President Yang
Moving America Forward
The Democratic Party has nominated a slew of diverse candidates to challenge Trump in 2020, and while I would happily vote for any of them to kick the President out of office, I’m lending all my support to Andrew Yang. I did not start to take Yang seriously until I listened to his interview with Joe Rogan in March of last year. I found myself agreeing with nearly everything he said, and the more I read about him, the stronger my support became. Were I to list every reason I supported Yang, this essay would grow into the length of a small book. So I’ll instead decide to list my top three favorite concepts of his, which I believe offer him a distinct edge over the other candidates.
Universal Basic Income
Universal basic income (UBI) is the idea that, as a right of citizenship, you deserve some sort of cushion to avoid falling into poverty. Yang’s variant of UBI, or “The Freedom Dividend”, grants every American citizen $1,000 a month, no strings attached. Providing some form basic income to fight poverty has been supported by numerous intellectuals throughout American history. It is an idea that is neither foreign nor unimaginable.
Founding Father Thomas Paine proposed a national fund to compensate non-land owners, taking the form of a one-time payment of 15 pounds for every citizen once they turned 21, and 10 pounds annually once they turned 50. Civil rights leader, Martin Luther King, wrote in his 1967 book Where Do We Go From Here? that, “I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective — the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income.” Libertarian economist, Milton Friedman, supported a distant cousin of UBI known as the “negative income tax”, which had the goal of liberating people from welfare programs, writing that it would need to be “low enough to give people a substantial and consistent incentive to earn their way out of the program.” Liberal economist, John Kenneth Galbraith, argued that a minimum income would be preferable to lifting people out of poverty over welfare programs because, “we now have a welfare system that could not be better designed to destroy incentive if we wanted it that way. We give the needy income, and we take away that income if the recipient gets even the poorest job.” President Richard Nixon proposed a guaranteed annual income for every family that passed the House of Representatives in 1970 and 1971. Former President Barrack Obama, who named Andrew Yang a “Champion For Change”, called on Americans to consider a universal basic income in his first major speech since leaving office. Even Hillary Clinton, the Democratic centrist, almost ran on a basic income platform, and had she done so she might have won. UBI is not a radical pipe dream, but an idea whose time has come.
Now for the objections: You may ask, “Isn’t that what jobs are for?” Yes, that is what jobs are for, but having a job isn’t a guarantee of staying out of poverty. Nor is it possible for everyone a low-paying job to shift into a higher paying one. Jobs are important, no doubt, but jobs aren’t always enough.
You might also ask, “Why not just raise the minimum wage?” Perhaps, but you can only raise the minimum wage so far before prices are raised and workers are fired. I’m not saying that a higher minimum wage wouldn’t help people, but rather, that its effectiveness is limited, and not all businesses can afford to feasible employ it.
You might also ask, “What about welfare?” I don’t doubt that welfare helps some people get by, but it is a patronizing and regressive system. Welfare shames the poor by restricting how they spend their money, especially with regard to what sorts of foods they can purchase. It also discourages them to look for work, as employment will often kick someone off of their much needed benefits. Welfare also suffers from so many hoops and hurdles that it should be of no surprise that 13 million impoverished Americans have no welfare benefits at all. I’m not saying that we should take welfare away from those who need it, not all at once, but that we give poor people the option of either being humiliated or being treated with dignity.
You might then ask, “How will we pay for it?” Yang already has a plan to pay for it. It will paid for through a mix of a value-added tax (VAT) at every stage of production, a financial transaction tax, economic revenue from the dividend, a reduction in spending on welfare programs, and a carbon fee and dividend.
You might also say, “Won’t it raise inflation?” It might raise it by a touch, but not to the point of canceling out the dividend’s effects. It’s worth noting that the government printed off $4 trillion dollars for the bank bailout and no major inflation occurred. Whereas the Freedom Dividend will paid for with money that’s already in the economy. Alaska and Kuwait both give out annual dividends to their citizens and in both instances inflation decreased. There might be a landlord or a restaurant owner who decides to exponentially raise prices, sure, but all it takes is one competitor to keep their prices reasonable to beat them in the free market.
Finally, you might say, “What if people become lazy and wasteful?” I don’t doubt that there are some who might abuse the Freedom Dividend, and so what? I believe in liberty to the letter, and this includes the liberty to make bad decisions. Should we repeal the First Amendment on the basis that some might use their free speech to spread lies? Should we repeal the Second Amendment on the basis that some will use their guns to kill innocents? There are working people who waste their salaries on drugs, booze, and gambling. Should we take their salaries away for being no less irresponsible than a welfare sleaze? In all probability, the vast majority of Freedom Dividend recipients would use their money responsibility to start their own businesses, pay their debts, and invest in their communities. Would it make sense to deny that boon on the basis of a few lazy bums?
The Freedom Dividend has the potential to change the way people see themselves. It is true that work gives us dignity, but we all define dignified work differently. Some people work jobs they hate to avoid living on the streets. The Freedom Dividend will allow people to redefine dignified work in accordance with their creative pursuits and passions. It also recognizes the work of those our economy does not appreciate, the stay-at-home parent, the selfless caregivers, and the passionate artists. We will see ourselves more clearly as the inheritors of America’s prosperity and the responsible caretakers of our society. It should be of little surprise that the Roosevelt Institute found that an adoption of a basic income would expand the economy by 12.5%. Yang himself spends his own money to run pilot programs to show the impact of the dividend on its recipients, one such recipient in New Hampshire used the extra cash to help fund their daughter’s tuition. Indeed, it is difficult to engage in the fruits of the free market when capitalism starts at zero, as Martin Luther King once said, “It’s alright to tell a man to lift himself by his own bootstraps, but it is a cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps.”
Nuclear Energy and Carbon Tax
Climate change will prove to be one of the most difficult problems of the 21st century. In their 2019 report, the IPCC stressed the need to limit warming at 1.5°C in order to avoid serious global consequences: “by 2100, global sea level rise would be 10 cm lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared with 2°C. The likelihood of an Arctic Ocean free of sea ice in summer would be once per century with global warming of 1.5°C, compared with at least once per decade with 2°C. Coral reefs would decline by 70–90 percent with global warming of 1.5°C, whereas virtually all (> 99 percent) would be lost with 2°C.” According to NASA, these negative effects will come in the form of rising sea levels by 1–4 feet by 2100, increase the frequency of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes, and an increase of heat waves and heavy precipitation. As a result, those in arid and coastal areas will probably be the worst hit. The avoid the worst, we must act quickly, as the late Carl Sagan warned:
“Our intelligence and our technology have given us the power to affect the climate. How will we use this power? Are we willing to tolerate ignorance and complacency in matters that affect the entire human family? Do we value short-term advantages above the welfare of the Earth? Or will we think on longer time scales, with concern for our children and our grandchildren, to understand and protect the complex life-support systems of our planet? The Earth is a tiny and fragile world. It needs to be cherished.”
However, our actions are insufficient. In America, both left and the right have blind spots on the matter. On the Left, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposed the ambitious “Green New Deal”, formerly the flagship idea of Jill Stein’s Green Party. Ocasio-Cortez’s plan means well and has many good ideas, but is unaffordable, as Bloomberg columnist Noah Smith notes, the plan “appears to take every big spending idea that has emerged on the political left in recent years and combine them into one large package deal, with little notion of how to pay for them all.” Progressives also have a habit of opposing nuclear energy, which remains the most effective means of reducing fossil fuel use while meeting modern day energy needs. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have both opposed nuclear energy as a solution and have even called for it to be phased out. This can lead only to disaster. As environmentalist Michael Shellenberger has written, the only successful decarbonization plans have focused on nuclear energy. He cites the example of Sweden, which “in 2017 generated a whopping 95% of its total electricity from zero-carbon sources, with 42 and 41 coming from nuclear and hydroelectric power.” Former NASA scientist James Hansen, who was arrested for protesting Keystone XL Pipeline, has argued that nuclear energy prevented 1.84 million deaths that otherwise would have been lost to poisoning from fossil fuels.
On the Right, many continue to deny that climate change is even a scientific truth, while dismissing any reasonable fears of disaster as “alarmism.” This culminated in Sen. James Inhofe bringing a snowball onto the Senate floor, arguing that cold weather disproved all provable climate science. Even Republican presidential candidates, like Sen. Ted Cruz, ludicrously claimed in 2015 that there was no global warming over the past 17 years. When Trump exited the Paris Climate Accords, a significant global agreement to reduce carbon emissions, many conservatives cheered him on. Admittedly, some of them were right too. Conservative lawyer David French was correct that the treaty lacked constitutional authority and the National Review Editorial Board was also correct that it did too little to halt China and India’s climate growth. Conservative columnist Jon Gabriel notes that “without signing a piece of paper in Paris or Buenos Aires”, greenhouse emissions have decreased 2.7% between 2016–2017 and power plant emissions 20% since 2011. Yet conservatives in power have yet to craft an alternative to Paris Accord that averts a global warming to 2°C. Al Gore even tried to find common ground with Trump on climate, but to no avail. Our recent declines in carbon emissions, while noteworthy, will ultimately amount to nothing absent any serious policy. In 2018, America released 5.4 metric tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, making us second only to China at 10 metric tons. In fact, in that same year, carbon emissions in America increased by 3.4%. While I do applaud conservative activists like Benji Backer, who fight fearlessly for environmental justice, there aren’t nearly enough like him in power.
Yang climate policy supports the two most effective means of combating climate change: nuclear energy and carbon tax. Yang would invest $40 billion into thorium-based nuclear reactors and have them be a part of our energy infrastructure by 2027. Yang supports thorium because thorium mining is less dangerous than uranium mining, and it also produces less nuclear waste. Yang would also begin a public relations campaign to demystify the fears around nuclear power, which he thinks are more informed by shows like “The Simpsons” and “Chernobyl”, than by actual science. Yang would also pass a “carbon fee and dividend.” It will set an initial carbon tax of $40 a ton on fossil fuel industries, which would increase at intervals of $5 a ton for the first 4 years, and $10 a ton until they can reach net zero emissions. This would incentivize businesses into finding low-carbon solutions while giving them the time to transition. Yang would also incentivize our trading partners into adopting a carbon tax by imposing a fee on imports from companies that don’t have similar fees, and offering a rebate on exports to those companies that do. Further, half of the money raised from the tax will go towards helping Americans afford the transition into sustainable energy sources. The carbon tax has been supported by economist William Nordhaus, who won the Nobel Prize for finding that a carbon tax is the most effective means of reducing greenhouse emissions. The aforementioned James Hansen has called the Paris Accord a “fraud” because it lacked a global carbon tax to hold countries accountable to their commitments. As someone who cares about dealing with the climate crisis, Yang’s climate policies fall seem to me the most logical.
Structural Democratic Reforms
If Trump is defeated in 2020, we cannot return to the status quo pre-2016. The status quo is what got Trump elected. We have to go beyond. What I like most about Yang is his investment in structural democratic reforms that will improve the country as a whole. It is these policies that I think will excite the Democratic base that was otherwise absent in 2016. They will know that changes he brings about will not be easily reversed incremental shifts, but will make the daily inconveniences and discomforts of our lives less present, our humanity more visible, and our citizens more engaged and conscientious.
Yang will expand the definition of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) to include such factors as quality of life, mental health, and environmental quality. This would improve GDP to better reflect our prosperity as citizens. He will depoliticize the Supreme Court by adding 18 year term limits for justices. He will make voting easier and fairer by passing automatic voting registration, making Election Day a federal holiday, and adopting a ranked choice voting system. He will legalize marijuana and identify non-violent drug offenders for early release. He will decriminalize opioids and give treatment instead of prison time for people who addicted. He will have the IRS automatically calculate and file your taxes and make Tax Day a federal holiday. He will establish clean drinking water as a human right and invest money into replacing pipes, building water treatment plants, and restoring wetlands. He would put undocumented immigrants on an eighteen year path to citizenship provided they pay their taxes and commit no felony, while working with the Mexican government on preventing human trafficking and opposing the cartels. He will guarantee paid-family leave. He will increase public investment in the arts. He will incorporate life skills in high school education such as financial literacy, managing conflict, and time management to better prepare our youth for adult life. He will reduce student loan debt and allow students to discharge their debt by filing bankruptcy, while forgiving the debt of students who do not graduate. He will reduce health care costs by passing a law to negotiate the reduction of prescription drug prices and pay doctors a flat salary model instead of fee-for service. Yang’s foreign policy will repeal the AUMF (Authorization of Use of Military Force), which will return the declaration of war to Congress, and in response to endless wars, will avoid military engagements without any clear, achievable plans.
#HumanityFirst
Andrew Yang is a man of character, a mensch. I can rarely say this about most politicians, but I have full confidence saying it about him. He has shown immeasurable humanity towards his fellow candidates and towards potential voters, even those who voted for Trump. He focuses on raising everyone up instead of insulting those with whom he does not agree. Yang understands that not everyone who voted for Trump is a racist or misogynist, even though racism and misogyny played a strong role of Trump’s popularity. He understood that Trump’s rise was due in part to the fact we have lost 5 million manufacturing jobs since 2000, and that workers with only a high school diploma earn 56% less than college graduates. While I believe that automation and free trade are a net-positive to the economy, we don’t do enough to help those who get left behind. Indeed, we have seen the rise of Uber and Lyft in New York City correspond with a rise in suicides of taxi cab drivers. Yang understands that many people voted for Trump for no other reason than that he was a Republican, but whatever accomplishments Trump has made in policy have cost the soul of the Party of Lincoln. Trumpism doesn’t represent the principled conservatism of William F. Buckley, Ronald Reagan, or John McCain, but the more reactionary demagoguery of Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Rush Limbaugh. This is why Yang seeks bipartisan and nonpartisan solutions that will bring conservatives of conscience away from the moral poison of Trump.
Now, Yang is not a perfect candidate. I don’t agree with his plan to lower the voting age to 16 or to increase the number of SCOTUS judges, and some of his supporters have faced serious allegations of harassment and sexism. Indeed, there is still much to work on, but for all my disagreements with him, I still see Yang and his mission as righteous. When Michelle Obama said: “When they go low, we go high”, Yang stuck to that truth while others eschewed it. Though I am not Asian, the election of an Asian-American President will give a face and a voice to an electorate that has long been ignored. Yang often says that the opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math. He is wrong. The opposite of a narcissistic demagogue who divides and disparages our citizens for benefit of his own pride, is a man of reason and empathy who seeks to bring the country together and elevate prospects of our citizens.
#Yang2020
