The Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) is a form of government benefit in which all citizens or legal residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money.  Some libertarians like the BIG, because it would provide a simple alternative to the morass of means-tested government programs that are associated with dependency, gaming the system, and work avoidance. Liberals like the BIG as a way to combat inequality and eliminate poverty. Needless to say, liberal versions of the BIG tend to be much more generous than those suggested by libertarians.

I initially opposed the BIG as too expensive and damaging to the economy, putting into play all sorts of incentives and disincentives that would have the effect of reducing labor market participation while imposing an excessive tax burden on the shrinking pool of taxpayers. Crunching the numbers, it just didn’t seem doable. But I’ve come around – at least to a modest BIG that meets two conditions: 1) a BIG shouldn’t cost more than the safety net programs it replaces – therefore, it would not add to the overall burden of taxpayers; and,  2) it should not disincentivize work so much that the tax base shrinks any more than is already projected (due to the aging of the population)

First order of business: how much money would be available for the BIG budget and where would it come from?

Note: The following figures and calculations are approximations only. The point here is to show that some sort of BIG is doable, not to work out the exact costs.

The Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) would be paid through federal and state taxes. Since one of the conditions of this modest BIG is that the overall government tax burden does not increase to fund it, let’s look at where government spending currently stands.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in fiscal year 2014, the federal government spent $3.5 trillion, of which over $3.0 trillion was financed by federal revenues and the remaining financed by borrowing. Here’s the rough breakdown of where that money went:

– 24 percent to Social Security

– 24 percent to 4 health insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and ACA subsidies.

– 18 percent to defense and security-related international activities.

– 11 percent to safety net programs that provide aid to individuals and families facing hardship.

– 7 percent to interest payments on the national debt.

– 8 percent to federal retirees and veterans.

– 3 percent to transportation and infrastructure

– 2 percent to education

– 2 percent to science and medical research

– 1 percent to non-security international

– 2 percent to all other

(Due to rounding, the total is more than 100%).

BIG would be funded through the portion of government budgets devoted to safety net programs (about 11% of the federal budget, with states contributing matching funds). Let’s see if we can cobble together a decent BIG budget through the elimination of the programs that BIG would replace, plus selective reductions in other programs.

BIG would replace many of the big ticket programs, including the Earned Income Tax Credit, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Supplemental Security Income, and unemployment compensation. Per Federal Safety Net, TANF, EITC, and SSI cost about $150 billion annually. Move $150 billion to BIG.

In the last decade, the combined federal/state budget for unemployment benefits has ranged from $50-$150 billion a year, depending on the unemployment rate and allowed duration of the benefit. We’ll assume an annual average of $100 billion and move it to the BIG budget.

Most other means-tested safety net programs would stay in place, such as SNAP (food stamps), Pell grants, housing assistance, school lunches, and childcare assistance. However, because BIG counts as income, the budget for some of these other programs will go down if a substantial number of people receive BIG (because they will qualify for lower/fewer benefits due to higher income). I’ll estimate these programs will get about 10% smaller, freeing up another $25 billion for the BIG budget.

In addition, some federal programs would be eliminated to reduce agency overlap and duplication of services, a pervasive problem according to the US Government Accountability Office. Let’s say elimination of these unneeded programs saves $25 billion. Those funds can be applied to BIG.

The states also contribute matching funds to many of the federal welfare programs. A portion of these funds – $150 billion – will go into the BIG budget.

Ok, based on the above, this is what we have to pay for the BIG:

$150b – existing safety net programs that will be replaced by BIG

$25b – budget reductions in some remaining programs

$25b – elimination of redundant programs

$100b – unemployment compensation, to be replaced by BIG

$150b – state matching funds

So we have about $450 billion to pay for a BIG. It’s a start.

In the relatively recent Supreme Court decision  McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that general bans on gun ownership were unconstitutional – or laws that had the effect of general bans, like in Chicago, which had a law that said all handguns had to be registered but then provided no mechanism to register guns. This case came up because an old man who lived in a dangerous neighborhood wanted to buy a handgun for self-protection for when his house was broken into – his perfectly legal rifle was just too unwieldy for the purpose. Interestingly, after the ruling, there appears to have been no effect on the homicide rate in Chicago, which is following the country-wide trend of continuing decline – less than half the homicide rate in 2014 than it was in 1974. Question: would you have supported the (effective) city-wide ban on handguns for all Chicago residents?

In a different decision, the Court also said the 2^nd Amendment does not preclude gun control laws. Per Scalia in District of Columbia v. Heller: “Like most rights, the 2^nd Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld…[and] the Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places…or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.^” So when we speak of gun control, we need to be more specific. If we’re talking about tighter controls on gun ownership in line of what Scalia was ok with, it doesn’t seem the 2^nd Amendment is relevant (despite its symbolic value for both the gun lobby and gun control advocates). If we’re talking about community-wide bans, then it is relevant.

Setting the Tone:

“He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that…Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they   state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do  justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be  able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and  persuasive form….” From: “On Liberty”, Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Vol. XVII:   Essays on Politics and Society.

These brief debate summaries will have the general structure: an intro to the issue, then one or two “Yes” paragraphs, followed by one or two “No” paragraphs. Snark-free comments are welcome. There will be a new debate topic every month.

Debate 1: Should drugs be legalized in the US?

The United States openly declared a war on drugs about 40 years ago. Unfortunately, the war on drugs is not going well. Despite huge sums spent on enforcement of drug laws and incarceration of drug offenders, Americans haven’t lost their taste for a whole smorgasbord of soft and hard drugs. Every year almost half a trillion dollars’ worth of illegal drugs is imported, exported, bought and sold in the US. Heroin use has shot up, claiming four times as many deaths in 2013 as in 2002. Drug violence in the US continues to claim lives: from 2006-2010, 5,700 lives were cut short due to drug-related conflicts. Illegal drug use also leads people to commit crimes. In the US alone, most of those arrested for violent crimes test positive for drugs at time of arrest, as do a substantial number of those arrested for property crimes. And American consumption of illegal drugs fuels violence around the world: in 2013 alone, Mexican drug cartels murdered more than 16,000 people. Finally, let’s not forget that terrorist organizations like ISIS fund many of their operations through the drug trade.

What a mess. All those lives ruined; all that money spent. Surely, there must be a better way.

For some, the better way is clear: legalize drugs. All drugs. Why stop at pot? And why stop at consumption? Legalize cultivation, manufacture, transport, and sales. Of course, there needs to be regulations, like labeling, purity and dose requirements, no sales to minors or near schools, and no driving or operating machinery under the influence. That’s just common sense. Manufacturers and vendors would be licensed and taxed, with tax revenues used for rehabilitation and ways to reduce the harm of drug use, such as the provision of safe houses with supervision by counselors who can monitor for and respond to overdoses as well as provide referrals for help.

Advocates of legalization argue that the fact that drug use can be harmful is not a reason to make such use illegal. After all, many legal goods cause serious harm, including death. This includes alcohol, responsible for about 38,000 overdose deaths in the US every year. However, the criminal status of drugs actually contributes to their harm, by promoting dangerously tainted products and transmission of disease through dirty needles and unhygienic environments. Legalization would also cut the wind out of the sails of drug gangs, cartels and terrorist organizations, who would be less able to rely on the drug trade to fund their nefarious activities. There would be environmental benefits as well: cultivation and manufacturing would have to be in compliance with EPA regulations and there’d be no more aerial spraying of drug crops. What’s not to like?

Lots, say the critics of legalization. Colorado is a good case study of what is likely to happen following legalization: increases in overall drug consumption (including among children and teens), drugged-driving incidents, fatal crashes, emergency room visits, school expulsions, and gang-related crime, not to mention a decrease in workplace productivity and an exploding homeless population. And pot is often associated with rather innocuous behavioral changes – imagine the effect of legalizing harder drugs, especially those associated with violence. Do we really want to legalize rage-inducing methamphetamines?

Just because some harmful activities are legal is not an argument to legalize all harmful activities. Legalization will lead to more drug use and more drug use will mean more damaged brains and bodies, creating a greater burden on our healthcare system and safety net. Greater use will mean more addiction and compromised decision-making, resulting in higher crime rates and destroyed families. None of this is to say that the war on drugs is perfect. There is already a growing consensus that more needs to be spent on rehabilitation, that use alone shouldn’t merit incarceration, and that past drug offenses shouldn’t mean disqualification from student financial aid. We still need to become better at helping people who abuse drugs, but legalization would only make that job harder.

So, what do you think? Would legalization of drugs in the US create more good than harm? Or vice versa?