P.O. Box 21321
Washington, D.C. 20009
202-265-4433 institute@citizenpolicies.org

Real National Security: Personal, Economic, and Universal

by Steven Shafarman

With all our concerns about security from terrorism at airports, borders, shopping malls, sporting events, and symbolic sites like the Statue of Liberty and Washington Monument, there is for most Americans a more direct, constant, and immediate threat: loss of income.

The war on terrorism could go on indefinitely, government officials tell us, and we must all remain vigilant. It’s harder to be vigilant, however, while worrying about how to pay for food, shelter, and other necessities. And many people are already busy being vigilant in search of the next meal and the next month’s rent. Vigilant or not, in the event of a specific terrorist threat, working people may not be free to choose an alternate route to work or alternate places to shop.

Economic vulnerability also impairs people’s ability to stay informed and active as citizens. Our government is making many momentous decisions — how to pay for anti-terrorism measures, for example, and how much to curtail civil liberties in the interest of security. Such decisions, if made without meaningful citizen participation, could provoke protests like those during the war in Vietnam. Securing our nation from terrorism calls for behavior more like that of the home front in World War II: Americans everywhere conserved gasoline, collected rubber and scrap metals, bought war bonds, and planted victory gardens.

National security and national unity have to include everyone, or else these phrases are just rhetoric. How can we encourage participation by every American, rich and poor, from every race, religion, and ethnic background? Can we ensure that any sacrifices are voluntary and shared? What can we do to keep everyone engaged and committed for the duration?

One way to promote real national unity and security is to reinvent an idea that was hugely popular in the 1960s: cash payments to the very poor. Supporters of a "negative income tax" or "guaranteed income" included Richard Nixon and George McGovern; distinguished economists Milton Friedman, James Tobin, and John Kenneth Galbraith; and Martin Luther King Jr. A guaranteed income bill, Nixon’s "Family Assistance Plan," was endorsed by major newspapers and passed by the House of Representatives by a decisive 2 to 1. In the Senate, however, conservatives who objected to any program joined with liberals who demanded more generous payments; moderate supporters were defeated.

Now, after Sept. 11, we have a duty to consider any idea that can unite us and make America more secure.

Nixon’s plan would have given money only to the very poor, phasing out the payments as recipients’ earnings increased. Instead, we could give the same amount, a modest "basic income," to every adult citizen. Poor and rich, employed and unemployed, married and single — in this way at least, we would all be equal.

Does this sound like socialism? It’s not. Basic income would preserve markets and private property. And each of us would still be free to earn as much money as we can.

The idea of a basic income, in one form or another, has a patriotic history from well before the ’60s. In 1944, Franklin Roosevelt asserted that "true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence." He called for a "second Bill of Rights" that would guarantee everyone a decent home, medical care, education, and enough income for food and clothing. In the 1930s, millions of people joined national movements for guaranteed income, creating the public demand that led to Social Security. In the 1890s, ideas about universal economic security powered the progressive and populist movements. Abraham Lincoln called for, and the federal government enacted, the National Homestead Act, which gave land to poor Americans for subsistence farming. Thomas Jefferson proposed a homestead plan in Virginia in 1776. Tom Paine advocated a cash payment to everyone at age 21 and annually starting at age 50.

Even a modest amount of, say, $100 to $200 a month would make a real difference for people who are struggling to pay their bills. A larger amount, like $400 to $800 a month (for a couple, $9,600 to $19,200 a year), would be enough to ensure that the unemployed can afford food and shelter in most parts of the country.

Yes, some people will waste or misuse the extra income: there are today, always have been, and always will be people who waste or misuse their money. Yet even people who are otherwise lazy or irresponsible can help secure our nation.

A related concern is that people would have less incentive to work. But basic income would only reduce the coercive incentives of hunger, homelessness, and extreme poverty. It would leave intact the countless positive reasons to work, earn, save, and invest, to make a better life for oneself and one’s family. Think about it. Would you choose to live on such a minimal income? That’s hard work. Ask anyone who’s ever been extremely poor.

But many of us are uncomfortable with the prospect of people getting "something for nothing." So let’s all give something back. In return for the basic income, every adult could perform some community service, say eight hours a month. Since Sept. 11, a number of elected officials, including Sen. John McCain, have called for new or expanded national service programs; President Bush wants everyone to volunteer 4,000 hours over a lifetime. Working people, however, often cannot afford the time to volunteer. The basic income would make it easier for everyone to serve — it would, in effect, buy back a portion of people’s time for the good of the country. Eight hours a month is more than 4,000 hours over a lifetime. And such regular universal service would do much more to secure our communities and unify our nation.

How would we regulate and enforce the community service? Simple: We wouldn’t. A few people would blow it off, sure — but just a few. (Would you? Would your family members and friends?) The vast majority of us would welcome the opportunity to lend a hand, to do our share, to be involved in history instead of just watching the news while worrying, complaining, criticizing. Every mention of terrorism and national security would remind us about how important it is to serve our nation. The basic income would magnify the social pressure to serve while minimizing any tendency to shirk. And doing this without any regulatory bureaucracy would leave each of us free to choose the service activities that are most meaningful; that freedom can be particularly significant in the event of any threat or unexpected calamity.

How would we pay for the basic income? First of all, we can cut the government programs it would make superfluous, welfare, housing assistance, and "corporate welfare" — taxpayer handouts to businesses that promise to create jobs or threaten to leave town. In contrast with welfare, basic income will be simple and inexpensive to administer. It will also facilitate cutting government because each of us will be reminded monthly that we are all stakeholders, with an interest in making government smaller and more accountable. And second, with the expanded pool of volunteers nationwide, community service activities can replace many social service agencies funded by government.

Cutting nonessential programs would make it easier for our government to provide for the common defense and perform other constitutionally-mandated activities. Our government would only promote the general welfare, not the special welfare of any specific individuals, groups, businesses, or industries. Our government would ensure the basic welfare of every individual citizen, equally. When poor people have enough money for food and shelter, they will not be compelled to beg or steal or depend on some charity or specific government program. And giving the same basic income to everyone means that, unlike welfare, there would be no stigma or loss of dignity in accepting the money. We can achieve something we have for generations tried and failed to do: We can end hunger and homelessness.

Moreover, basic income payments could be adjusted periodically to reflect changing economic conditions, like higher prices for housing or fossil fuels. Such adjustments would relieve or offset the many problems associated with inflation and recession. During recessions, economists prescribe tax cuts, lower interest rates, or more government spending, but all are blunt instruments, unpredictable and sometimes ineffective. Increasing the basic income would be a much better and faster way to put the money where it’s most needed and can do the most good: in the pockets of ordinary Americans.

Let’s make these ideas personal: Recall the month before Sept. 11, when most of us received a government check for $300 as a tax rebate. What did you do with that money? What might you do with an extra $300 every month? Or $600 a month? Would you pay off debts? Make advance payments on your mortgage? Save for your children’s college education? Invest for your retirement? Start or expand a small business? You could of course spend some of it to enhance the quality of your life today. Are there particular things you want to buy or do?

Now think about ways to give back to your community. Are you already one of the millions of Americans who do some volunteer work each month? Would you do more if you could afford the time? Would you volunteer in your child’s classroom or school PTA? Work with some neighborhood association to restore a park or playground? Get more involved with the community ministries of a place of worship? Volunteer for your neighborhood fire department? Serve on a board or commission involved in local security activities?

Community service builds community. Whatever you do is a way to meet your neighbors and develop relationships. All such activities can help stop terrorism because they are opportunities for vigilance.

Think about your spouse and other adult family members. What might they do with the basic income? What might they do for community service? And consider your friends, neighbors, and other members of your community. Imagine everyone receiving basic income and performing community service. What might that mean for you, your family, your community, and our nation as a whole?

A guaranteed basic income coupled with an expectation of community service, the plan being studied by the Citizen Policies Institute, would reinforce on an ongoing basis the fact that all of us are stakeholders — and mutually interdependent. It will be easier for us to decide democratically what to do about terrorism, how to enhance national security, when to adjust the basic income, which government programs to cut, and who we should entrust with public leadership. We need a more responsive democracy with more citizen participation if we are to make lasting progress on health care, education, pollution, global warming, urban sprawl, and other problems that have proved intractable so far — as well as national security.

In the ’60s, Martin Luther King Jr. preached that racism is confounded with poverty and economic concerns. To end racism and poverty, he called for guaranteed income. And he asserted that a "host of positive psychological changes inevitably will result from widespread economic security." Anthropologist Margaret Mead wrote: "the danger that we would be underwriting the failures is trivial compared with the benefits the guaranteed annual income would provide us. It would provide dignity for every citizen and choice for every citizen." That still makes sense.

Securing our nation and ending terrorism is an enormous undertaking. For every American, as individuals and together, this can be time of great meaning and purpose. It would be a shame if we do not grasp the moment’s potential for personal, social, and national transformation.

What are we waiting for?

ÓSteven Shafarman
Citizen Policies Institute
steve@citizenpolicies.org