In Our Hands : A Plan To Replace The Welfare State

by Charles Murray

America's population is wealthier than any in history. Every year, the American government redistributes more than a trillion dollars of that wealth to provide for retirement, health care, and the alleviation of poverty. We still have millions of people without comfortable retirements, without adequate health care, and living in poverty. Only a government can spend so much money so ineffectually. The solution is to give the money to the people.

This is the Plan, a radical new approach to social policy that defies any partisan label. Murray suggests eliminating all welfare transfer programs at the federal, state, and local levels and substituting an annual $10,000 cash grant to everyone age twenty-one or older. In Our Hands describes the financial feasibility of the Plan and its effects on retirement, health care, poverty, marriage and family, work, neighborhoods and civil society.

Genres: Economics, Politics, Nonfiction, Public Policy, Sociology, History, Society

214 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2006

About the author

Charles Alan Murray is an American libertarian conservative political scientist, author, and columnist. His book Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950–1980 (1984), which discussed the American welfare system, was widely read and discussed, and influenced subsequent government policy. He became well-known for his controversial book The Bell Curve (1994), written with Richard Herrnstein, in which he argues that intelligence is a better predictor than parental socio-economic status or education level of many individual outcomes including income, job performance, pregnancy out of wedlock, and crime, and that social welfare programs and education efforts to improve social outcomes for the disadvantaged are largely wasted.

Reviews

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

I published a book review on this in the NY Sun:

http://www.nysun.com/arts/10000-solut...

In a random sample of 1,000 Americans, the number living in or near poverty is 216, according to the latest Census estimates. Thirty years ago, the number was also 216. The near-poverty rate dips and surges during every business cycle, but the uncomfortable fact is that poverty persists, despite a slathering of government dollars on the problem.

What Mr. Murray calls the Plan "converts all transfer payments to a single cash payment for everyone age twenty-one and older." Everyone.

If paying $10,000 to every American adult every year seems like insanity, you are not thinking like an economist. To understand real insanity, at least from the perspective of one who believes human beings act rationally, you need only consider the status quo of the last half century, in which people have been paid to be poor, paid to be single and pregnant, paid to be unemployed, and paid when they experience a handful of other negative situations. The notion of compensating the ends of dysfunctional means is the height of irrationality.

[Jack Duncan · Rating 1 out of 5]

Amazing book! Because it shows how you can have genuinely good policy ideas in a broad sense, but as soon as you fill in those details with libertarianism you create a horrific hellscape for 99% of the population.

[Bojan Tunguz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Charles Murray is well known author of popular yet controversial social science books (see for instance Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980, 10th Anniversary Edition, Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (A Free Press Paperbacks Book), Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 ). He is an engaging writer and all of his books are replete with hard data and precise quantitative analysis. A large deal of what makes his ideas so controversial is the fact that they are backed precisely with this kind of objective and precise analysis, that often flies in the face of common wisdom of the times. This book too, although much slimmer and less exhaustive than the abovementioned ones, falls in that category. It's premise is simple: abolish all social wealth redistribution programs and in their place institute an annual allowance of $10,000 for all US citizens 21 and older who make less than $25,000 annually. This in fact would be a Negative Income Tax (NIT), something that has been proposed by many economists over the years. The proposal is rooted in Murray's newfound acceptance of the fact that a full-blown abandonment of all social programs is politically completely unfeasible, and his desire to make an alternative wealth redistribution scheme that would minimize many social ills that such schemes usually bring along.

Most of this book is dedicated to arguments that explore the feasibility of this new scheme, as well as providing the theoretical evidence that the scheme would in fact bring the desired outcomes. The biggest underlying assumption is that the US economy is finally large and strong enough to actually implement this plan. The other, related, assumption is that the US economy as reflected in the stock market will continue its long-term growth at the same rate it has been growing between 1800 and 2000. The recent economic crisis may or may not undermine the first assumption: on one hand there is certainly less wealth to be redistributed as compared to just a few years ago, but on the other hand the various government redistribution schemes have been larger than anything ever seen. Using a much more streamlined redistribution program has never seemed more desirable. As for the second assumption, some recent scholarship has shown that the data from the early 19th century stock values is at best not comprehensive enough. The claim of two centuries of continuous growth all of a sudden doesn't seem as convincing. However, even in the case that the US does not continue to grow its economy at the historically high rates, this only weakens but does not demolish Murray's main arguments. For in fact all other wealth redistribution schemes are even more vulnerable to the vicissitudes of future economic growth.

Overall, this is a provocative and engaging book, a kind that we have come to expect from Charles Murray. It outlines a worthy and feasible social policy that may very well be the best option that we have right now. However, I suspect that its impact on the actual policy on the ground will be largely indirect for time to come.

[Khari · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well, what do you know, proof that my mind can indeed be changed.

When I started reading this book and figured out it was about a Universal Basic Income (UBI) a la Andrew Yang (maybe he even got it from here, who knows) I rolled my eyes but kept on reading.

Before reading this book, I basically thought a UBI was a bad idea and that, similar to the minimum wage, it would have the effect of rising inflation and making it more difficult for unskilled workers to get employment. While the author didn't address those issues at all, maybe because I'm super ignorant and they wouldn't be problems at all, he did manage to convince me that a UBI would be a better alternative than the current gamut of governmental welfare projects.

How did he convince me? In two ways.

One. Current welfare programs of which he has a copious list, but I will only name exemplars like Medicaid, social security, food stamps and Medicare, are costing the government 2.77 trillion a year. Let me ask you...are they working? Have we destroyed poverty? Does everyone have insurance they can afford? Does everyone have retirement income that they can survive on? Does everyone have food on the table? No. Why? Because the government is clunky, blind, and inefficient. You have some people who genuinely need help who don't get it because they don't qualify. You have others who know how to work the system and milk the taxpayer for all they are worth. You have people who never get social security because they never had a normal paying job. You have people who despite paying into it will never get anything out of it. You have supplies that rot and are never sent to the people who need them. All of these issues despite throwing 2.77 trillion dollars at them. Per year. Now, take the UBI. Get rid of all of those impersonal programs run by unhappy paper pushing bureaucrats, and instead give every citizen above the age of 21 $13,000 dollars a year. How much would that cost the taxpayer? 2.75 trillion. So in the first place, it's already cheaper.

My second reason besides it being cheaper is: I really do not like inefficiency. He drew a really good analogy that I could really relate to: Charities. Some of the biggest name charities are the ones that have the glitziest offices, the smarmiest CEOS, the most bloated bureaucracies and the least amount of donations actually going to the people who need it. Go to the teeny weeny philanthropies that rely on volunteers. Yeah, they don't reach as many people as the big ones, but the ones that they do reach, the communities they serve, are changed by their service. They don't show up in an emergency and toss supplies around willy-nilly, they invest in a community and attack the problems at the root and provide long term service. Why? Because those teeny weeny groups are run and depend on the work of people who choose to work there, for no compensation whatsoever. They do what they do because they care about other people. They do it on top of their jobs where they earn money to live, sacrificing their chance to earn more money in order to give free labor to an organization they believe in. How does that relate to the UBI? The UBI gives people the power to choose, and that is very powerful. I think it is always better to let people choose how to help themselves. Instead of being on a food stamp program where they can only purchase from a list of approved items, they will have money in the bank and can choose to buy what they want.

Will some of those people be idiots and use their grant unwisely? Yes. But at least they made their own choices, and that's huge. I would rather grasp my destiny in my hand rather than leave it up to some faceless system. How about you?

Anyway. It's a good book, he covers a lot of information. There are lots of possible problems with the UBI that I don't talk about, but never fear, he does.

[Tobias Wolfram · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is by no means bad but the author lacks a certain rigor. We don't get very much information on empirical experiments based on comparable concepts and in general the amount of literature discussed was at least to me disappointing. Furthermore the financial aspects of the policy were not that useful and could be even called lazy as Murray just assumes that not much would change from the current fiscal situation once the basic income grant is implemented whilst ignoring the consequences this could have on tax returns as the tax code is drastically affected by the authors proposals. Still recommendable to everyone who wants a nice list of conservative arguments for a BIG.

[Ericka · Rating 1 out of 5]

A simplistic, white, middle-class, heterosexual plan to replace welfare. Reinforces the myths of the causes of poverty. Does not take into account real world issues and cost of living.

[Loni · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am more and more inclined to favor a UBI system. I'd love to see our politicians explore this seriously. Our current system of government control of wealth redistribution is obviously not working. Our government was never set up to allocate resources and it does it very, very poorly. Give the people a chunk of money and let them use it as they see fit.

[Vance Ginn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Murray makes the case for the Plan, which is known as the Universal Basic Income (UBI). He explains the Plan in detail and goes through a number of potential issues with it. In general, the Plan would give everyone a certain amount of money per year (possibly $10,000) that would increase annually based on the cost of living. This would replace all other government transfer (welfare) programs.

Although the book provides a brief overview that hits on multiple key topics, I'm not sold on the idea. There was much throughout the book that Murray did some handwaiving to avoid calculating what the costs and benefits would be.

Ultimately, I think if we could end all government transfer programs and replace it with a UBI, then it would be of value and possibly a much better system. Economic research has shown for a long time that an individual maximizes their desires when they receive cash compared with in-kind benefits like food stamps.

However, I think it is practically impossible in the political sphere to eliminate all transfer programs because of the public choice argument that politicians are rent-seeking to be reelected. There are too many lobbyists and votes at stake in the current system to end it.

Regardless, there are many government transfer programs that should be privatized, like Social Security, and reformed to give cash instead of in-kind benefits, like food stamps.

I also think that the disincentives to work with the Plan would be high and there are other economic distortions in place from this Plan that could be more costly than the failed welfare system we have today. What I like about the Plan, and the book, is that it thinks outside the box. Too often we are stuck trying to reform current failed programs without considering other alternatives.

With that in mind, another issue I have with the Plan, is that it assumes that individuals need some sort of government support. I would not make that argument, whether technology substitutes labor. As long as free market capitalism is practiced, human ingenuity can accomplish amazing things. There is so much that we can't imagine that will happen in the future. Why would we turn to government, which is really turning to taxpayers, that will simply be a redistribution of income. Moreover, consumer prices will rise at a similar pace as the amount of increase in the Plan's amount because of artificially increased demand from products just because the government determines an arbitrary initial amount and increase over time.

Bottom line, I enjoyed reading the short book that provides a nice overview of the Plan (UBI). However, I'm not sold on the plan and think we should expend our resources on reducing the size and scope of government rather than putting in place another government program such as this.

[Stefani · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is my third Charles Murray book that I've read, and the first that could be categorized as an "easy read" for a political/economics book. The plan is simple, stops encouraging poor behavior choices (as so many social programs currently do). The only hiccup for me was his call for an insurance mandate, but considering that this can be bought with the government lump sum and can include as much coverage as a person wants or as little as basic catastrophic care, it's something that I can live with. (It's very different from the current mandate sought which seeks to impose mandatory free preventative care.) All in all, an excellent thought experiment in which a libertarian seeks to bridge the gap between libertarians, republican and democrats. I wish more of our politicians would read this book and adopt this as social policy, instead of the messed up welfare state we currently sustain, but which will eventually be unsustainable.

[John Dickinson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Extremely wishful thinking and poorly constructed arguments. Full of misrepresentations of Milton Friedman well, selectively choosing specific quotes by Friedman to support the author's premise that île at the same time ignoring the rest of Friedman's statement which rebuts the authors premise. Milton and Thomas Sowell both have written a wide plethora debunking this second-rate economist.

[Richard · Rating 2 out of 5]

Although interesting & provocative--if not original--"In Our Hands" relies on unrealistic assumptions.
For one detailed review see: http://www.larrydewitt.net/HNN/Murray....
Some thoughts are worth pursuing if not the grandiose conclusion.

[Ted Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I disagree at a foundational level on the idea of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) but I was still interested in hearing the argument for it. Murray presents his case fairly well and I am glad to have read it. As a rating it is 1 star for the horrible idea of UBI and 5 stars for the presentation.

[Otto Lehto · Rating 4 out of 5]

Murray's proposal - "The Plan", or as he more familiarly calls it in the 2nd edition, the "UBI" - represents a conservative and libertarian version of the argument for a Universal Basic Income. It is conservative, because it emphasizes the importance of family values, local communities and even religion, but it is libertarian, because it emphasizes the free choice of individuals, including the poor. It is an updated version of Friedman's Negative Income Tax (NIT) plan - which Murray seems to misrepresent a little bit in order to make his own version seems superior (an unfortunate trait that mirrors Murray's general lack of knowledge and proper acquaintance about UBI research).

It differs from most leftist and progressive versions of UBI in that he wants "to replace" rather than improve the welfare state. Murray wants to bundle billions of dollars of welfare spending - broadly conceived, also including health care spending, farm subsidies and corporate welfare - and divvy it all out in cash to all citizens of the United States above the age of 21. All supplementary transfers to "favoured groups" would then be abolished via a constitutional amendment to that effect.

Such a wholesale destruction of the regulatory-redistributive welfare state and the attempt to propose constitutional limits on discretionary spending has predictably raised the ire of most progressive proponents of UBI. Some of their criticism is justified: I do not see how the abolition of child allowances and support for child care is sustainable from the point of view of the welfare of the child. A compulsory private health care insurance, which forms the only "paternalistic" part of Murray's plan (which otherwise, and for the most part, just gives people no-strings-attached cash up to $10,000 a year), is a pretty good idea, but countries that already have single-payer systems, like Canada or the United Kingdom, would not necessarily benefit from a move to such a system.

What the progressive proponents of a UBI fail to acknowledge, however, is the potentially transformative potential of Murray's plan. It could really make the lives of poor people much better. Yes, some marginal groups might be materially less well-off after the abolition of supplementary transfers, but the dynamic effects of the change could more than make up for that. Under the progressives' own variants, the inherently oppressive power structures of the welfare state would be kept in place, thus enslaving future generations of poor people into abject poverty. The abolition of special interest politics and the empowerment of poor people via the endowment of material resources and moral responsibility for their own lives would signal a seismic shift in public policy.

The main problem with Murray's proposal is NOT the extent of his libertarianism (on this everybody who cares about improving the prospects of the poor should rationally coalesce around after thinking about the issue for long enough). No, the main problem is that many of his calculations are rather crude and his projections of both static and dynamic effects are quite arbitrary. While he shows quite convincingly that a UBI would be affordable and sustainable, many of his other promises are too Utopian in the sense of not based on solid data or a careful analysis of the pros and cons. These include his unfounded optimistic claims about how a libertarian UBI could foster better family norms, improved living standards for most sectors of the society, the rebirth of civil society and the pursuit of transcendental meaning in a world of post-scarcity abundance.

I believe that we need a libertarian UBI pretty close to what Murray is proposing, because if we only implement UBI as a supplement to existing transfers, we will fail to foster the sort of innovations in business and technology that we need in order to eliminate poverty out of existence. And if we allow the special interest racket of the redistributive state to continue its sorry existence, we will fail to advance a saner political environment. As long as we encourage wanton and merciless looting of the federal and state budgets through a zero-sum game of "winner takes it all" politics, the cooperative possibilities inherent in an advanced society will be kept back through human selfishness. Unless we restrain the Leviathan through constitutional rules, we shall be devoured by its jaws.

Murray's main point is that UBI is affordable and a major improvement over the current system. On this many people across the political spectrum can agree. Where they are likely to disagree is in the extent to which the UBI should replace the rest of the functions of the welfare state. I would personally take either version of UBI over the current system. But even people who are skeptical of market-based and community-based solutions would benefit from reading Murray's alternative, which provides a coherent and powerful plea for a new social pact that leaves nobody behind - and indeed opens up possibilities for a Utopian transformation of humanity for centuries to come.

[George Siehl · Rating 3 out of 5]

There has been a recent interest the idea of a guaranteed income paid to individuals by the Federal government. This is not a new idea ,as economic and political science academics have addressed the concept over the years. Here, in his 2005 book, In Our Hands, author Charles Murray offers a detailed "Plan" to implement such a program. He notes, " Every year, the American government redistributes more than a trillion dollars...to provide for retirement, health care, and the alleviation of poverty." There is no doubt that not all the goals have been achieved under government administration. Instead, "The solution is to give the money to the people." The benefits to his approach is meant to achieve both economic and social goals. The figures he used in 2005 may seem inadequate in light of the inflationary storm that besieges us in the 2020s, but the approach may make an improvement.

The problems of retirement, health care, poverty, the underclass, and work disincentives are analyzed in separate chapters. Each chapter is supplemented with numerous graphs and references to the work of others. In addition, five appendices, even more numerically detailed than the chapters, are presented. While not the unlimited credit card, paid monthly by Uncle Sam, that some may be seeking, the proposal does offer a simplified system of Federal assistance and an opportunity to come closer to achieving the goals that animated the assistance programs initially.

The chapters and appendices mentioned above are heavy going for a reader not familiar with balancing dollar figures making instant and long term comparisons. Readability relief comes in Part III which is more philosophical and historical in tone. That part I really liked, and would rate as 4+ stars. The book is an interesting companion to his, Coming Apart, published in 2011. It also complements some aspects of George Friedman's forecast of significant governmental and societal change in his book, The Storm Before the Calm (2021). Murray suggests work by other authors, some agreeing with him, others with contrary views; that is certainly a commendable approach to public issues of the day.

[Pete · Rating 3 out of 5]

In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State (2006) by Charles Murray describes an actual, costed out Universal Basic Income (UBI).Murray is a controversial scholar but this book does actually have figures and describes how a UBI could work.

UBI has currently had a resurgence of popularity due mainly to the fear the robots and automation are believed by some to be about to dramatically reduce employment. It has supporters on both the left and right. However, people appear to be talking about very different things in terms of levels of a UBI and also tend to be very vague at best about costing such a proposal out.

In the book Murray costs out a UBI for every adult over 21 at 10K that also has a supplement of 3K paid toward a catastrophic emergency medical fund. That is, the UBI would be under the current US poverty threshold. It's not a lot. Murray goes on to suggest that people on this kind of level of money could then save 2K a year that could be used for old age. It's worth noting that working beyond the UBI would result in none of it being taken back and the effective marginal tax rate would be zero.

At 60K of income the UBI would start to decrease and reduce eventually to zero. So it's not quite a UBI but it is reasonable.

Murry then goes on to describe various scenarios for various people on the UBI.

The book did make me realise that the US has various odd programs like food stamps that many other countries, like Australia, do not and that may be part of the appeal of simplifying social payments.

The book didn't convince me that a UBI is a good idea but it did have a serious attempt at costing and describing how a UBI could work. It isn't the UBI of some people's dreams of, say 25K a year, but it is costed out. The book is very short, reasonably well written and is worth reading for anyone interested in a serious proposal for a UBI.

[Tyler Leary · Rating 5 out of 5]

The world's economic systems now face unprecedented changes. We're producing more and more efficiently, we're automating work, and producing enormous wealth. But that wealth is getting more and more concentrated, while the various government welfare programs try to keep up. Of course economies have changed before, but new products and services have always brought with them the need for human capital.

What if this time it's different? What if we can produce everything we want without putting every able American to work for 40 hours a week? Charles Murray's little book here is at least a partial answer to that question. His solution isn't intuitive and I'll leave it to him to explain, but the idea is intriguing: scrap the current welfare state and replace it with "universal basic income" for all. I wish he had addressed the idea of shortening the work week as well, but there's plenty here to think about.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book succinctly advances a conservative argument for universal basic income, and it makes such a thing seem plausible. At times the author's language regarding social issues (regarding, for example, gender roles and sexuality) feels dated, but his Libertarian insistence that we would all be better off if we let people make their own choices with their own money shows that his heart is in the right place. For most of the book he asks the reader not to worry about how politically impossible the Plan might be, but he ends --spoiler alert! -- by asserting that something like it is almost inevitable: "That curve [ever increasing GDP] cannot keep going up for much longer without it becoming obvious to a consensus of the American electorate that a lack of money cannot be the reason we have poverty, lack of medical coverage, or an underclass. The problem is that we are spending the money badly."

[Jose · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book presents an intriguing idea, one that has been toyed with by the left and right of the political spectrum. A minimum universal wage starting at age 21 that would create a safeguard against poverty. The left would leave all other transfers firmly in place. C. Murray would like all transfers from the state that are given to some people and not others be eliminated.

It is easy to think how this would be beneficial. Over time, it would reduce the enormous expense of welfare as people would be given the option to spend the minimum wage as they see fit, on their health, investing or joining a commune and surfing forever. The author seeks to demonstrate how this money would not necessarily disincentivize work and how it would create the conditions for a much superior retirement for retirees, or even people that failed to invest properly through no fault of their own. I found the idea appealing from a libertarian point of view. Even when the author admits that the political will to make it possible might still be far.

What I found was huge disservice to the "Plan" was the interspersed moralistic tone that completely undermined the alleged liberalism of the author. As with many pretend "libertarians", his ideas barely conceal what we'd call socially conservative and moralistic "shoulds" and "oughts". I had to ignore a few paragraphs about the decadence of Western Europe, the population replacement levels of the US (now falling by the way ) and other untested and unwarranted value judgments, about single mothers or racial differences. Not that racial differences and marriage do not matter or shouldn't be studied but the author betrays a clear untested bias, one that runs along the lines of a decline in former Western social and religious virtues. There is clearly one way to pursue a life project, the rest just gets lip service.

Then he goes on to rehash Adam Smith’s idea that any economic system should account for three basic human traits, self-interest, the desire for respect and admiration from your fellow humans and the need for a community. I happen to agree with Smith. But Murray has decided these human characteristics go hand in hand with certain institutions and behaviours that look very much like the church-going, marrying and working hard kind. Nothing wrong with any of that except it looks like nostalgia of another era. Worse, it looks like humanity should actually be different than it is.

I think a wider look a the world would show that those advocating for certain values sometimes are just either nostalgic of a past that never really existed or want a much higher level of control over the population that they would admit so they can remain in the driving seat.
But still, a neat idea should not be spoiled by the authors bias.

[Lev Reyzin · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is the rare nonfiction book that I feel should’ve been longer. It makes a persuasive case for UBI, but many of the arguments are not sufficiently justified. Many deserve a much longer treatment than a paragraph assuring greeters everything will be all right or better. Some choices are only justified in the appendix and then only briefly (eg why the proposed UBI plateaus at $6500 and not $0 with falling income). The other downside of this book is that it fails to tackle the argument that the prospect of free money might change the types of immigrants that want to come to the US.

[Jackie · Rating 4 out of 5]

An earnest Conservative's case for universal basic income. I don't buy all of his arguments about fully dismantling the welfare state nor do I accept his premises about the inferiority of poor populations on a whole, but his case for basic income is very reasonable. He argues for why basic income, without qualifications or bureaucracy, will incentivize poor people to make stronger personal decisions. I found that aspect of his argument compelling.

[Balazs Faluvegi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite its short length it makes a good case for the tandem of libertarianism and universal basic income. It’s quite bold, because at first you’d never think they can go hand in hand, but Murray understands what liberty really is, and brave enough to swim against the tide. Good and simple examplas plus statistics make the book stronger. Yet, in some areas the book is shallow or even plain wrong, this is especially true when he writes about Europe, hence the 4 stars instead of 5.

[Jeffrey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Murray's idea for a Universal Basic Income fascinates me. This book is compelling. There are some brilliant people whom I really respect (Thomas Sowell for one)that utterly disagree with Murray's ideas here. I would love to find an extensive debate on this issue between Sowell and Murray. I am not sure my brain could stand the presence of that much intellectual dynamite.

[Nathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Since the idea of Universal Basic Income is a topic in the news recently I thought I would read this 2006 book, which lays out a UBI plan. It's a short easy read with extensive data tables in the appendices. Murray discusses different possible social outcomes of UBI, which are certainly thought-provoking.

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Into to Universal Basic Income

My libertarian brain is still holding on to the concept that taxation is theft but UBI seems to offer a viable alternative to the mess we currently use to exploit the poor.

[Pat Mckay · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good explanation of universal basic income concept, and pitfall avoidance.

[Valerie R · Rating 1 out of 5]

Zzzzzzzzzzzz

[Joey · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the book that convinced me to be a libertarian.

This guy has more common sense than anyone else I think I've ever read.

[Raf · Rating 4 out of 5]

I borrowed this book from my local library after watching a C-Span segment in which the author discussed the contents of this book as well as the ideas and reasons behind a Universal Basic Income (UBI). The concept of the UBI is to offer $13,000 to every U.S. citizen age 21 or over for the rest of their living lives. This includes a $3,000 catastrophic health insurance payment which is automatically deducted and a $10,000 a year income deposited into a bank account every month. The author argues against any other social program including medicare, social security, food stamps, and housing subsides because the UBI will give people a monetary supplement regardless of what people choose to do with it.
Murray comes from a Libertarian background so his emphasis is on individual responsibility and community. Although the idea of a UBI is not a “pure” libertarian concept, it might eliminate any potential waste generated by a bureaucratic welfare state and leaves the individual responsible for his/her decisions on supplementing any other income beyond the UBI to themselves and their personal choices. I don’t agree or disagree with the contents of the book. The author utilized informative statistical and qualitative evidence to support his statement; however, the reality of congress passing such legislation coupled with citizen support is highly unlikely. Regardless of which side of the political spectrum an individual in our republic is, it is clear that if we stay on the current trajectory with deficit spending, our social programs will become unsustainable and that’s something that people need to start thinking and talking about.

[Jan Notzon · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating suggestion for how to completely reorganize the welfare state. I found the most interesting part to be Chapter 11, that deals with social theory. The limits, and actually the perils, of non-voluntary (i.e. governmental) charity are very cogently explained. The system Murray would replace it with makes consummate sense to me and he covers almost all my questions. I wonder how much of a UBI (universal basic income) would go up someone's nose or in someone's arm is one. Of course, that's not to say it doesn't happen under the current system. But the case he makes for the superiority of voluntary associations to deal with societal ills strikes me as pretty overwhelming.

[Paul Sand · Rating 5 out of 5]

[Imported automatically from my blog. Some formatting there may not have translated here.]

He calls this The Plan, which:

… makes a $10,000 annual grant to all American citizens who are not incarcerated, beginning at age 21, of which $3,000 a year must be used for health care. Everyone gets a monthly check, deposited electronically to a bank account.

Murray's arguments for this are impressive and detailed. You can read a short version here (from which the above quote comes); if you don't want to get hold of the book, that's probably the best place to start. A friendly interview with St. K-Lo is here at National Review Online.

Then, you might want to check Harry Farrell at Crooked Timber, who has a number of interesting observations and criticisms from a moderate-lefty perspective. (On the other hand, if you're interested in a largely thoughtless attack consisting mainly of ad hominem and invective, then Ezra Klein at The New Republic is your go-to guy.)

All in all, much recommended for folks worried about increasingly unaffordable entitlements. I wonder whether the current political climate, which seems to rely mainly on fervent wishing that we can somehow maintain the status quo, will allow serious discussion outside of think tanks and journals.