WI: Nixon Passes Guaranteed Annual Income Legislation?

theReturner

I was surprised to learn about it, but in the first year of his presidency, Richard Nixon actually did try to pass creating a Guaranteed Annual Income plan, though he himself didn't call it that.

For your reading...

In August 1969, in the eighth month of his presidency, Richard Nixon delivered a speech proposing the replacement of AFDC with a program that would benefit “the working poor, as well as the nonworking; to families with dependent children headed by a father, as well as those headed by a mother.” In case the point was missed, he continued: “What I am proposing is that the Federal Government build a foundation under the income of every American family with dependent children that cannot care for itself — and wherever in America that family may live.”

Guaranteed annual income had arrived. From the margins of economic thought just a generation earlier, the GAI was now at the heart of President Nixon’s domestic policy agenda in the form of the “Family Assistance Plan” (FAP).

Nixon himself refused to call the FAP a guaranteed annual income, saying that “a guaranteed income establishes a right [income] without any responsibilities [work] …There is no reason why one person should be taxed so another can choose to live idly.” But, despite Nixon’s rhetorical distinction, many conservatives opposed the president’s plan for just those reasons: they worried not only about cost, but also about the creation of a large class of people dependent on “welfare.”

Rhetoric aside, the FAP was indeed a form of GAI. The President’s Commission certainly thought so, writing in their letter submitting “Poverty Amid Plenty” to Nixon, “We are pleased to note that the basic structure of the Family Assistance Program is similar to that of the program we have proposed…Both programs represent a marked departure from past principles and assumptions that have proven to be incorrect.”

Nixon’s FAP was very moderate: it only applied to families with children (childless couples and individuals were out of luck), included a work requirement for householders considered “employable,” and would not have increased benefits for AFDC recipients in states providing relatively high benefit levels.

For a family of four without any other income, the FAP would provide $1,600 (2013: $10,121). But a family that did have income from employment would get a declining amount of FAP dollars until family income reached $3,920 (2013: $24,798). A family of four that had been earning $12,652 in 2013 dollars would have had its income increased through the FAP to $18,725. Ultimately, the vast majority of benefits would have gone to the “working poor,” a significant departure from then-existing programs that denied welfare benefits to those who were employed.

The FAP sailed through the U.S. House of Representatives comfortably, 243 to 155, but stalled in the Senate.

Many Congressional Democrats insisted that assuring the dignity of the poor required a more expansive program than the FAP, and criticized that proposal for its low income floor and work requirements. Representative William F. Ryan (D-N.Y.), who had been the first to introduce legislation for a GAI (in 1968), told the House in April 1970 that “accepting the concept of income maintenance and establishing the mechanics for implementing that concept are two far different things.” And though Ryan suggested “we do well to embrace the concept,” he characterized Nixon’s FAP as “seriously flawed.”
Click to expand...

You can read more about the history of GAI in the late 60's/early 70's in America in the link above. (And yes, I realize that the name of the program Nixon was proposing was called "FAP". Let's try to be mature about this. :p;))

So, let's say that maybe some changes are made to the program (what changes, I'll let you decide), and the bill is able to pass the senate, and soon after signed into law by Nixon. How would something like this impact America? Would the program survive, and possibly be expanded years later? Or would it have to be scrapped? Could it deplete the need for other welfare programs? Could America also get Universal Healthcare if it passed?And do you think it would help or hurt America in the long run?

Any other thoughts or ideas?
 
Last edited:

Pesterfield

It might be endanger of being scrapped early, but hold on long enough and it might become untouchable.

Could it deplete the need for other welfare programs?
Click to expand...
Other programs will still be needed, at least for those the FAP doesn't cover. But I could see them being lessened. I don't know if it would have any really effect though, or just move the money around.

And do you think it would help or hurt America in the long run?
Click to expand...
Definitely help.

One thing it will do is close holes between welfare and working. There really are situations where people make enough to be ineligible for welfare programs but not enough to actually cover what the programs did.

In those cases it really does make economic sense to not work and stay on the programs. If the holes are covered more people will work.

Of course that could also be solved by either raising the income caps for the programs, or raising the minimum wage.
 

OnlyAlb

Nixon's plan of guaranteed income was to replace welfare. There wouldn't be guaranteed income and welfare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top