Tag: news

Much of the Democratic debate on Wednesday featured a fractured flock of candidates fighting over progressive credentials and declaring who they’d put in prison or fine to prove their bona fides. But Andrew Yang, the plucky venture capitalist, made the case that his policies really are for everyone.

“I’m building a coalition of disaffected Trump voters, independents, libertarians, and conservatives, as well as Democrats and progressives,” Yang explained. He believes he can unite all these folks with a Universal Basic Income (UBI), which Yang says is “a deeply American idea” that connects “Thomas Paine to Martin Luther King to today.” Yang’s version of the UBI would have see American citizen 18 and older receive $1,000 a month—no exceptions.

But does the concept of a UBI actually resonate across centuries and ideologies? The short answer is no. While a simple form of UBI has indeed been tossed around for many years, its implementation and cost look very different depending on whose version you read.

Do we start with St. Thomas More, who, in 1516, said that “provid[ing] everyone with some means of livelihood” would cut down on crime? Or do we take a cue from Yang and commence with Thomas Paine’s late 18th century musings on the subject?

As Reason‘s Jesse Walker points out, better to begin with the latter, whose 1797 pamphlet Agrarian Justice advocated for a policy most closely related to today’s UBI talk. Paine wrote that “the earth, in its natural, uncultivated state was…the common property of the human race.” Although cultivation of that land was “one of the greatest natural improvements ever made,” it also displaced people, robbing them of “their natural inheritance” and creating “a species of poverty and wretchedness that did not exist before.” To rectify that disinheritance, Paine argued everyone was owed a yearly sum: 15 pounds for those between the ages of 21 and 49, and 10 pounds for those aged 50 and older.

Yang’s UBI is essentially a modern-day, technologized version of Paine’s proposal. Instead of agricultural practices dispossessing American citizens, Yang blames big tech companies, which he says are automating jobs into oblivion. You don’t have to be a member of the Yang Gang to see other similarities between the two proposals. Paine called his payout the “Citizens Dividend,” while Yang nicknamed his stipend the “Freedom Dividend.”

But would they cost the same? Decidedly not. Adjusted for inflation, 15 pound of sterling in 1797 comes out to about $1,960 in today’s dollars—a far cry from Yang’s proposed $12,000 redistribution.

How about Martin Luther King, Jr., the well-known civil rights activist and little-known UBI supporter? King placed the plight of the poor at the center of his platform. But his vision for a basic income was perhaps more conditional than universal. He wrote in his last book, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?:

We must create full employment or we must create incomes. People must be made consumers by one method or the other. Once they are placed in this position, we need to be concerned that the potential of the individual is not wasted. New forms of work that enhance the social good will have to be devised for those for whom traditional jobs are not available.

A government-sponsored jobs program was central to King’s proposal, and thus better reflected in Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D–N.Y.) Green New Deal than in Yang’s no-strings-attached UBI.

Then there’s the libertarian cohort of UBI fan boys, spearheaded by Milton Friedman and Charles Murray. The crowd at Yang’s Washington, D.C., rally on April 15 burst into applause at the mention of Friedman. But the famous free-market economist’s idea of UBI doesn’t square up with Yang’s. Friedman advocated for a negative income tax, which replaces levies on low-income individuals with supplemental funds from the government. Friedman’s plan thus ensures that everyone in society receives a guaranteed minimum income, but it doesn’t redistribute money to people who don’t need it.

And then there’s Murray, the conservatarian economist who actually does favor a UBI that resembles Yang’s. He shares the candidate’s worries about automating the American job out of existence and has proposed giving everyone in America aged 21 and older $13,000—even more than Yang! However, it’s worth noting that Murray would require $3,000 of that payout go toward health insurance. The two thinkers also differ on one other point, and it’s a doozy: Murray’s UBI would replace the entire welfare system, whereas Yang’s would exist alongside a welfare system.

“You don’t want to take away benefits that hundreds of thousands of Americans are literally relying upon for their very survival,” Yang told me back in April. “The goal is to create more positive incentives.”

So how would the presidential hopeful finance his “tech check”? For starters, Yang says that, while the welfare state would remain intact, spending would fall by $500 to $600 billion. He would also implement a 10 percent Value Added Tax (VAT), which he says would raise $800 billion in new revenue. He further forecasts the U.S. would save between $100 to $200 billion “as people would take better care of themselves,” saving funds from visits to the emergency room and jail cells. The economy would grow by $800-900 billion, he posits, with consumers more empowered to spend as they please. A tax on top earners and carbon would also add to the freedom fund, although by how much he doesn’t say.

But apart from his VAT tax, Yang’s financial justification is chock full of uncertainty, as it relies heavily on the notion that the economy will expand by almost a trillion dollars—a big if, to say the least. Consider for a moment if all went to plan: On paper, his UBI costs about $2.8 trillion, but, even in a perfect world, his current concrete projections fall $600 billion short of that. It’s unlikely that a tax on the wealthy and carbon would raise those funds, and there’s always the chance that capital creators would choose to move their businesses and the money they create to safe havens.

Yang has stuck to his guns despite these questions. He told me back in April that his UBI would make for a “much more dynamic economy,” putting “more people in a position where they can actually participate in a free market.” When we spoke, he had just removed a hat that spelled “MATH” in bold, capital letters, which the presidential hopeful wore as a badge of honor during his rally. It’s become somewhat of a one-word campaign slogan, gracing signs and swag alike. When it comes to Yang’s UBI, though, the math just doesn’t add up.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2YDdrME
via IFTTT

Tom Messina owns a restaurant. Or at least he thought he did.

For the past 20 years, Messina has operated Tom’s Diner on Colfax Avenue in downtown Denver, Colorado. Running the popular 24-hour restaurant—located just a few blocks from the Colorado state capital—is demanding work that Messina is looking to move on from as he nears retirement age.

“I’m a restaurateur who’s worked his life flipping pancakes and selling eggs,” says Messina. “I have a beautiful family I want to spend time with. I just turned 60 and I want to do something else.”

Messina’s plan had always been to finance his retirement by selling his restaurant. That dream looked like it would become a reality earlier this year when Alberta Company offered him $4.8 million for his property, which the Colorado-based developer plans to turn into an 8-story apartment building complete with shops on the ground floor.

The price was right for Messina and Alberta’s plans fit perfectly with Denver’s 2010 rezoning of the property, which marked it as part of an urban center neighborhood fit for denser, mixed-use development.

Everything was going swimmingly until Denver’s historic preservationists got wind of Messina’s evil plan to sell his property and retire after two decades of serving Denver residents in order for new business owners and residents to work and live where his diner currently sits.

When Alberta Company applied for what is known as a Certificate of Non-Historic Status, which would allow the building to be demolished and redeveloped, five community members assisted by the local preservationist nonprofit Historic Denver filed an application to designate Messina’s restaurant a historic landmark. If granted, this landmark status would prevent the building’s redevelopment into apartments, drastically reducing the value of Messina’s property.

In their 30-plus page application to the city, these activists argued that Messina’s restaurant—first built in 1967 as part of the now-extinct White Spots restaurant chain—is a classic example of mid-century Googie architecture and thus worthy of protection.

The same application notes that seven White Spot restaurants were built in the Denver-area in the 1960s. Three of them are still standing, including another one on the same avenue as Messina’s restaurant. Nevertheless, these preservationists argue that Messina’s building is a particularly good example of Googie tilted roofs and expansive glass windows.

These same activists note that a 2008/2009 survey marked Tom’s Diner as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and the Historic Denver Guidebook includes an entry on the building.

In a July 16 report, city planning staff recommended that Messina’s building be given landmark status. The following week, the city’s Landmark Preservation Commission, at a public hearing where Messina pleaded with them to leave his property alone, voted unanimously to recommend landmarking the restaurant. The landmark application now goes to the city council, which will make a final determination.

Messina describes that decision as “kick in the gut.” The value he might lose from a landmark designation, he says, would jeopardize the retirement he’s worked so hard for.

“I’m sure people can imagine how it would feel,” he tells Reason. “You plan for something and you think it’s yours to do as you wish and then this pops up.”

In the run-up to the city council’s decision, preservation activists have said they want to work out a mutually beneficial arrangement that will allow Messina to sell his building while saving the building aesthetic they value so much.

“We met with Tom today to present him with some creative and viable solutions. We know this is a life-changing opportunity for him, which is why our focus is on a solution that meets his needs and protects the identity and history of the Colfax corridor,” Jessica Caouette, one of the five people who signed onto the landmarking application, said in a statement posted to her Facebook page last week.

Messina says that he’s had several meetings with activists where they’ve presented him with alternate designs for his property that would have apartments go on the vacant parts of his lot while leaving the current restaurant structure intact.

But building only on the 60 percent of his land unoccupied by the diner, says Messina, would still greatly reduce its value. And that’s assuming he could even find a developer who’d be willing to build what activists are looking for.

In addition to the personal cost this would visit on Messina, it would also deprive Denver—which is rapidly becoming one of the country’s most expensive cities—of additional housing.

The city council is scheduled to discuss the landmark application for Messina’s property next week and will vote on whether to grant it later in the month.

Using historic landmark designations to prevent unwanted development is not uncommon, and is often done over the objections of the property owner in question. Similar cases include the Strand bookstore in New York City and the fight over the Showbox concert venue in Seattle.

For Messina, the issue boils down to the fact that this is his building, and he should get to decide what happens to it, not a city council or neighborhood activists. He tells Reason “that something I’ve worked for my entire life could be decided this way is very unsettling.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Myhfsb
via IFTTT

For the past 10 years, the reality TV show Shark Tank has entertained and edified millions of viewers by dramatizing how entrepreneurs pitch venture capitalists. And none of the “sharks”—the investors who compete with each other to fund businesses they think will be successful—is more entertaining or edifying than Kevin O’Leary, with his signature insult to unsuccessful contestants, “You’re dead to me.”

But O’Leary isn’t just a small-screen blowhard. Born and raised in Canada, the 65-year-old investor got rich by developing educational and family-oriented computer software in the 1980s and ’90s and holding firm to a gospel of thrift, savings, and reinvestment that he’s outlined in such bestselling books as Cold Hard Truth on Men, Women, and Money. Over the years, he’s diversified his investments into vineyards, storage facilities, and more, and he’s dabbled in politics too, briefly considering a run in 2017 to head the Conservative Party in Canada. His brash nature has earned him comparisons to Donald Trump, but O’Leary, who now lives in Boston, supports free trade and immigration. He’s long been in favor of marijuana legalization and gay rights, and he is opposed to military interventionism.

Nick Gillespie sat down with O’Leary at FreedomFest, an annual gathering of libertarians in Las Vegas. They talked about why Shark Tank is so popular, why Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is so bad, and whether “democratic socialism” is really a threat to free market capitalism. They also discussed why O’Leary thinks Donald Trump has been great for the economy despite a personal style so many, including O’Leary himself, find unappealing. “I have never in my life seen an economy like this,” says O’Leary. “This is even better than the ’60s. It is phenomenal. And I think [it’s] primarily because of deregulation, not tax reform. My companies in California, in Texas, in Florida, in Illinois…have been set free.”

Audio production by Ian Keyser.

Some highlights from the conversation (edited for clarity):

Trump “is a great entertainer.”

“Great politicians, great leaders, great CEOs are phenomenal entertainers. Going back to the days of Alexander the Great, Napoleon, and Bismarck, they used to hold council at night, have big dinner parties or sit around the fire with their men and tell stories. They would tell stories of great defeats, great battles, great loves, and that would spread through the troops…and it would capture the hearts and minds of the people. Donald Trump is exactly that. He is a great entertainer.”

The chance Donald Trump “doesn’t get a second term…is zero.”

“The chance [Trump] doesn’t get a second term in my view is zero. And I’ll tell you why. I don’t recall in modern times when going into a second term at full employment, the incumbent of any party has ever lost their mandate ever.”

“Saving baby whales is not what businesses do.”

“I believe that…the DNA of a business is to provide to its constituents. Clearly, customers come number one, number two, employees, somewhere in there are the shareholders….You who started it, you’re the last. When you try and shift business’s true purpose and say that it’s going to save society, you will fail. Not some of the time, but 100 percent of the time. Saving baby whales is not what businesses do.”

“The role of government is to provide basic services.”

“I think it’s the role of government to provide basic services….I’m particularly fond of what they do in Switzerland, where they basically have multiple tiers of things like health care and support for those that are poor. What they do is they’ll say, ‘OK, if you’re a wealthy Swiss citizen in Geneva and you want to get an MRI because you want one tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock, you’re going to pay for it.’ They’re going to take the proceeds of that and they’re going to redeploy it into purchasing more MRI machines so those that aren’t as fortunate can get free MRIs.”

“Everybody’s a socialist when they’re young.”

“I was a socialist when I was 18 years old too. I was left-wing. I got my first paycheck and I saw something called tax on it. Everybody’s a socialist when they’re young, until they start working and they start realizing how tough it is out there and they start realizing how much money government wastes when they take half their income and taxes. And that’s when you become a conservative. The older you get, the more realistic you become. And a majority of those people make the transition in their mid-twenties. That’s what happens. I never worry about it.”

Why he prefers investing in women-run companies.

“I’m almost sexist in the sense that even the producers have to say to me, you’ve got to invest in some guys. I said, ‘Why? They don’t make any money. These women made me all this money’….Why should I take risks with men who can’t cope, who have testosterone sales targets they never hit, and all the rest of that stuff? I’m very biased about people that understand financial independence. Women mitigate risks. Women know how to manage time. Women set reasonable goals, have very sticky cultures in business. That’s all women.”

“I don’t fear any innovation at all. I fear regulation.”

“Capitalism over the last 200 years has destroyed many industries and reborn others. Forty years ago, you couldn’t have ever dreamt that someone who sat in front of a screen and wrote code would make half a million dollars a year in their first job….Men and women will never be replaced by machines because they’ll always be finding new purpose in new problems being solved. I trust capitalism to do that. I don’t fear any innovation at all. I fear regulation. I fear burdensome government. I fear that a third of every dollar raised by government through taxes is wasted in every capitalist society.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2SWT1cm
via IFTTT

A Granite City, Illinois family recently filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of an ordinance that mandates the eviction of tenants any time anyone in their “household” has “engaged in criminal activity” within the city, “engage[d] in any act intended to facilitate criminal activity” anywhere in Granite City, or committed a “forcible felony” anywhere at all. In this case, the City is trying to evict Jessica Baron, Kenny Wylie, and their three children because a friend of their teenage son who had been temporarily staying with the family committed a burglary at a nearby restaurant. The Institute for Justice, the libertarian public interest law firm representing the family, has more details on the case here. The complaint recently filed in federal district court is available here.

The Granite City ordinance requires eviction of the entire household regardless of whether all the members participated in the crime or even knew about it. It applies regardless of whether the offender is actually a permanent member of the household or merely a temporary one. And eviction is required even if the landlord would like the family to stay (as he does in this case).

Sadly, Granite City is far from the only jurisdiction that has this kind of “crime-free housing” ordinance. Illinois alone has some 50 other jurisdictions with similar laws. An ACLU report documented some 50 others in the Twin Cities area in Minnesota. There are likely more in other parts of the country. These ordinances were apparently an outgrowth of the wave of “tough on crime” laws of the 1980s and 1990s.

Punishing entire families for the crimes of one member—or in this case for those of one family friend—is the kind of barbaric policy we normally associate with brutal authoritarian regimes. It’s not something that should happen in a nation that aspires to be a free society. In 2016, the Obama Administration Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a guidance warning that such laws can have the perverse effect of mandating eviction of domestic-violence victims who report their abusers. Both victims and abusers are often members of the same household, so the law requires the eviction of all of them!

This kind of law is also blatantly unconstitutional. The lawsuit filed by the Institute for Justice on behalf of the Wylie/Baron family contends that it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. They are right on both counts.

A lease is a type of property right, and long-established precedent indicates that it is covered by the Takings Clause, which bars the government from taking “private property” without paying “just compensation.” In this case, the government has forcibly deprived the family of their lease without paying any compensation whatsoever.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment bars state and local governments from depriving anyone of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Under crime-free housing ordinances, entire families can be deprived of their leasehold property rights without any indication of wrongdoing on their part and without any of the protections normally associated with criminal or civil penalties. Unlike in the case of asset forfeitures (another constitutionally suspect practice), the government need not even prove that the leased property had any connection to the crime in question, which (as in this case) could have been committed elsewhere.

The complaint argues that the Granite City ordinance also violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I am much less persuaded by this theory than the other two. But, regardless, the ordinance should be struck down because it is clearly both an uncompensated taking and a deprivation of property rights without due process of law.

In 2002, the Supreme Court upheld a similar compulsory-eviction policy for federal public-housing tenants. But the Court made clear that it did so largely because “[t]he government is not attempting to criminally punish or civilly regulate respondents as members of the general populace. It is instead acting as a landlord of property that it owns, invoking a clause in a lease to which respondents have agreed and which Congress has expressly required.” In this case, Granite City clearly is regulating tenants “as members of the general populace” and it mandates eviction even in cases where the tenants have not violated any clause in their lease and the landlord wants them to stay. Landlords and tenants are required to abide by the mandatory-eviction rule regardless of whether they have voluntarily agreed to it or not.

NOTE: I have worked with the Institute for Justice on many other property rights cases, and was a student law clerk there during the summer of 1998. But I have no involvement in the present case.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2ytYNZk
via IFTTT