The plan skyrockets trust in the federal government

Lack of trust in government needs to be addressed before almost any other issue in the United States.

In one of my recent posts, I discussed the lack of trust in our biggest institutions as one of the most significant factors affecting COVID vaccination rates. I’ve been thinking more about that lack of trust recently — specifically the lack of trust in government.

Polling data tracking the public’s trust in government since 1958 has shown a decrease over time in confidence that the government “will do what is right.” Confidence generally tends to wax and wane depending on the country’s economic circumstances, and increases during time of international conflict. For example, a spike in confidence is noted immediately following September 2001 (high water mark of 60% of respondents demonstrating trust) , and a sizeable dip can be seen following the financial crisis of 2008 (as low as 10% in 2011). It’s also worth noting that confidence among Democrats increases during a Democratic presidential administration and decrease when a Republican takes the White House, and vice versa with Republicans.

However, the public trust in government did not rebound along with the economy in the 2010’s as it previously has done. In fact, public trust has been floating between 10% and 25% for the last 13 years. For comparison, that figure was 60–70% or so in the 50’s and 60's.

So what’s causing the lack of trust?

One factor that cannot be ignored is the rhetoric of of our elected officials — mostly in the Republican Party — since the late 70’s and 80’s. The idea of keeping the federal government small and fighting overreach has been a guiding light for many individuals and political coalitions since the country’s birth. But its current form, which has dominated the GOP for about half a century, has been especially effective in convincing large swaths of voters for generations that the federal government is fundamentally inefficient at best and fundamentally corrupting at worst (recall Reagan’s famous line, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”)

However, I’m not convinced that rhetoric alone can explain the crisis of (dis)trust that we see today. The past 50 years have also seen wage stagnation for the vast majority of workers, trade agreements that have led to mass outsourcing of traditionally good jobs, an increasingly undemocratic election system (with a few local exceptions such as ranked choice voting), and the bipartisan systematic gutting of welfare. The past 20 years alone include an illegal war in Iraq, a boondoggle in Afghanistan, a financial crash caused by poor housing market regulation and rampant speculation, and a recovery from said crash that failed to hold anyone responsible to account.

All of these things have had real and measurable impacts on the working class, whose material conditions are getting worse. Even if regular people can’t identify and craft detailed arguments to support the federal government’s policy failures affecting their lives, they know that they’re being left behind. Unfortunately, it seems that the distrust in government is justified.

I’m not reflexively in favor of government solutions to the country’s problems, but there are certainly areas that I see the market as being incapable of solving and therefore needing public intervention.

Let’s take healthcare as an example. Strong arguments can be made for multiple types of universal, single-payer and multi-payer healthcare systems — and it seems clear that we could craft a much better system than what we have now.

However, the task of convincing someone to transition to “government-run healthcare” (or another fearmongering label) when that same government has failed them in so many other ways is much more difficult. It doesn’t matter whether the system would be better if they don’t trust the institution in charge of its execution. The fact that Medicare for All polls as well as it does — usually between 50 and 70% — speaks more to the scope of the healthcare crisis in our country and the massive campaign to adopt it from the left flank of the political establishment and activists more than anything else.

If even the best-crafted policy that would almost surely be beneficial for a strong majority can be kneecapped by the “government-run” label, how can we improve trust in government? And because we’re seemingly staring into the barrel of the climate change shotgun, how can we improve trust in government quickly?

The best option may be another metaphorical “shotgun”: a money shotgun.

Want to improve the perception of the federal government? Blast everyone with monthly checks from Uncle Sam.

If we go by the deeply flawed poverty line, about 10% of the population lives in poverty and about 30% are either in poverty or pretty close. The weighted poverty threshold is $12,784 annual income for individuals and $16,247 for families of two. Imagine if a $1000/month UBI were instituted. Of course, that alone would not eliminate poverty or even come close; there are lots of factors that would decrease the buying power of that monthly check. But it would certainly make a dent.

Those who are lifted out of precarity will likely contribute more to the economy, commit fewer crimes, abuse drugs and alcohol at a lower rate, be happier and healthier, and serve as shining examples of the positive impact that government can have. They might be able to go back to school, or quit that second job and spend the time with the kids instead of paying for childcare. They will likely vote more frequently. And for the middle class who aren’t quite living paycheck-to-paycheck, an extra thousand dollars per month could allow for more retirement savings, less debt, and increased risk-taking ability such as a new business venture.

There’s lots of debate around the different proposals for UBI, especially around its relationship to existing welfare programs and the question of “how do you pay for it?” I understand that the devil is always in the details when it comes to public policy and I don’t want to diminish the complexity of the issue, but I’m not going to get bogged down with details here. But I don’t support the most recent right-wing iteration that popped up during COVID, for instance, and would not blindly accept any UBI proposal without careful analysis.

I’m currently most interested in an Andrew Yang-esque proposal that doesn’t eliminate welfare completely but rather provides a way to transition to something more permanent that would eliminate the need for most traditional welfare programs that tend to stigmatize those who use them. I think there are better ways to do it that would be more soothing to my socialist tendencies, but as of now I’d rather run with something that already has an enthusiastic base of support and could attract widespread bipartisan appeal instead of arguing over details while trust in government continues to dwindle.

UBI won’t solve the big problems that we face. But if we blast a bunch of people with “free money” and start to see the positive effects, hopefully trust in government could continue to be rebuilt with good long-term policy that does solve some of the big problems.