The 26-year-old mayor of Stockton, California believes giving free money to people living in poverty is the best way to get the poor out of poverty.
That’s how the liberal mind works. Pay the poor to secure the votes, then bash conservatives as the bad guys for not caring for those in need.
If Michael Tubbs was smart, he’d realize the only way for people to climb out of poverty is to provide jobs by eliminating regulations and slashing taxes.
Instead he is thinking about implementing a universal basic income.
From BizPac Review:
“Stockton is absolutely Ground Zero for a lot of the issues we’re facing as a nation,” Tubbs told CBS San Francisco (video below). “Ideally, I would like to serve 100 families for 18 months at $500 a month.”
Stockton is experimenting with a welfare program called “universal basic income,” which gives low-income residents $500 a month, no questions asked. The money is coming from a private grant.
The California city, which went bankrupt in 2012, has recently made strides to become more economically viable, but is still struggling.
Former re-distributor-in-chief Barack Obama endorsed Tubbs in 2016. Tubbs is the first black mayor in Stockton’s history, as well as the youngest.
The money for the universal basic income project comes from a $1 million private grant from the Economic Security Project, which is co-chaired by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes.
Dorian Warren, who’s co-chairman the Economic Security Project, said the program will keep track of what recipients do with the money, and how having a “universal basic income” affects their self-esteem.
“What does it mean to say, ‘Here is unconditional guaranteed income just based on you being a human being?’” Warren asked.
Here are economist Thomas Sowell’s thoughts on Democrats and “the poor”…
The political left has long claimed the role of protector of “the poor.” It is one of their central moral claims to political power. But how valid is this claim?
Leaders of the left in many countries have promoted policies that enable the poor to be more comfortable in their poverty. But that raises a fundamental question: Just who are “the poor”?
If you use a bureaucratic definition of poverty as including all individuals or families below some arbitrary income level set by the government, then it is easy to get the kinds of statistics about “the poor” that are thrown around in the media and in politics. But do those statistics have much relationship to reality?
“Poverty” once had some concrete meaning — not enough food to eat or not enough clothing or shelter to protect you from the elements, for example. Today it means whatever the government bureaucrats, who set up the statistical criteria, choose to make it mean. And they have every incentive to define poverty in a way that includes enough people to justify welfare state spending.
Most Americans with incomes below the official poverty level have air-conditioning, television, own a motor vehicle and, far from being hungry, are more likely than other Americans to be overweight. But an arbitrary definition of words and numbers gives them access to the taxpayers’ money.
This kind of “poverty” can easily become a way of life, not only for today’s “poor,” but for their children and grandchildren.
Even when they have the potential to become productive members of society, the loss of welfare state benefits if they try to do so is an implicit “tax” on what they would earn that often exceeds the explicit tax on a millionaire.
[Note: This post was written by John S. Roberts]