By Susan Campbell
Connecticut’s House recently passed a bill that would set up a work group to study the feasibility of providing a Universal Basic Income to state residents.
Universal Basic Income — or UBI — is an idea that goes back to when communities shared the meat they hunted as a group. These days, UBI usually means an unconditional (you don’t have to qualify), regular cash payment made to adult residents who live in a particular geographic area. Thomas Paine was a fan, in part because he could not accept the idea that God created some people to be poor, and some to be rich.
You can imagine the people who aren’t UBI fans. They accept that God does create people to be poor and they’re pretty sure the Supreme Being doesn’t intend to include them in that group.
But things happen, don’t they? While industries shut down and workers went home, the pandemic reawakened interest in UBI, though support tends to flag, according to a recent study from the UK, when potential recipients are told guaranteed income — the phrase some researchers are starting to call the arrangement — could come at the expense of other government benefits.
The research on UBI is fascinating. Most of the programs have been small-scale, so the idea that the Nutmeg State might try to create something larger should prove equally so.
This couldn’t come at a better time and to a more deserving place. Connecticut has some of the nation’s highest financial inequality. By one measure (the Gini coefficient), we are the second-worst state (behind New York) for wealth inequality.
What does this mean in real life? A smaller middle class, and a greater need for social programs for people living in poverty (because we are not to the point where we will simply step over corpses in the street). Such rank inequality means some families will never buy a home and start building generational wealth. In fact, in a September 2024 report, the Connecticut Business and Industry Association said Connecticut has the country’s ninth highest cost of living (Hawaii is the most expensive). A recent Consumer Affairs report said the state ranked 42nd for, among other things, skyrocketing rents. Our housing crisis — there is no other term for it — is sending people into homelessness at record-setting levels.
And then last week, far-right politicians in D.C. stymied the president’s “big beautiful” budget because they want more cuts to social programs. Already, Trump’s budget proposed some draconian cuts to key social programs, but these conservatives are pretty sure they can drive the knife all the way to the bone.
Meanwhile, Moody’s, the influential credit ratings company, dropped the U.S. credit rating down a notch — that’s one notch out of 21, but it’s troubling — because of the country’s rising debt and “interest payment ratios that are significantly higher than similarly rated sovereigns.” Trumpian proposals are, according to Reuters, “unlikely to lead to a sustained, multi-year reduction in deficits, and it estimated the federal debt burden would rise to about 134% of GDP by 2035, compared with 98% in 2024.”
This won’t be a slam dunk. In fact, it may serve strictly as the start of a long conversation. During the discussion about UBI at Hartford’s capitol last week, one Republican representative (who said he’d been a vocal critic of UBI in the past) allowed he might lend support if programs such as SNAP and rental assistance were eliminated or heavily altered. Why? Because those programs “disincentivize the family.”
And there it is, the eternal GOP talking point that people living in poverty are lazy and giving them free money will make them more so. Are there people who cheat on public assistance programs? Of course. Just look at all those hands that shot out for COVID-19 funds. The Small Business Association alone estimated they handed out more than $200 billion worth of potentially fraudulent loans through COVID relief programs. And that’s just a drop in the fraud bucket.
Oh. Wait. We were talking about lazy poor people, weren’t we? My bad.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, one in nine Connecticut residents rely on SNAP benefits — what used to be called food stamps. That’s roughly 11% of the state, and most of those beneficiaries work outside the home. Slightly more than half of the beneficiaries are families with children, and this benefit has long been considered one of the most successful and effective government anti-poverty/anti-hunger programs.
Connecticut needs this. The current presidential administration wants to make deep cuts to Medicaid, cut SNAP as it’s never been cut before, and grant rich people unneeded tax cuts. While the world burns around us, maybe we can provide for residents a modicum of stability. This is the time, and Connecticut is the place.
