There’s a new way of distributing welfare in U.S., one that both the Republicans and Democrats can support.

Guaranteed minimum income — a plan where the government gives all Americans a check — would consolidate various welfare programs into a blank check, allowing U.S. citizens to spend the money on whatever they’d like. This idea would shrink the size of government and would take away restrictions from welfare that would promote individual liberties — which conservatives love.

This check is adjusted for cost of living — we wouldn’t want New Yorkers getting the same as people living in rural Montana, and a variety of other factors like family size — but at the end of the day all Americans get a check.

A positive of such a program could be the simplification of our welfare system, which has numerous issues including being bloated and slow. Hypothetically, a check for $12,000 a year could cover basic necessities, which could increase depending on household sizes.

But there are a few criticisms of this program. One is that this income will dissuade people from working, however that criticism rings hollow as that is more of a stereotype than a fact. For example, in January, the governor of Maine conducted a statewide investigation of welfare fraud by monitoring all transactions done by welfare recipients. It found that illegal/fraudulent transactions “only add up to less than a percent of all benefit transactions,” according to a Jan. 8 thinkprogress.org article.

I’m not saying welfare fraud doesn’t exist, but its presence shouldn’t characterize an entire program as bad or unnecessary. Also, the guaranteed income depends on how it would be distributed. If we did this while raising taxes and ending welfare programs, this would keep people working.

Another pretty apparent criticism is that the government can’t pay for this, but the numbers show a different story. For one, the Census Bureau estimates that “our total welfare spending is four times the amount that would be needed to lift all Americans currently living in poverty above the poverty line by giving them cash.” So, if this program is affordable, it will come down to what we Americans want to cut in order to make it a reality. Remember, we can also keep social programs and have a basic minimum income.

For the criticism of the wealthy getting this benefit, we can use a negative income tax system. People below an income level wouldn’t pay taxes and would get the full benefit of a basic income while people above a level would pay taxes and get a smaller basic income to handle this.

Finally, there are arguments about if this idea should replace all welfare programs cold turkey. I would say yes, but keep social security, because basic income at any level would never be able to build up a retirement fund.

From a conservative prospective, this is a good idea in my book. It supports our party’s goals of personal freedom and self-responsibility. It could shrink government and help better manage our growing safety net. It also helps our image with the poor — with a plan like this, our party can better fight the idea that we’re anti-poor and we can go from the party of “no” to the party of innovation and change.

Rami Jackson is a sophomore entrepreneurship major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at rdjackso@syr.edu and followed on Twitter @IsRamicJ

Published on April 3, 2014 at 1:00 am