Universal basic income presents viable alternative to welfare programs

Traditional welfare’s flaws, limited funding could be addressed by introducing guaranteed income programs

by Suzy Dawood Opinion Writer

The Wisconsin Emergency Rental Assistance program (WERA) is no longer taking new applications for the program after Jan. 31, due to low remaining funds. WERA launched in February 2021 to help Wisconsin residents avoid eviction and catch up on overdue utility bills. The Federal Emergency Rental Assistance Program in the Department of the Treasury has been funding WERA.

Similarly, beginning in March of this year, additional Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits will not be available for Wisconsin households. SNAP benefits expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic to distribute an additional minimum of $95 more per month to families, based on their household size.

Benefits from WERA and SNAP are part of a larger group of benefits that fall under the umbrella of social welfare programs. These welfare programs aim to help people in need, and help to an extent, but these programs come with disadvantages. Crucially, they may not be creating the long-term benefits that could be created through a universal basic income.

One disadvantage of the existing welfare programs is there is not enough supply to meet demand leading to waiting lists, premature ending of programs and some left without benefits completely. The finite amount of funds have been depleted in the face of Wisconsin’s eviction crisis, with 52,549 eviction filings since 2020, according to Wisconsin Public Radio. Other social welfare programs also lack the resources to help all those in need. Temporary Assistance to Needy Families is the main cash assistance welfare program in the United States. But only 23% of poor families received assistance from that program in 2018, according to the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities.

Further, State General Assistance programs — which provide assistance to people who are very poor and don’t have children or qualify for other programs — don’t exist in some states and provide limited assistance to people who need it in others. This further illustrates that many existing welfare programs don’t currently support as many people as are in need.

Another problem with existing social welfare programs is dependence. Programs that are structured in ways that take away benefits with modest increases in income may incentivize people to stay in lower-paying jobs, a decision that many would make when looking at the financial breakdown of losing welfare benefits.

Some social welfare programs don’t require recipients to work or go to job training programs. This can cause issues in the longterm if these individual lose welfare benefits in the future.

Evidence shows that even the welfare programs that do require recipients to work don’t necessarily have an effect on reducing poverty.

It seems that within the traditional welfare framework, meeting the needs of Wisconsin’s diverse recipients is a difficult balancing act.

income system may better equip people with the skills and resources they need to rise above the poverty line.

A universal basic income (UBI) is a regular, unconditional cash payment from the government to individuals. Many of the existing social welfare programs exist as nets that lift people up when needed — UBIs are more of a bottom-line, guaranteed level of payment.

A UBI could provide enough to allow many people to live a life they couldn’t on other social welfare programs.

In respect to WERA, with the existing presence of a UBI, there may not have been a need at all. According to the Washington Post, UBIs increase economic stability and empower people to make their own choices, ultimately creating a path to lift them out of poverty in the long term.

The idea of UBI or guaranteed income is not new to Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty has contributed to the Madison Forward Fund, which was launched in September 2022.

This fund provides unconditional cash payments of $500 to 155 households for a year to test the effect of guaranteed income programs.

This research, and other studies like it, will be important in the future for policies surrounding social welfare programs and universal or guaranteed income programs.

Unlike traditional welfare programs, which face arguments that they decrease the incentive to work, UBI may actually increase employment. Since there is no risk of losing out on benefits with higher wages, job advancement may increase as people have more money available for other vital needs, such as transportation or childcare.

Existing social welfare programs certainly do help many people in need and might even have measurable long-term benefits. But perhaps the most important drawback is they don’t help everyone in need.

A universal basic income which was guaranteed for the Wisconsin public has the potential to provide enough assistance to replace the need for programs like WERAA or SNAP that may not guarantee long-term, stable benefits.

Some of the problems presented by existing social welfare programs may be solved by a universal basic income.

Instead of failing to meet the demand of impoverished people and creating a dependency that can be harmful when welfare programs run out of money, a universal basic

This being said, there may still be a need to conduct further research on the long-term impacts of universal basic incomes across all sectors of society.

But the bottom line is current programs aren’t enough for those in need. Guaranteed income programs in Madison represent a hopeful step for the future.

Suzy Dawood (sdawood@wisc.edu ) is a senior majoring in business analytics.

Implications of campaign finance

Campaign finance has become a hotly debated topic as election spending in Wisconsin and beyond has reached record highs. Some argue that campaign finance needs reform, while others contend that the details of campaign finance become less significant in the high spending campaigns of modern elections. What should be done to address these issues?

Point: Campaign finance needs reform at all levels

by Emily Otten Opinion Associate Editor

Campaign finance reform is necessary at all levels of government. This is indicated by campaign spending reaching all-time highs — the 2022 Wisconsin governor’s race cost about $114.6 million and 2020 presidential election candidates spent about $4.1 billion.

These exorbitant fundraising amounts are absurd, and the need for modern elections to raise this much money while running for office gives a strong advantage to candidates who come from money or have friends in the business world willing to shell out thousands of dollars.

There is also little regulation in the world of campaign finance. The 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court case ruled that independent political spending by non-profits, corporations and other businesses have no limit on how much they disperse on supporting a political candidate.

This does not necessarily mean that these corporations can donate directly to a candidate’s campaign without limit, but it does mean that any materials that a corporation or non-profit organization creates independently to support that candidate has no limit.

The Supreme Court ruling in tandem with individual fundraising that candidates can conduct gives a large preference to candidates with a wealthier background. Campaign finance needs to be reformed to even the playing field for all those who want to run for office, not just those who are wealthy.

There are many solutions to reform campaign finance. The Brennan Center for Justice advocates for an overturning of the Citizens United decision as well as small donor public financing, a solution which would have public funds match certain small donations to a political candidate.

The primary solution of overturning Citizens United, however, is too difficult and would limit aspects of the First Amendment, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. Instead, additional parameters should be placed on corporations, nonprofits and political action committees which financially support a political candidate in one way or another.

Through federal legislation, the U.S. could add additional parameters such as requiring independent donors to reveal their names, stronger prevention of coordination between “independent” corporate expenditures and political candidates and stricter contribution limits for most campaigns. According to the ACLU, these kinds of solutions best address inequality involved in most campaign financing without limiting free expression rights of the First Amendment.

High levels of campaign fundraising can show strong support for a candidate, but it can also give a boost to candidates who have corporate connections or are wealthy themselves. For this reason, campaign finance must be reformed.

Emily Otten (elotten@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in journalism.

Counterpoint: High campaign spending reduces the need for reform

by Aiden Nellis Opinion Writer

The growth of outside political spending has raised alarm bells surrounding the potential for special interests to influence elected officials. While wealthy individuals, corporations and advocacy groups being able to effectively buy their desired policies is serious concern for any society, the current state of campaign finance in the United States does not require reform.

According to data analyzed by Open Secrets, outside spending in the 2019-20 election cycle, including from Super PACs, non-profits, unions and trade associations, accounted for just $3.3 billion out of a total $14.4 billion spent. Rather than coming from outside organizations, most political spending comes in the form of small dollar individual contributions to candidates and parties. These donations, consisting of contributions of less than $200, accounted for 28% of all political spending in the 2020 cycle.

The tightly-fought race for Wisconsin’s third district last fall between Derrick Van Orden and Brad Pfaff follows a similar story, with all outside spending accounting for just 21% of total spending, according to Open Secrets. Direct donations to campaigns have strict limits and reporting requirements that make quid pro quo arrangements largely impossible. Outside spending may be important to campaigns, but it is not close to supplanting small dollar contributions.

The amount of money spent running for office has also grown significantly in recent history. From 2010 to 2020, the total spending by congressional candidates has more than doubled, according to the Federal Election Commission. Perhaps counterintuitively, however, this reduces the risk of corruption via political spending.

First, increasing total spending reduces the pool of individuals and groups with pockets deep enough to credibly make a difference. Second, political campaigns face diminishing returns on spending.

All else being equal, the first $10 million of advertisements is more effective at persuading people to vote one way than the next 10 million spent. Voters’ minds get made up, they develop firm images of the candidates, and they become desensitized to the campaign’s messaging.

As a result of this fundraising, underdogs in high-spending races face less of a hurdle than those in cheaper ones. Making the marginal dollar less impactful reduces candidates’ incentives to make commitments in return for outside spending.

This is especially true in high profile races where earned media — news coverage of candidates motivated by the election’s importance and public interest — augments traditional advertising and outreach. Wisconsin’s upcoming Supreme Court election is garnering significant news coverage given that it could flip the ideological lean of the Court.

Ahead of the open primary Feb. 21, the Wisconsin State Journal reported that candidates have already raised nearly $1.5 million. Highsalience, high-cost elections uncoincidentally have the most immediate effect on public policy. The current states of campaign finance make it difficult for special interests to influence these races.

The centrality of small value contributions coupled with the dramatic rise in overall campaign spending has limited the ability for outside spending to significantly affect elected officials. Given this reality, there is no pressing need for campaign finance reform.

Aiden Nellis (ajenllis@wisc.edu) is a sophomore studying economics and political science.