SALT LAKE CITY — Amid an almost unprecedented economic downturn caused by the rapid spread of COVID-19, one bold proposal to combat financial insecurity is gaining steam.
Congress has already sent out one round of stimulus checks, and many Americans are hoping for more. This week, two House Democrats proposed sending additional money out each month until the economy recovers.
“Americans need sustained cash infusions for the duration of the crisis in order to come out on the other side alive, healthy and ready to get back to work,” said Rep. Ro Khanna, D-California, according to Forbes.
Some political activists say this legislation still doesn’t go far enough. Supporters of universal basic income believe the time is right for the government to adopt a permanent monthly payment program.
“It should be a basic right of citizenship to have a certain level of resources to be able to meet your basic needs,” said former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang on NPR last month.
In an Easter letter, Pope Francis initially appeared to make a similar claim. He expressed support for a “universal basic wage” and called on societal leaders to uphold workers’ rights.
“I hope that this time of danger will free us from operating on automatic pilot ... and allow a humanist and ecological conversion that puts an end to the idolatry of money and places human life and dignity at the center,” he wrote.
Although a Vatican official has since clarified that the pope was not advocating for universal basic income, the letter sparked a debate about where Christians should stand on the controversial concept.
Some people of faith argue monthly checks from the government would benefit efforts to build a better world, while others say such payouts would do more harm than good.
A universal basic income program would “support people’s basic needs,” said Kate Ward, an assistant professor of Christian ethics at Marquette University.
But it could also distract from other important religious values, said David Cloutier, an associate professor of moral theology and ethics at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.
Faith-based arguments for and against
Two key factors for Christians to consider about universal basic income and similar proposals is how they would affect people’s interest in working and whether they would do enough good for the poorest members of society, according to religion and policy scholars.
The impact on work habits matters because many faith groups emphasize the value of labor, said Heath W. Carter, an associate professor of American Christianity at Princeton Theological Seminary. Christians are taught to work hard and be self-sufficient, not to rely on a monthly check from the government to keep them afloat.
“Some worry that universal basic income undermines their belief in the dignity of labor,” he said. “They think there’s something deeply important and even sacred about working and creating and that (these activities) are vital parts of a flourishing human life.”
Supporters of universal basic income argue that a monthly check from the government would lead to better work-life balance rather than laziness. People might quit their second job or side hustle, but few would leave the workforce altogether, Ward said.
“Even when people retire, they usually immediately start volunteering for a million things and taking care of their grandkids. They don’t just play video games all day,” she said.
With an extra $1,000 each month, people could reduce the amount of hours they spend at their office and increase participation in other activities valued by faith groups, Ward added.
“Most would say that, in the U.S., we value wage work too much. Many people don’t leave time for family work, time in their community, worship or time in nature,” she said.
Cloutier agreed that a universal basic income would enable some workers to spend more time with their families. However, it wouldn’t go far enough toward solving problems like high housing or medical costs that lead people to work long hours in the first place, he said.
“It wouldn’t get to the root causes (of financial instability) and, in fact, could lead to ignoring much more important problems,” he said.
It could also take resources away from the people who currently rely on the social safety net, Cloutier said, noting that such a shift would violate religious teachings on prioritizing the needs of the poor.
“Universal basic income, by definition, is supposed to benefit everyone equally,” he said. “Why devote all this money to people who have enough material resources when we should be focusing on providing those resources to the people who fall through the cracks of the market?”
It’s true that monthly checks from the government could cause more problems than they solve if the underlying policy is poorly crafted, Ward said. The money might be able to replace food stamps or housing subsidies, but it would take a lot more than $1,000 per month to cover everything that’s currently part of the social safety net.
“The devil is in the details,” she said.
Few Christians could get behind a stipend program that hurts the people who need it most, said Sam Brunson, who is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a law professor at Loyola University Chicago.
Most religions teach that “we have a particular duty to the poorest and most disadvantaged,” he said.
A good policy would adjust existing federal welfare policies, not end them prematurely. It would also address Cloutier’s concern about sending more money to people who already have enough, Ward said.
“You can make (the government stipend) taxable over a certain amount of income,” she said.
Even if some people who are already living comfortably were able to keep the extra money, those who currently rely on the social safety net would enjoy unique benefits, Brunson said. Most notably, the public image of government handouts would improve.
“Universal basic income, to some extent, relieves the stigma of receiving government money because everybody gets it,” he said.
It also would give poorer families more freedom to decide how to use their resources than they get from most existing programs, Ward said, noting that the gospel supports that kind of “dignifying” approach.
Universal basic income would enable people “to make the choices that are best for them,” she said.
That’s a laudable goal, but it’s achievable through less expensive and more achievable means, Cloutier said.
“If the intention is to help people who need some kind of income support, there are other ways to do that,” he said.
Add coronavirus to the debate?
The main drawback to other potential paths forward is that they’re not getting nearly as much buzz right now. Sending monthly checks to all Americans might be an imperfect solution to poverty, but it would disrupt the unsatisfactory status quo, Carter said.
“There needs to be some kind of structural response to the structural change that’s happening in our economic life,” he said.
However, some Christians will never be interested in government-led solutions, since they believe church-led charitable programs can better serve people in need.
“They don’t want the government doing this type of thing,” Carter said.
This religiously motivated preference for private welfare helps explain why a large share of Christians oppose universal basic income regardless of economic conditions.
In 2017, around 4 in 10 Protestants (45%) and Catholics (41%) said the government should not provide Americans with a guaranteed income even in the event that robots and computers could perform most jobs currently done by humans, according to Pew Research Center data provided to the Deseret News.
Christians who support universal basic income hope that actually living through a major crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic will help change some people’s minds. For too long, Christians have talked about the value of a “living wage” and the flaws of existing welfare programs without actually taking action, Carter said.
“This crisis ... puts an exclamation mark on the kinds of trends people are experiencing,” he said. Problems with the current social safety net “are coming into the light in a new way.”
But so are the high costs of providing new forms of financial support, Cloutier said.
Congress found a way to send one $1,200 stimulus check, but many questions about how to pay for a broader universal basic income program remain unresolved. Cloutier and other Christian opponents of the concept hope they’ll stay that way.
“We should focus on directing money toward people who actually need it,” he said.