An excerpt from a book review on Brian Steensland's The Failed Welfare Revolution. Click here. The truth about universal minimum income bullet is that it enables market maximization. The purpose is not alleviating poverty. The purpose is profit generation. Who is rich in America should want buyers and lots of them. The discussion is confused and it points to a legislative leadership that is dissociated from the goals of the producer of finished goods. But, the working poor is whom on graduation day? Shouldn't IBM be able to hire everyone after they automated the cash register and the subway system? But the legislator has chosen to loathe the downsized and displaced worker and leave him outside of the solution the entire world has followed comprehensively. The lack of commitment leaves the good working poor that could be any worker, any Airline Pilot or Freighter Captain or fire fighter judged and displaced by the American legislator when mangoes jobs are subject to automation. There could be firefighting robots on the way with some being tested in China. Senator Chuker says he sees that the discussion is centred on the wrong conclusion or purpose since you couldn't really expect that every working poor has a father who owns a hardware store to cover him in the case of job automation. The purpose behind universal minimum income support is a fulfilment of the market to achieve market maximization. It os not a full salary but will take preasure off wages generally and make market demand consistent during the continued automation of work. Follow the Europeans who are Tough but intelligent. You have to fulfil the market. It is not centred on alleviating poverty and you must help every citizen like your imagined enemies do in Europe, Asia and China. ////The truth about universal minimum income bullet is that it enables market maximization. The purpose is not alleviating poverty. The purpose is profit generation. Who is rich in America should want buyers and lots of them. The discussion is confused and it points to a legislative leadership that is dissociated from the goals of the producer of finished goods. But, the working poor is whom on graduation day? Shouldn't IBM be able to hire everyone after they automated the cash register and the subway system? But the legislator has chosen to loathe the downsized and displaced worker and leave him outside of the solution the entire world has followed comprehensively. The lack of commitment leaves the good working poor that could be any worker, any Airline Pilot or Freighter Captain or fire fighter judged and displaced by the American legislator when mangoes jobs are subject to automation. There could be firefighting robots on the way with some being tested in China. Senator Chuker says he sees that the discussion is centred on the wrong conclusion or purpose since you couldn't really expect that every working poor has a father who owns a hardware store to cover him in the case of job automation. The purpose behind universal minimum income support is a fulfilment of the market to achieve market maximization, profit generation; national revenue generation. It os not a full salary but will take preasure off wages generally and make market demand consistent during the continued automation of work. Follow the Europeans who are Tough but intelligent. ------------------------------------- Brian Steensland, The Failed Welfare Revolution; America's Struggle over the Guaranteed Income Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008. $35.00 hardcover. The idea that all citizens should be guaranteed a minimum but adequate income to meet their basic needs and live produc- tive lies without being bound to the demands of regular wage employment has enjoyed a revival in recent times. Rooted in long-standing utopian beliefs and socialist thinking, proposals for a guaranteed minimum income for all have never been fully implemented, although the payment of demogrant social al- lowances and comprehensive social insurance in the European welfare states gives expression to this idea. Indeed, guaran- teed minimum income proposals have historically been associ- ated with European welfarism and regarded as least likely to be adopted in countries with strong market liberal traditions. But, as this book reveals, a guaranteed minimum income policy was almost implemented in the United States in the 1970s by the Nixon administration. Although few social policy scholars associate the Nixon administration with liberal or progressive welfare thinking, Steensland contends that the United States came close to experiencing a "welfare revolu- tion" when the President's Family Assistance Plan was almost approved by the Congress. The plan would have paid a guar- anteed minimum income both to the "working poor" and those in receipt of welfare benefits under the country's Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. The plan was essentially a negative income tax, based on the ideas of market radicals such as Milton Friedman. Steensland believes that it would have addressed the inadequacies of the means test and made a significant contribution to poverty alleviation. After lengthy debate, the President's proposals were rejected and the scene was set for the restrictive and minimalist income maintenance policies of the Reagan administration. Although the Nixon Family Assistance Plan is frequently mentioned in the social policy literature, Steensland has pro- vided an impressively detailed and scholarly account of the intense disagreements about a guaranteed minimum income which took place both within the executive and legislative branches. The book traces the origins of the proposals, exam- ines the formulation of the proposals by the administration and traces in detail the Congressional debates that ultimately led to its demise. The author contends that the plan's failure was primarily due to deeply institutionalized cultural beliefs about the deserving and undeserving poor and about the im- portance of work and individual responsibility in American society. The failure of the guaranteed income proposal consolidated the link between welfare and work which is today the hallmark of American social policy.

The truth about universal minimum income bullet is that it enables market maximization. The purpose is not  alleviating poverty. The purpose is profit generation. Who is rich in America should want buyers and lots of them. The discussion is confused and it points to a legislative leadership that is dissociated from the goals of the producer of finished goods. But, the working poor is whom on graduation day? Shouldn't IBM be able to hire everyone after they automated the cash register and the subway system? But the legislator has chosen to loathe the downsized and displaced worker and leave him outside of the solution the entire world has followed  comprehensively. The lack of commitment leaves the good working poor that could be any worker, any Airline Pilot or Freighter Captain  or fire fighter judged and displaced by the American legislator when mangoes jobs are subject to automation. There could be firefighting robots on the way with some being tested in China. Senator Chuker   says he sees that the discussion is centred on the wrong conclusion or purpose since you couldn't really expect that every working poor has a father who owns a hardware store to cover him in the case of job automation. The purpose behind universal minimum income support is a fulfilment of the market to achieve market maximization, profit generation; national revenue generation.  It os not a full salary but will take preasure off wages generally and make market demand consistent during the continued automation of work. Follow the Europeans who are Tough but intelligent.

-------------------------------------
Brian Steensland, The Failed Welfare Revolution; America's
Struggle over the Guaranteed Income Policy. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 2008. $35.00 hardcover.
The idea that all citizens should be guaranteed a minimum
but adequate income to meet their basic needs and live produc-
tive lies without being bound to the demands of regular wage
employment has enjoyed a revival in recent times. Rooted in
long-standing utopian beliefs and socialist thinking, proposals
for a guaranteed minimum income for all have never been fully
implemented, although the payment of demogrant social al-
lowances and comprehensive social insurance in the European
welfare states gives expression to this idea. Indeed, guaran-
teed minimum income proposals have historically been associ-
ated with European welfarism and regarded as least likely to
be adopted in countries with strong market liberal traditions.
But, as this book reveals, a guaranteed minimum income
policy was almost implemented in the United States in the
1970s by the Nixon administration. Although few social policy
scholars associate the Nixon administration with liberal or
progressive welfare thinking, Steensland contends that the
United States came close to experiencing a "welfare revolu-
tion" when the President's Family Assistance Plan was almost
approved by the Congress. The plan would have paid a guar-
anteed minimum income both to the "working poor" and
those in receipt of welfare benefits under the country's Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. The plan
was essentially a negative income tax, based on the ideas of
market radicals such as Milton Friedman. Steensland believes
that it would have addressed the inadequacies of the means
test and made a significant contribution to poverty alleviation.
After lengthy debate, the President's proposals were rejected
and the scene was set for the restrictive and minimalist income
maintenance policies of the Reagan administration.
Although the Nixon Family Assistance Plan is frequently
mentioned in the social policy literature, Steensland has pro-
vided an impressively detailed and scholarly account of the
intense disagreements about a guaranteed minimum income
which took place both within the executive and legislative
branches. The book traces the origins of the proposals, exam-
ines the formulation of the proposals by the administration
and traces in detail the Congressional debates that ultimately
led to its demise. The author contends that the plan's failure
was primarily due to deeply institutionalized cultural beliefs
about the deserving and undeserving poor and about the im-
portance of work and individual responsibility in American
society. The failure of the guaranteed income proposal
consolidated the link between welfare and work which is today
the hallmark of American social policy.