Nebraska Green Party, Co-Chairs
Charles Ostdiek- Iconofcharles@gmail.com; David Long – fraterdavid@cox.net
Approved Introduction Paragraphs for Ch4S-D and #2-3 on 12/3/17 at special platform meeting
Ch4S-D amendments to #1 approved 12/17/17 by consensus at Nebraska Greens monthly meeting
Authors: Shane Fry – dasfry@gmail.com; Dr. Joseph Firestone – eisai@comcast.net
PROPOSAL TO AMEND GPUS PLATFORM – Chapter IV – Section D – Livable Income
The reason for these changes to is amend the current UBI sections to instead call for a fully employed populace at a living wage as is referred to at other places in the platform, with a decentralized model to maintain the local productivity needed to take care of those who do need a basic income assistance.
Proposal to Amend Platform Chapter IV: Section D. Livable Income
Replace “1. We call for a universal basic income (sometimes called a guaranteed income, negative income tax, citizen’s income, or citizen dividend). This would go to every adult regardless of health, employment, or marital status, in order to minimize government bureaucracy and intrusiveness into people’s lives. The amount should be sufficient so that anyone who is unemployed can afford basic food and shelter. State or local governments should supplement that amount from local revenues where the cost of living is high.”
With “Greens support the Government providing a full time or part-time job at a living wage with standard government fringe benefits to every person wanting either – with decentralized control of the jobs created. We also support an expansion of the social safety net to eliminate poverty in the US through a basic income. Those who are out of work and want a job deserve one even if local governments and the private sector cannot provide one.
There are far too many needed service jobs that the private sector is either unwilling or unable to fund for Public Purpose. These only need Government investment to put people to work. As the issuer of the currency, it is the role of the federal government to maintain a deficit large enough to meet the savings and spending needs of those in the economy whose needs are not being met by the private sector.
A Job Guarantee is the final piece of the social safety net. Providing the Right to a Job takes away the ability of corporations to threaten workers afraid of losing their job, while protecting communities from being coerced into accepting corporations providing dangerous jobs or ones with harmful environmental impacts.
The US has long been willing to spend our sovereign currency on the war on drugs, or wars overseas, but has not been willing to do the same to eradicate poverty. In areas that have long since lost the industries, jobs, and public interest that used to maintain and support the local economies, a new option is available: to create sustainable infrastructure, meet community needs, and decentralize control of the workforce back down to the local communities.
1. We favor deficit spending for a federal jobs program to put the unemployed to work; rebuilding communities, and giving access to education, job training and healthcare. We also support the expansion of social security to provide a Basic Income to those who either choose not to work or are otherwise unable to participate in their local economies.”
Amend “2. Job banks and other innovative training and employment programs which bring together the private and public sectors must become federal, state and local priorities. People who are unable to find decent work in the private sector should have options through publicly funded opportunities. Workforce development programs must aim at moving people out of poverty”
To say “2. Job banks and other innovative training and employment programs which bring together the private and public sectors must become federal, state and local priorities. People who are unable to find decent work at a living wage in the private sector should have publicly funded job opportunities. Workforce development programs must aim at moving people out of poverty without subsidizing poverty wages.”
Amend “3. The growing inequities in income and wealth between rich and poor; unprecedented discrepancies in salary and benefits between corporate top executives and line workers; loss of the “American dream” by the young and middleclass—each is a symptom of decisions made by policy-makers far removed from the concerns of ordinary workers trying to keep up.”
To say “3. The growing inequities in income and wealth between rich and poor; unprecedented discrepancies in salary and benefits between corporate top executives and line workers; loss of the “American dream” by the young and middle class—each is a symptom of decisions made by policy-makers far removed from the concerns of ordinary workers trying to keep up. We affirm the importance of a limiting ratio on executive pay. If Executives want a bigger paycheck, they will need to start by giving their workers one.”
Original
Chapter IV. – Section D – Livable Income
D. Livable Income
We affirm the importance of access to a livable income.
1. We call for a universal basic income (sometimes called a guaranteed income, negative income tax, citizen’s income, or citizen dividend). This would go to every adult regardless of health, employment, or marital status, in order to minimize government bureaucracy and intrusiveness into people’s lives. The amount should be sufficient so that anyone who is unemployed can afford basic food and shelter. State or local governments should supplement that amount from local revenues where the cost of living is high.
2. Job banks and other innovative training and employment programs which bring together the private and public sectors must become federal, state and local priorities. People who are unable to find decent work in the private sector should have options through publicly funded opportunities. Workforce development programs must aim at moving people out of poverty.
3. The growing inequities in income and wealth between rich and poor; unprecedented discrepancies in salary and benefits between corporate top executives and line workers; loss of the “American dream” by the young and middleclass—each is a symptom of decisions made by policy-makers far removed from the concerns of ordinary workers trying to keep up.
4. A clear living wage standard should serve as a foundation for trade between nations, and a “floor” of guaranteed wage protections and workers’ rights should be negotiated in future trade agreements. The United States should take the lead on this front—and not allow destructive, predatory corporate practices under the guise of “free” international trade
GPUS Platform Chapter IV – Section D. Livable Income (with proposed changes)
“We affirm the importance of access to a livable income.
Greens support the Government providing a full time or part-time job at a living wage with standard government fringe benefits to every person wanting either, with decentralized control of the jobs created. We also support the expansion of the social safety net to eliminate poverty in the US through a basic income. Those who are out of work and want a job deserve one even if local governments and the private sector cannot provide one.
There are far too many needed service jobs that the private sector is either unwilling or unable to fund for Public Purpose. These only need Government investment to put people to work. As the issuer of the currency, it is the role of the federal government to maintain a deficit large enough to meet the savings and spending needs of those in the economy whose needs are not being met by the private sector.
A Job Guarantee is the final piece of the social safety net. Providing the Right to a Job takes away the ability of corporations to threaten workers afraid of losing their job, while protecting communities from being coerced into accepting corporations providing dangerous jobs or ones with harmful environmental impacts.
The US has long been willing to spend our sovereign currency on the war on drugs, or wars overseas, but has not been doing the same to eradicate poverty. In areas that have long since lost the industries, jobs, and public interest that used to maintain and support the local economies, a new option is available to create sustainable infrastructure, meet community needs, and decentralize control of the workforce back down to the local communities.
1. We favor deficit spending for a federal jobs program to put the unemployed to work rebuilding communities, and giving access to education, job training and healthcare. We also support the expansion of social security to provide a Basic Income to those who either choose not to work or are otherwise unable to participate in their local economies.
2. Job banks and other innovative training and employment programs which bring together the private and public sectors must become federal, state and local priorities. People who are unable to find decent work at a living wage in the private sector should have publicly funded job opportunities. Workforce development programs must aim at moving people out of poverty without subsidizing poverty wages.
3. The growing inequities in income and wealth between rich and poor; unprecedented discrepancies in salary and benefits between corporate top executives and line workers; loss of the “American dream” by the young and middle class—each is a symptom of decisions made by policy-makers far removed from the concerns of ordinary workers trying to keep up. We affirm the importance of a limiting ratio on executive pay. If Executives want a bigger paycheck, they will need to start by giving their workers one.
4. A clear living wage standard should serve as a foundation for trade between nations, and a “floor” of guaranteed wage protections and workers’ rights should be negotiated in future trade agreements. The United States should take the lead on this front—and not allow destructive, predatory corporate practices under the guise of “free” international trade.
I like a lot of the new language about a job guarantee. That’s a central point of the Green New Deal.
However, I don’t see why it has to come at the expense of expressing support for a universal basic income, or negative income tax rate.
In Europe, Green Parties are adopting UBI as a brand new policy, never in the platform before recently. Caroline Lucas of the Green Party of England and Wales led the fight for that plank, in many ways, finally achieving it’s adoption a couple of years ago.
While they’re moving forward on calling for a radically new economy based not just on jobs, but on guaranteed income, and a “European Economic bill of rights”, in a sense, I don’t think it reflects well on us to be going in the exact opposite direction.
I would suggest that the new language about a guaranteed job simply be moved down to numbers 2 and below, and the current paragraph about UBI be kept at number 1.
The amendment fails to improve the current text primarily because it confuses very different social desiderata. The first, full employment has to do with social status and the effects on behavior of those whose sense of personal identity or healthy self-esteem is attached tied to career, secure employment, and income sufficient to care properly for dependents. Secondly, public work funded by government income, and however distributed, is needed to repair neglected infra-structure, help clean up areas damaged by chemical pollution of land, waters and air wherever ecologically sound. Such work contributes to the development of a steady-state economy — neither shrinking much or growing unwisely. Thirdly, a method of salarying hitherto uncompensated labor in housekeeping, child rearing, care of the sick and infirm should be developed. Fourth, Guaranteed Basic Income, is an important undermining of the labor markets, but also as a assurance of the freedom of the individual from the market. Idleness is desirable as an economic alternative and an assurance of the availability of creative and political work on the part of anyone who chooses to thus use their leisure. The importance of leisure in the bringing about of change adaptive to rapidly changing local and planetary conditions should never be underestimated. When GBI is general, and fixed by local economic criteria as equal, true human choice becomes common. It has the additional merit of allowing people to live useful and satisfying lives on low income and good for the ecological balances we seek to attain.
I think society deserves more than jobs, they deserve meaningful self-directed livelihoods. Changing the system to allow Congress to issue Greenbacks (US sovereign money) for direct public investment into things the general welfare demands, healthcare, education, infrastructure, local food and energy production etc.
I think this proposal represents the kind of tweaking at the edges, of what we all know is a destructive system, that is typical of the major parties. Greens propose changing the system via the monetary system, from a system based on private greed to a system based on public care. This proposal keeps us in the old paradigm.
I regret the unavailability of the proponents for further dialogue. The achievement of a steady-state economy, a declared goal in discourse about the future of humanity on the planet is not served by the New Deal ideology of a job safety-net to tide over the existing economy during depressions in the corporate capitalist economic cycle. Provision for work of the kind described in the amendment, however desirable, does not produce profits for entrepreneurs, and requires the abilities of those who have the freedom to choose to stay clear of labor markets whether private or governmental. This is easily achieved by the institution of Universal Basic Income.