfur. Except deep inside Panther State Forest, where the Bailey family held our annual Labor Day reunion, coal dust coated most buildings and automobiles. I do not long for the chilly, dusty, impoverished life I remember—my experience of the past is whatever the opposite of nostalgia is—but in retrospect, I was witnessing the tail end of McDowell's golden era. Mechanization, especially the development of continuous mining machines, enabled coal companies to mine much more coal with many fewer workers. Out of a population of nearly 100,000 in 1950, 15,812 worked as miners. By 1960 that number was just 7,118. Today there are only about 1,000 employees working for coal companies in the county, out of a population of less than 20,000. The county's dwindling economic prospects were further devastated by massive floods in 2001 and 2002 that destroyed hundreds of houses and businesses and killed four people. In recent years, McDowell has attracted attention for the worst possible reasons. It consistently shows up at the bottom of rankings, with the lowest levels of employment and the worst level of overall health in West Virginia, and the shortest male life expectancy in the nation. But it sits very near the top of lists of counties with the most drug overdoses, obesity, and suicides. The rather unsentimental question I set out to answer as I made my way back this autumn: Why don't people just leave? Bad News One sign things are not going well in your county is when the kids in the social service programs know to do pre-emptive damage control with the press. "Don't you focus just on the negative," warned Destiny Robertson, a spunky African-American senior at Mount View High School and a participant in the Broader Horizons program for at-risk kids devised by the Reconnecting McDowell task force. But it's hard not to focus on the negative when it can seem like that's all there is. Asked about their hometown, the kids shout out the usual list of woes with a world-weary attitude: bad schools, no jobs, drug addiction. They're right to worry: McDowell County has been the iconic symbol of poverty in America ever since the 1960 presidential campaign, during which then–Sen. John F. Kennedy visited the county four times. In his May 3, 1960, speech in the town of Welch, Kennedy cited the collapse of[...]
Thu, 01 Sep 2016 08:30:00 -0400When outspoken socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders was in the presidential race, he often expressed his dream to turn the United States into a Nordic-type social democracy like the one in Denmark. Hillary Clinton dismissed his comments by claiming that the United States isn't Denmark. But the truth is that at the center of her political platform is an extensive set of Nordic-like government interventions, including paid sick leave, paid parental leave, subsidized child care, and a more generous safety net—and higher taxes. So what's the appeal of Nordic democracies for U.S. Democrats? Writing in The Atlantic, Anu Partanen (a Finn living in the United States) claims that Nordic nations "offer their citizens—all of their citizens, but especially the middle class—high-quality services that save people a lot of money, time, and trouble." Partanen admits that Sanders' socialist framing of the policies does the model a disservice. As "a proud Finn" with an American passport, she insists that these policies aren't socialist in nature, saying they don't go against free markets and they aren't about big government; they're about smart government. We're to believe that Nordic government programs—such as free college, free graduate school, and nearly free health care, all paid for with higher consumption taxes—don't involve trade-offs in the form of lower wages as they do everywhere else. Don't believe it, says Nima Sanandaji, a researcher who grew up in Sweden. His new book, Debunking Utopia: Exposing the Myth of Nordic Socialism, is a balanced and comprehensive analysis of Nordic public policies, including their home runs and failures. In particular, it nicely lays out the human and social cost of the welfare state. Welfare policies have the same effects in Nordic countries as they do in other countries. As Nordic people have been asked to pay higher and higher taxes in exchange for the welfare payouts, their incentives to work less and capture government or mandatary company handouts have evolved to the point of undermining the countries' economic foundations. Sanandaji has a lot of data, including some showing how Nordic workers have a stronger tendency to call in sick during sporting events. Maybe the most extreme example is a 41 percent increase of sickness among men in Sweden during the 2002 World Cup, up from 7 percent during the 1988 Winter Olympics. Work ethics and a higher tolerance for collecting undeserved benefits have developed slowly, but the data show that over time, "Nordic people have changed their attitudes as social democratic policies have made it less rewarding to work hard and more rewarding to live off the government." To be sure, Nordic countries are at the forefront of gender equality, as we're often reminded, and government programs such as paid family leave for both men and women and generous child care handouts help women balance their home life and work life. However, as Sanandaji asks, why are there so few Nordic women at the top? Data from the International Labour Organization show that in the United States, the share of female managers is 43 percent, as opposed to 28 percent in Denmark, 30 percent in Finland, 32 percent in Norway and 36 percent in Sweden. Though it's true that Nordic women participate in the labor force at higher rates than other countries, studies show that broad-based welfare policies tend to limit their ability to reach the top. That's partly because they're overrepresented in public-sector monopolies where wages are flat and rise based on seniority rather than individual achievement. The truth is that Nordic nations were always leading in the fight for women, long before the welfare state came along. They also became comparatively rich when economic policy was dominated by free markets and small government in the 19th century and early 20th century. Unfortunately, the big welfare state policies, starting in the 1960s, have hampered their e[...]
Tue, 28 Jun 2016 13:52:00 -0400As president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) from 1996-2010, Andy Stern was called "the nation's most politically influential union president." Now Stern believes that labor unions are increasingly irrelevant. "Labor unions now play a particularly boutique role in the economy," he told The Atlantic in an interview about his new book, Raising the Floor, which advocates for a universal basic income (UBI). A UBI-type system, in which traditional welfare programs would be abolished and each citizen would get a certain yearly handout (regardless of personal income or worth), has been supported by libertarians, liberals, and conservatives alike over the past few decades. As automation, globalization, and the information economy make many jobs obsolete, advocating for a UBI—also known as a "basic income guarantee" (BIG)—has been coming back in intellectual vogue. "I believe that this is not our father's or our grandfather's economy, that the 21st century will not be employer-managed," Stern said. "It's going to be self-managed, because the growth in alternative work relationships—contingent, freelance, gig, whatever you want to call it—is clearly going to increase. Although the economy can grow in terms of GDP and productivity, it no longer means there will be wage growth or job growth, as opposed to the 20th century." Stern left traditional labor organizing because he "could not figure out anymore how a shrinking labor movement, a changing economy, a changing structure of work" could lead to economic security for Americans. "If you can't figure out where you're leading an organization, it's pretty hard to get up everyday and go to work. So I resigned," he told The Atlantic. And it wasn't just SEIU resistant to change, of course. "I would say that unions are not generally oriented towards thinking too far into the future," Stern said. We spend most of our time chasing the future and trying to understand it rather than finding ideas that put us where the future was heading and have it come towards us. We are spending, appropriately, a large amount of energy on $15 an hour wages, getting governments to promote paid family and sick leave. In the absence of unions being able to make changes in workers' lives, people are turning to the government as a solution to do that on a broad scale. But unions have rarely thought 10 or 20 years ahead, and universal basic income requires that kind of thinking. What I'm hopeful, somewhat from this book, is that unions can look up from the defensive crouch they're in, look into the future, and understand that so many of the things they're doing now that are enormously important could be very insufficient. And that they'll begin to think of universal basic income as they think of minimum wage, as an idea that becomes essential if we're going to end inequality, provide stability, and keep the American dream alive. It's interesting that while mainstream liberals and Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, push plans to shoehorn new on-demand-economy work into traditional employment and labor-union structures, someone straight out of the belly of the beast is saying no, no, no, that's the exact opposite of what we should do. Read the whole Atlantic interview with Stern here. For more on basic income proposals, see: Making the Welfare State Less Intrusive Finland Wants to Replace Welfare Programs With a Minimum Income for All Residents Greece to Test Minimum Guaranteed Income Program Time for a Guranateed Income? Libertarians Debate Basic Income Guarantee [...]
Sun, 06 Mar 2016 09:30:00 -0500
Is America's welfare system destroying the incentive to work? That's what Phil Harvey and Lisa Conyers contend in their recent book, The Human Cost of Welfare: How the System Hurts the People It's Supposed to Help.
"The prospect of having all your benefits cut off...or a significant part of your benefits cut off makes people look on earning income as risky," says Harvey.
The co-authors sat down with Reason TV's Nick Gillespie to talk about what they learned from hundreds of welfare recipients they interviewed around the country.
Click below to watch:
frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nehJfvlQb6M" height="340" width="560">
Thu, 03 Mar 2016 10:55:00 -0500At around $700 billion a year, federal spending on welfare programs such as housing assistance, food stamps, and disability payments is bigger than the country's military budget. Yet for all the money—and good intentions—spent on welfare, it routinely leaves recipients with meager prospects for improving their situation. Worst of all, because the system is so poorly designed, beneficiaries routinely turn down job opportunities that will cut their benefits. That's the message of the richly researched new book, The Human Cost of Welfare: How the System Hurts the People It's Supposed to Help, by Phil Harvey and Lisa Conyers. The authors interviewed hundreds of welfare recipients all over the country to provide an inside view of how welfare actually works and how people navigate an endlessly complex and contradictory set of programs. While appreciative of the reforms to welfare in the 1990s, the authors say the time for new changes is well past due. Under both Republican and Democratic presidents, work requirements have been dropped while programs have been vastly expanded. "One of the worst things aout the welfare system is that it induces this psychology of fear of earning too much," says Harvey, the head of DKT International, which provides family planning and HIV/AIDS prevention around the world, and Adam & Eve, the adult-products catalog (Harvey is also a donor to Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason TV). "The prospect of having all your benefits cut off...or a significant part of your benefits cut off makes people look on earning income as risky." Co-author Lisa Coyners of The DKT Liberty Project traveled the country to talk with welfare recipients in a wide range of personal and economic situations. To a person, she says, they knew not to earn over a certain amount in order to protect their benefits. "It was actually frightening for them," she says, "taking that extra hour of work or taking that raise [if] they would lose their benefits." Harvey and Conyers propose a series a reforms, including changes to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which is broadly popular with lawmakers, that would allow welfare recipients to effectively "top up" their wages so that becoming upwardly mobile isn't blocked by serious, short-term reductions in living standards. The Human Cost of Welfare is reminiscent of Losing Ground, the 1984 book by Charles Murray that explained how Great Society welfare programs inadvertently created incentives for people to stay on welfare. Like that earlier book, which is widely credited with spurring welfare reform under Bill Clinton, The Human Cost of Welfare, shows how programs designed to help individuals end up perpetuating the very behavior they seek to improve. With its scores of original interviews and empathy for people who want to be in greater control of their lives and its sensible, workable reform agenda, The Human Cost of Welfare is a must-read for anyone interested in making government more accountable and improving the lives of the poorest Americans. About 18 minutes. Interview by Nick Gillespie. Cameras by Meredith Bragg and Joshua Swain. Edited by Swain. Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to receive automatic notifications when new videos go live.[...]
Thu, 07 Jan 2016 11:50:00 -0500
(image) Nearly a decade ago, the New York Police Department launched the Juvenile Robbery Intervention Program, also known by the unfortunate acronym J-RIP. This week an internal document detailing its failures came to light, leading to write-ups in The New York Times (under the headline "Report Finds Juvenile Program Failed to Reduce Robberies, but Police Are Expanding It") and the Gotham Gazette (under the headline "More Evidence Punitive NYPD Youth Programs Fail").
The most distressing detail may be this one, described by the Gazette:
Young people were...regularly visited by uniformed officers in their homes and on the streets. While these officers were supposed to be acting as mentors and monitors, defense lawyers reported that officers sometimes used these visits as a pretext to conduct searches and that they sometimes called attention to program relationships in front of other youth, potentially marking them as informants—a dangerous label in these neighborhoods.
"Mentors" who surveil you and give your friends the impression you're a snitch—no wonder the program didn't reduce crime. Nonetheless, the Gazette notes, "the NYPD has moved forward with an expansion of the program in a different guise," called NYC Ceasefire. The new effort
focuses more on gun crimes and adds group "call-in" meetings in which the targeted youth are brought in and lectured by police and community members about the harmful effects of their violent actions and the potential enhanced consequences of additional violent offenses. They are then placed under extensive surveillance regimes and targeted for enhanced punishments if caught re-offending. They are also offered some minimal services, primarily in the form of a centralized referral phone number run by a local non-profit that is there to link young people to already existing programs.
J-RIP and NYC Ceasefire are both examples of "Focused Deterrence" programs. Developed by criminologist David Kennedy, and first implemented in Boston in 1996, they attempt to stop gun violence or other serious crime through intensive and targeted enforcement combined with support services.
They are thus another example of the welfare state's convergence with the criminal justice system. For more on that marriage, go here and here; for further examples of it in action, go here and—from earlier this week—here.
Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:25:00 -0500Yesterday, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed an executive order requiring social service agencies throughout the state to extend shelter hours and take other steps to ensure a roof is available to the homeless. Less benevolently, it required state and local police to locate homeless people who are "unwilling" to enter the shelters, and to force them into those institutions when the temperature falls below freezing. It "is clear and well-established," the order claims, "that the State can take appropriate steps, including involuntary placement, to protect individuals from harming themselves." This has gotten pushback from civil libertarians, from homelessness activists, and from the City of New York. (The context of Cuomo's order includes an ongoing public-pissing match between Cuomo and NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio.) Not surprisingly, a lot of homeless people are upset about it too. The New York Daily News reports: "Hell no, I won't go to a shelter! How's that even lawful? You can't force people off a public street," said Luis Diaz, 31, who was shivering with his girlfriend on a Midtown streetcorner as temps hovered in the mid-40s. "It's going to be crazy. They don't have enough room. They don't have the infrastructure to do this. Where are they going to put us? If they're shoving us in shelters with crazies and people who can't handle being in there, there is going to be a lot of fights. We're safer out here." "I feel violated by this," added William Sanders, 45, who said he considered it "cruel and unusual punishment" to be forced into a shelter, where he said he has faced hostility from other residents because of sores on his legs but has been unable to get medical services. "There is going to be anger and violence in the shelters if we go against our will. They are putting us in a really bad situation," he said. According to the Daily News, some officials are now "saying people would not be forced to leave the sidewalks." But it also quotes the governor defending the idea of coercing New Yorkers into shelters: "If I get sued for keeping people safe and getting people in from the cold because they were endangering themselves, so be it." That doesn't sound like a man backing down. A while back I blogged one homeless man's explanation for why he avoids the shelters. In addition to citing safety issues, he noted the unpleasantness of being a law-abiding non-addict in a place whose rules are "designed to try to keep alcoholics, drug addicts and criminals from being able to do those things." Obviously, his cost/benefit calculations might change in extremely cold weather; but that ought to be his choice to make, not the state's. In any event, Cuomo's order is yet another example of the convergence of the welfare state with the criminal justice system. For more on that topic, go here, here, and—for a more historical view—here.[...]
Mon, 07 Dec 2015 12:46:00 -0500Finland has a reputation for being "one of the world's best functioning welfare states," a magical land where—for the low price of paying half their income in taxes—citizens have access to state-funded health care and child care; generous unemployment benefits; and a robust system of services for the poor and the elderly. Now the Nordic nation may scrap all that in favor of giving every Finnish adult a basic income of about $866 per month. Details of the scheme are still being worked out—the Finnish government won't issue a final proposal until next November. But preliminary plans indicate the Finnish Social Insurance Institution (Kela) will test two basic-income models in the program's pilot phase. Under the first, adult Finns would each receive 800 euros per month; under the partial model, they would get 550 euros monthly. "In the partial pilot format, [earnings-based] benefits would not be affected," reports Finnish news outlet Yle. "The partial model would also retain housing benefits and income support packages." Under the full model, however, unemployment benefits, old-age pensions, maternity allowances, health benefits, housing benefits, and other earnings-based benefits would not be available to recipients, and these programs would be abolished entirely. Kela Director General Liisa Hyssälä told Lännen Media that a national basic income guarantee could save the country millions and simplify the welfare system, which currently includes an array of overlapping programs and benefits. It would also get rid of traps that disincentivize working under the current system. But why now? What's shifted in Finland to warrant this drastic change? "It may sound counterintuitive, but the proposal is meant to tackle unemployment," explains Quartz writer Olivia Goldhill. Finland’s unemployment rate is at a 15-year high, at 9.53% and a basic income would allow people to take on low-paying jobs without personal cost. At the moment, a temporary job results in lower welfare benefits, which can lead to an overall drop in income. According to a poll commissioned by Kela, 72 percent of Finns support a basic income. (Slightly more—78 percent—supported a negative income tax of the sort proposed by Milton Friedman.) The plan also has political support from the left and the right, and Finnish Prime Minister Juha Sipilä is a fan. Finland isn't the only European locale flirting with a universal basic income. Greece is currently testing a pared-down minimum-income plan. Next year, Switzerland will hold a vote on the issue. The Swedes are at least aflutter about it. And in January, some low-income residents of Utrecht, the fourth-largest city in the Netherlands, will begin receiving a guaranteed monthly income (about $1,000 per month for a single adult or $1,450 for a couple or family) instead of their current welfare benefits. In about 50 of these test cases, the payment will be unconditional. Since Utrecht announced this plan, at least one other Dutch city has pledged to follow suit and six others are considering it. Forbes columnist Tim Worstall does a good job of explaining the cross-ideological appeal of a universal basic income: From the right it gets rid of the thing we worry most about welfare: the immense tax and benefit withdrawal rate that makes poor people not desire (because they are rational in the face of 60 and 70% tax rates) to increase their incomes. And from the left it actually increases workers’ bargaining power without, of course, needing those potentially self-interested unions standing in the middle. If you can live, just, without working, then the boss’ power over you is vastly reduced. Another way of putting this is that[...]
Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:14:00 -0500
(image) A coupla weeks ago, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released a proposal to ban smoking in all public housing. It would reportedly affect about a million households.
I've got a new column up at The Daily Beast arguing that the idea showcases government paternalism at its most naked. There's a strong case to be made that the federal government should not be involved in providing housing (including subsidies to housing in the form of the mortgage-interest deduction). But if it is, it would be far better to provide recipients not with Section 8 vouchers or payments but unrestricted cash. Indeed, that would be far better for any and all transfers to all recipients. As the Heritage Foundation has pointed out, about 20 percent of all government services and benefits got to the top income quintile. The more transparent such transfers become, the more we can actually debate and discuss their breadth and depth.
Rather than being adopted, the proposal should spur a larger conversation about how best to adminster other sorts of programs—from food stamps to the mortgage-interest deduction—that try to engineer our behavior to suit the whims of our leaders....
When it comes to food stamps (technically known as SNAP these days), the government refuses to pay for all sorts of products, to steer recipients to ostensibly healthier choices. The net result of giving people electronic benefit (EBT) cards that can only be used to purchase particular foods is a thriving abritrage market in the benefits. According to a 2014 federal study (PDF), for instance, SNAP recipients who want cash routinely use social media sites to sell the cards at a fraction of their face value. In San Antonio, $400 in SNAP money was offered for $240 in cash; in New Jersey, a $200 EBT card was advertised for $100 in cash.
Rather than trying to push the neediest Americans into particular behaviors—buy a house! have a kid! eat more kale! don’t smoke!—it would be far more elegant and efficient to simply give them unrestricted cash payments, whether for food or housing. That would eliminate all secondary markets in benefits and minimize the market distortions that inevitably occur in heavily subsidized markets (the favorable treatment of home ownership was one of the factors in the housing bubble). It might even allow us to start having conversations about simultaneously reducing the size of the welfare state while increasing its effectiveness.
Thu, 12 Nov 2015 09:31:00 -0500Here is paternalism in action against the lower orders: Smoking would be prohibited in public housing homes nationwide under a proposed federal rule to be announced on Thursday, a move that would affect nearly one million households and open the latest front in the long-running campaign to curb unwanted exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke. The ban, by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, would also require that common areas and administrative offices on public housing property be smoke-free.... Since the federal government began to press for smoking bans in public housing in 2009, more than 600 agencies encompassing over 200,000 households have voluntarily barred indoor smoking. In moving to require the prohibitions across the country, federal officials say they are acting to protect residents from secondhand smoke, which can travel through walls and under doors; to reduce the risk of fires; and to lower building maintenance costs. As The New York Times reports, this is more like the last action of an ongoing government policy rather than the start of a new campaign against a substance that, while still technically legal, is arguably as vilified in popular culture and tax policy. Indeed, in every day life, I'd say there's little question that being a pot smoker is less likely to raise an eyebrow than being a tobacco user. So what comes next, after tobacco smoke is banned in federally funded or supported housing? Despite posing virtually none of the personal health hazards of smoking, vaping is everywhere under attack because it mimics the act of smoking. Chewing tobacco doesn't present the same externalities (real and imagined) of secondhand smoke, but it poses health risks, which are likely to be paid for by taxpayers (if you're living in public housing, aren't you more likely to be receiving various sorts of other tax-funded support)? The proposed rule would require housing agencies to prohibit lit cigarettes, cigars and pipes in all living units, indoor common areas, administrative offices and all outdoor areas within 25 feet of housing and administrative office buildings. The rule would not apply initially to electronic cigarettes, but federal officials are seeking input about whether to ban them. Individual housing authorities can be as restrictive as they want, extending the prohibition to areas near playgrounds, for instance, or making their entire grounds smoke-free, officials said. The Times quotes one resident who expresses frustration with the proposed ban: “What I do in my apartment should be my problem, long as I pay my rent,” said Gary Smith, 47, a cigarette in hand as he sat outside the door to a building in the Walt Whitman Houses in the Fort Greene section of Brooklyn.... Mr. Smith, for one, expressed skepticism that a ban could be enforced. “You don’t know what’s going on in people’s apartment,” he said at the Walt Whitman Houses. He added, “What are they going to do, smell your apartment?” Read the Times' article here. As someone who grew up in a house with parents who were smokers, I fully appreciate the arguments—and these are independent of questions of the health effects of second-hand smoke—that being around smokers is a nuisance and unpleasant. To the extent that's real, there should be relatively easy ways to create parts of public housing that allow smoking and others that do not. For those of you who assume that the negative health effects of secondhand smoke are settled in any sort of serious way, please read my colleague Jacob Sullum's prodigious and award-winning output on the matter (start here). But the idea that the state can or should condition the receipt of benefits on the avoidance o[...]
Wed, 30 Sep 2015 00:01:00 -0400The world has enough real problems without declaring everyone a "victim." Bill Clinton says Hillary is a victim of a right-wing conspiracy. Lindsay Lohan, when jailed for driving drunk and breaking parole, says she's a victim of cruel and unusual punishment. Michael Sam says his NFL career would have gone better had he not come out as gay. A Philadelphia dentist caught groping his patients' breasts said he is a victim of frotteurism, a disease that compels you to fondle breasts. Really. People benefit by playing the victim. Activists look for people they can declare victims, to bring attention to their causes. The New York Times once called the Super Bowl the "Abuse Bowl," claiming that during the game many more women are abused than usual because their men get crazed watching violence. CBS called Super Bowl Sunday a "day of dread." The Boston Globe claimed a study showed calls to anti-violence emergency lines go up 40 percent during the game. Then Ken Ringle of the Washington Post tried to trace those claims. The Globe reporter admitted she never saw the study in question but got the numbers from the left-wing group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. FAIR said they got them from a psychiatrist on "Good Morning America." That psychiatrist referred callers to another psychiatrist, who said, "I haven't been any more successful than you in tracking down any of this." The "Super Bowl victim" claim was bunk. Sometimes I feel like a victim. I stutter. Had today's disability laws existed when I began work, would I have fought to overcome my stuttering? Maybe not. I might have sued my employer, demanding they "accommodate my disability" by giving me a non-speaking job. Maybe I would have just stopped working and collected a disability check. I also felt like a victim the day I taped a TV report on how pro-wrestling is fake, and a wrestler beat me up, hitting me on both ears. Weeks afterward, loud noises hurt my ears. Someone then said that that the wrestler's boss, Vince McMahon, told him to hit me, so I sued McMahon. As part of the lawsuit, McMahon's lawyers demanded I see a certain doctor, who told me, "Your ear pain is a jurosomatic illness." "What's that?" I said. He answered, "Jurosomatic ... like psychosomatic. You hold onto your ear pain because you're involved in a lawsuit." I was furious. I screamed at him, "You haven't even examined me, and you make this accusation?" But guess what? After the World Wrestling Federation settled the lawsuit and paid me, my ear pain slowly went away. Was I holding onto pain because litigation kept reminding me that I was a victim? Maybe. It makes me wonder about those well-intended government programs meant to help the disabled. Social Security disability money used to go to blind people, people in wheelchairs, people clearly disabled. But now billions go to people who say they're disabled by things like headaches and back pain. Disability payments have increased so much that the program will soon go broke. But the increase in payments makes no sense. Medicine improved since 1990. People do less hard manual labor. There should be fewer disabled people. Why are there more? Perhaps it's jurosomatic pain? Or government-handout-omatic pain? Some people are just inclined to complain, and the modern welfare state encourages that. Lawyers made it worse by encouraging people to sue, rather than strive. That changed America. When you reward something, you get more of it. We change people's character by teaching them that "victimhood" is a way to get attention and moral status. Our ancestors never would have accomplished much if they'd labeled themselves victims. They crossed oceans and the prairie knowing that ma[...]