Inclusive Prosperity Programs Shortchanged in Mayor Bowser’s Budget

April 17, 2017

My last post merely mentioned shortfalls in the Mayor’s proposed budget, due at least partly to the $100 million or so she chose to forfeit by doing nothing to halt the automatically triggered tax cuts.

I’ll turn now to my picks for programs she shortchanges, based on how she styles her budget — a roadmap to inclusive prosperity.” Still only summaries. And not all programs some advocates have flagged.

Nevertheless, more than I can cover in a single post with enough substance to convey what’s under-funded — or unfunded — and why that violates the budget’s promise. So I’ll deal here with what seem the most obvious and followup with a couple of others that matter too.

Education and Training

We also all know that education and relevant job training generally move people along the road to some modicum of prosperity. For many adults in the District, the first step must be remedial education — basic literacy in reading and math, help in preparing for the GED exams.

For others, appropriate programs include those leading to a regular high school diploma and /or vocational education courses in other publicly-funded institutions, e.g., charter schools and alternative education in regular public schools like the Ballou High School’s STAY program.

Several surveys have found that adult learners miss classes because they can’t come up with the transit fare. Eighty-six percent of the youngest who had subsidized transportation said it would hard or altogether impossible to attend without it.

No reason to believe that’s not true for at least as many older adults, who’ve often got to spend more of such income as they have on basic needs for both themselves and their children. And, of course, we’ve got to assume that some of all ages drop out.

The Deputy Mayor for Education recommended an adult learner parallel to the Kids Ride program, which covers the public transit costs of getting to and from school.

Not a big ticket item—a mere $1.5–2 million. But no money in the Mayor’s budget for it.

Double-Duty Work Support

The full, unsubsidized cost of child care in the District is higher, on average, than in any state. Though low-income parents are officially eligible for subsidies that help pay for it, as a practical matter it’s difficult, if not impossible to find a center that will accept them.

This is a long-standing problem rooted in the insufficient rates the District uses to reimburse providers. For this, among other reasons, it was shy roughly 14,000 slots for infants and toddlers in 2015.

They’re the most costly to care for properly, what with diaper changing, feeding and all — hence local center charges averaging $22,658 a year.

The kids are too young for pre-K, of course. But the quality of care, e.g., nurturing relationships, talking to, has more impact on brain development than at any later stage. The very young children who get it will do better in school — and thus have a better chance of sharing in prosperity.

Now, if you can’t find trustworthy care for your child, you’re unlikely to work. Nor enroll in an education or training program that would prepare you to do so. And you won’t do either if you can’t pay for it.

Charges for licensed childcare are likely to increase, since the District recently set new licensing standards that require not only teachers, but their assistants to have at least a two-year college degree, unless they’ve got an independently-awarded Child Development Associate credential.

Those who manage to get either surely — and reasonably — will expect increases in their pay. It’s already, on average, extremely low — $26,470, on average, according to the latest figures.

If they don’t get them they can find employers that will. And that’s likely to further reduce open slots, since replacing them would be as difficult as keeping those who left.

Yet the Mayor’s budget doesn’t nothing about this. It would instead put $15.3 million into a new initiative to increase center capacity. But the new slots would be market rate — helpful for better-off parents, but no help at all for the most in need of affordable care to move down her road.

Paid Family Leave

The Mayor proposes no funding to translate the paid family leave law the Council passed into an operating program.

That requires both the creation of a new agency to administer the law, e.g., to ensure employers pay what they owe, pay out to eligible workers for the time off they take, and a new computer system to make all this possible.

We know the Mayor doesn’t like the law. But the essence of being an executive is executing laws.

Forcing more than half a million workers to wait for who knows how much longer to either keep working when they need time off for compelling  for compelling family reasons — or at least as likely forgo needed income — hardly comports with including them in prosperity.

Her refusal to propose the $20 million needed to get the program started doesn’t, I think, reflect only spending constraints imposed by her deciding not to even hit the pause button on the tax cuts. But they do perhaps provide some cover.


What We Know (and Don’t) About How DC Spends Its TANF Funds

January 19, 2017

Mayor Bowser and the DC Council will soon have to make a critical decision: What to do about the families that have reached the rigid time limit local law sets on participation in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

As I said before, a working group convened by the Mayor has recommended significant revisions to the law. They include both indefinite-term extensions for parents who are complying with requirements set for them and ongoing benefits for their children, no matter what.

This would be probably the single most important thing the District could do now to alleviate poverty. It arguably would save money too — in healthcare costs, for example, homeless services and special education for children who’d suffer brain damages due the high levels of stress that acute poverty can cause.

But sustaining TANF benefits beyond the point that federal block grant funds can be used for them won’t be cheap. So where will the money come from? No one, to my knowledge, has figured that out yet. And it’s certainly beyond my ken.

But it’s worthwhile, I think, to look at where the District’s TANF funds are going now. We have a partial answer from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which publishes annual state-by-state analyses of TANF spending, based on reports states must submit to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The Center proceeds from the view that TANF has three core purposes—cash assistance, work activities and child care. These reflect a widely-shared view that the program should serve as a safety net and help parents get (and keep) jobs that will pay enough to make them more self-sufficient.

The District spent only 63.% of its TANF funds, i.e., its share of the block grant, plus local funds, on the core purposes in 2015.

This is relatively more than states as a whole spent. But it still leaves a lot of money to account for — about $99 million, assuming the reported total spending is right.*

Drilling down, we see that the District spent 26% of its TANF funds — roughly $70 million—on cash assistance.

An additional 14% — somewhat over $37 million — went for work activities, most if not all of this presumably to the organizations the District contracts with to provide services that help parents prepare for and find work.

Another 22% — a generously rounded $60 million — funded vouchers that subsidize child care for low-income families. These need not necessarily all be families in TANF. But TANF families are a top spending priority so long as parents fully participate in their required work activities.

The District used 7% of its TANF funds — nearly $18.7 million — for refunds from its Earned Income Tax Credit, i.e., money paid to workers whose allowable income tax claims exceeded their liabilities.

Needless to say (I hope), few of the recipients were TANF parents. As the name suggests, only people with income from work can claim it. They need not be poor or even nearly so. For example, a parent with two children remains eligible until she earns $45,000.

The EITC is nevertheless generally viewed as a powerful anti-poverty measure — in part because it puts money into people’s pockets and in part because it provides an added incentive to work. To this extent, it’s consistent with the over-arching purpose of TANF.

Those keeping track will note that we’ve got about $80 million left to account for — a larger percent than any core purpose received. It’s also a considerably larger percent left over than states as a whole reported.

The Center puts it all but administrative costs into an “other services” bucket. HHS allows states to report some spending as “other” too, but not spending on as many different things as could be left after what I’ve thus far itemized.

So where did the millions go? I asked the Department of Human Services and have thus far not received an answer. I’m hopeful, however, because looking at those “other” items in light of TANF families’ needs seems a useful exercise.

We — and the DC Council — could then better decide if each and every one of those unspecified programs and/or services should continue to receive a share of TANF funds if that means that core purposes don’t get enough.

And should they continue to receive them if the administration and Council then can’t find enough to extend a lifeline to all the at-risk TANF families?

* The Center reports that the District spent about $267 million in TANF funds. This is nearly $100 million more than its share of the block grant, plus the local funds it must spend. The Center accounts for $2 million as block grant funds left over from a prior year, but that obviously leaves more unaccounted for.


State TANF Spending Raises Red Flags As Republicans (Again) Ponder New Block Grants

January 17, 2017

The latest reports on Temporary Assistance for Needy Family’s spending are a timely reminder of what happens when states receive insufficient federal funds and a lot of flexibility in what they can do with them.

Basically, we expect TANF to do two things — serve as a safety net for poor families with children and enable the parents to get jobs that pay enough to make them more self-sufficient. Not necessarily enough to cover all their family’s basic needs, but at least enough to make cash benefits unnecessary.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which analyzes the annual spending reports, translates these expectations into three core purposes — cash assistance, work activities and child care.

The last of these supports the second in that it frees parents to participate in a job training program and/or other activities that will prepare them for work, look for a job and, in the best of cases, actually work for pay.

The latest analysis, for 2015, gives us new numbers that tell the same old story. States, as a whole, spent barely more than half their share of the federal block grant, plus the funds they must spend to get it on these core purposes.

The remainder went for all sorts of things — some closely linked to a core purpose, e.g., Head Start and Pre-K, some to programs and services that don’t benefit only poor families, e.g., child welfare.

States may have used TANF funds to expand such programs, the Center says. In other cases, they merely used them cover rising costs — or even to replace what they’d been spending out of their own funds.

What they invested in core purposes varied enormously. For example, seven states spent less than 10% of their TANF funds on cash assistance, while eleven spent more than 30%.

Twenty-eight states spent less than 10% on work activities and related supports, e.g., transportation. Only five topped 20%. And twenty states spent less than 10% on child care. while nine spent more than 30%.

One might think that states spent less on one core purpose so they could spend more on another. Not altogether so. Two states — Arizona and Texas — spent less than 10% on each of the core activities.

We know how Arizona managed to free up so much of its TANF funds for other purposes. By 2015 it had cut its TANF time limit three times, kicking families out of its program after they’d participated for 24 months. That’s 36 months less than the time limit on their using federal funds for all participating families.

Arizona has since cut its time limit to a mere 12 months, gaining even more funds to cover budget shortfalls — a predictable need because the state has been cutting taxes for years.

The state realized further savings by reducing cash benefits below the low level paid when TANF replaced welfare as we knew it. The maximum a parent with two children can get now is $202 a month — about 12% of the federal poverty line.

An extreme case perhaps, but not altogether unique. The Center reports that Louisiana spent only 11% of its TANF funds on core purposes. Its very low cash benefits — $230 a month for a three-person family — went to only four of every one hundred poor families in the state.

Tempting as it is to trash on these states (and some others), the fault lies with the federal law, which permits states to economize at the expense of their very poor residents.

In a way, it virtually forces them to do this by holding the block grant at the same funding level as when TANF was created in 1996. It’s lost more than a third of its real-dollar value since. So states that want to do the right thing would have to spend far more of their own funds than the partial match the law requires.

We don’t see that in the spending figures. We instead see that states have used TANF as a slush fund — the term that a prolific conservative critic of the program recently used to rebut claims that welfare reform succeeded.

That claim is hardly new. It’s survived a barrage of evidence to the contrary. That’s because proponents in our Congress don’t actually seek to strengthen the safety net and put very poor people on a pathway to steady, decent-paying work.

Nor, for that matter, do they aim to give states flexibility so that they can develop more effective ways to do this. One need only recall the outcries from the right when the Department of Health and Human Services invited states to request waivers in order to test alternatives to the regular TANF work activity rules.

The House Republicans’ block-granting plans are all about cutting federal spending on non-defense programs, especially those that make up our safety net.

This is why we’re bracing for legislation to block grant SNAP and/or Medicaid. Republicans need to find significant savings as offsets for the tax cuts they’ve promised, plus those they’ll achieve by eliminating the Affordable Care Act.

TANF is a harbinger of things to come — unless supporters can galvanize grassroots opposition. This seems to me doable, though difficult.


What We Know About DC Parents Up Against the TANF Time Limit

November 3, 2016

The working group deputed to advise on the District’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program gathered various kinds of information before making the recommendations I recently blogged on.

Among the most influential, I’d guess, were two newly-gathered sets of data that tell us — and decision-makers — more about the 6,560 or so TANF parents whose families will be at or over the 60-month lifetime participation limit next October, unless the Mayor and Council agree to an alternative.

For one set, the Department of Human Services did what seems a limited analysis of the families’ case records. For the other — and to me, more enlightening — it asked the parents some questions. The working group’s report includes an analysis of the results.

They bolster the case for eliminating the time limit because they cast grave doubts on the parents’ prospects for getting — and keeping — jobs that pay enough to support themselves and their children. Not such grave doubts for all, however, if they’re given more time in the program.

Here’s a sampling of what we learn.

Twenty-two percent of the survey respondents reported they were working, but very few of them full time. All but 39% usually worked for no more than 30 hours a week.

The fact that most of those already over the time limit have children under 10 helps explain this, but so may the hiring and scheduling practices that depress earnings for so many low-wage workers.

Nearly half the working parents earned less than $250 a week. A mother with two children would need about $388 a week, every week, just to lift the family over the federal poverty line.

About half the parents hadn’t participated in TANF for 60 months running. Three-quarters of those who’d left had done so because they’d gotten a job and/or began earning too much for their families to still qualify.

About the same percent were back in the program because they’d lost their jobs or couldn’t find a job that would enable them to support their families. These may include the 11% who said they’d re-enrolled because they couldn’t afford child care. Seems they’d lost the subsidies TANF parents get.

Their resumes may have lacked proof of the high-level skills so many local employers require. Thirty-one percent of the parents surveyed said that lack of sufficient education and/or training made it difficult for them to work.

The same percent are currently trying to get a GED or high school diploma — hardly something they could invest as much (if any) time in if kicked out of the program.

They’ll have a hard time getting any job without even this minimal credential. The unemployment rate for working-age residents with less is nearly 20%, according to the most recent analysis we have.

More than three-quarters of all jobs in the District will require at least some postsecondary education by 2020, the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce projects.

This, of course, suggests that the job market will remain very tight — if not get tighter — for the least educated TANF parents. Hence, the need to ensure that TANF will remain a safety net for them and their children.

But it also argues for eliminating the time limit in a different way because 38% of the at-risk parents are taking college-level courses now. And scholarships the District provides exclusively for TANF parents probably help them cover the costs, as do the childcare and transportation subsidies.

Lack of work experience caused problems for 35% of the parents — perhaps some of the same who cited insufficient education and/or training as a barrier.

Far from all parents face only these barriers. More than half cited at least one sort of health problem as a reason they weren’t working, looking for work or regularly participating in a TANF training program.

Physical health problems pose a barrier for well over one in three. The case review found 18% with mental health needs that remained unmet — presumably meaning that the parents still suffered from them.

The federal Supplemental Security Income program provides modest cash benefits for people whose disabilities make self-supporting work impossible.

But relatively few who apply get them — and none who can’t prove, among other things, that their disability will last at least a year (or that they’ll die sooner) and precludes any sort of paying work.

A top-flight TANF expert at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities put the chances that the 60-month or over parents could make up for their lost benefits with SSI at no more than 10%.

Understandably, more than half the parents facing lifetime banishments from TANF believe it will be harder for them to meet their families’ needs. An additional 25% don’t know.

They’re, of course, viewing their prospects in today’s job market. Come the next recession — and one will come — there’ll be fewer job openings and more recently-employed people competing for them.

What then for the many thousands of families tossed out of TANF — and others who’ll reach the 60-month limit during the downturn?


A Time Limit for the DC TANF Time Limit?

October 31, 2016

Maybe — just maybe — the Mayor and the DC Council will decide to do the right thing about the families who will lose what remains of their thrice-cut Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits.

I’ve written about the plight of these families often — and more recently, about a proposal to relieve those who’d suffer specific hardships.

The Council could have folded it into the budget for this fiscal year, but kicked the can down the road again — largely because the administration said it had to study the issue.

It still hasn’t taken a position, but it now has recommendations that the Department of Human Services asked a working group to produce, plus advice on what it should do to make TANF better.

So a brief review of the issue, plus an update seem in order.

Families Facing a Crisis

Less than a year from now, roughly 6,560 families, including more than 10,000 children will lose their TANF benefits unless the Mayor and Council agree to reprieve at least some of them.

These families — and more as time goes on — will not only lose those benefits, but have no chance of ever getting them again because the current law sets a 60-month lifetime limit on TANF participation, with no exceptions, no matter what.

They’ll have little or no cash income, unless the parents manage to find steady work on their own. Not a likely prospect, given what we know about TANF “leavers” elsewhere.

We can reach a similar conclusion from the District auditor’s report on parents over the 60-month limit who’d recently received services designed to get them into the workforce.

How the Program Would Change

As I’ve said, the report includes many recommendations, but its main purpose is to guide action on the time limit. To that end, the working group’s first preference would do three things.

First, it would split the per-family cash benefit into a child grant and a parent grant. The child (or children) would get 80% and the parent (or parents) 20%.

This, the report says, would support children, give parents an incentive to participate in work activities and protect the most vulnerable. It would also shield children from sanctions, i.e., benefits cuts imposed when someone in authority decides that parents aren’t doing what their work activity plans require.

Second, it would eliminate the time limit for both child and parent grants. Families would remain eligible so long as they met already-established requirements.

Third, it would adjust the benefit reductions imposed as sanctions — these, recall, to the parent grant only. The initial sanction would remain the same — a 20% cut. The second would be 10% less than now — and the third 40% less, rather than the total cut-off in the current rule.

The less drastic cuts would indirectly help protect children because both grants will, of necessity, go to the parents. Infants, after all, don’t buy their own diapers, preschoolers their own shoes, etc.

And many of a family’s largest costs can’t be divvied up among members — housing, for example, and food, which poor and near-poor families generally have to buy, even if they receive SNAP (food stamp) benefits.

Advantages to Recommended Approach

The overhaul has one obvious advantage. No families would be plunged into dire poverty, with the long-term harms we know that often inflicts on children, e.g., brain damage, chronic physical and mental health problems, neglect and even abuse from over-stressed parents.

Children would also have some protection from the harms stemming from such practical consequences as homelessness and malnutrition. Rolling all these together, they’d have a better chance of completing high school “college and career ready,” as our public schools intend.

The other advantage to the working group’s preferred option is that it’s far simpler to administer than the extensions the pending bill would establish. And it’s free from cracks some families could slip through, e.g., the need for victims of domestic violence to share their problem with virtual strangers.

Instead of various criteria, each with its own tracking system and potential time limit, there’d be only two clear reasons for ending a family’s participation in TANF.

Either it moved out of the District or the parent gained more income than the maximum for eligibility. Parents would still have every reason in the world to prepare for jobs, look for them and do their best to keep them because cash benefits would remain very low.

But there’d always be a safety net for those who initially succeeded, then fell on hard times again. What we now know about the parents over the current time limit or soon to reach it shows how important that’s likely to be. (More about this in a followup.)


Clinton Unveils Anti-Poverty Reforms to Child Tax Credit

October 17, 2016

Clinton firmed up her agenda for children and families last week with a plan to reform the Child Tax Credit. Her announcement headlines it as a “middle class tax cut,” but it would deliver needed income support to poor and near-poor families with children, especially the very young.

We can see that Clinton attends to progressive advocates and members of Congress who attend to them. Basically, she’s borrowed from bills previously introduced in Congress, which borrowed from a proposal by the Center for American Progress.

They all would make the CTC available to working parents who can’t claim it now and deliver the greatest benefits to those with children in their early years.

CAP argues that those families’ needs are greatest — a combination of relatively low earnings, student debt and the costs of necessary things for babies, e.g., cribs, diapers.

One might add the costs of child care, which are extraordinarily high for infants and toddlers. They’re probably a bigger stretch for parents who’ve no student debt because they, at best, finished high school.

Low earnings alone surely justify the inclusion of a more robust CTC in an anti-poverty agenda — optimally, one that would boost the credit for all minor-age children.

The poverty rate for children under six was 17.3% last year, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. But it was 15.6% for older children. Their parents would fare better under Clinton’s plan too, though not as much better.

Her plan would do three major things. First, it would make the CTC available from the first dollar earned, rather than the first after $3,000 — a change that progressives have advocated for years.

Second, it would selectively increase the rate at which the CTC phases in. It’s now 15% of earnings over the threshold to claim it, up to a $1,000 per child maximum. Clinton would triple the rate for children under five.

And third, she’d double the maximum parents could claim for those kids.

So, for example, a single mother who has an infant and a toddler and works full time at the federal minimum wage would get $4,000, instead of about $1,800, i.e., less than the current full credit for the kids.

Now, the CTC, as you may know, is a refundable credit, like the heftier Earned Income Tax Credit. So if a parent owes less than zero when she claims it, plus deductions and the EITC, she gets a check (or the equivalent) from the Internal Revenue Service.

The refunds help account for the credit’s anti-poverty impact — and its potential. The CTC lifted about 3.1 million people, including some 1.7 million children over the poverty threshold in 2013, the Center on Budget reports.

An additional 13.7 million, including about 6.8 million children were less poor than they’d have otherwise been.

Clinton’s proposals would lift about 1.5 million more people out of poverty, the Center estimates. This figure includes roughly 400,000 children under five.

And about 5.2 million people, including 1.1 million young children in deep poverty, i.e., at or below half the applicable threshold, would also gain income. Still poor, but less so.

Not only poor families would benefit. Eligibility for the CTC would apparently plateau at the same maximum adjusted gross income and then phase out at the rate current law sets.

So a single parent with two children could get some tax reduction until her income exceeded about $115,000. A cut-off about $45,000 higher if she married and filed jointly.

The CTC, however, benefits primarily lower and moderate-income working families. It still would. But the Center for Tax Justice finds that eliminating the threshold and tripling the phase-in rate would deliver the greatest benefits to families in the bottom fifth.

The Center on Budget’s analysis indicates a tilt toward families way down in that fifth. About 77% of the people the CTC expansions would benefit are poor, according to its estimates.

The reforms would cost the federal government an estimated $208.7 billion over the first 10 years, if they became law this year, which, of course, they won’t.

The revenue losses would be a miniscule fraction of the federal budget, which was somewhere around $3.9 trillion for just last fiscal year.

And Clinton’s total tax plan would offset the CTC reforms many times over. The Tax Policy Center estimates revenue gains at about $1.4 trillion over the same 10 years its CTC estimate covers. More than 90% of the increase would come from the very wealthiest households.

So we’re highly unlikely to see the whole package pass in the next Congress. But say — oh, let’s say — that Clinton becomes our next President.

Might we see the CTC expansions or something like? Dylan Matthews at Vox thinks not, unless the Democrats win a majority in the House. Jordan Weissman at Slate views all Clinton’s tax proposals as DOA unless Democrats gain control of the Senate too.

I’m inclined to feel more hopeful. Democrats got the current CTC threshold converted from temporary (and expiring) to permanent as part of a big, urgently-needed budget deal.

That won’t be the last near-crisis because Congress tends to put off politically difficult decisions until the last minute. And a whole lot of decisions have become politically difficult as rifts within, as well as between the parties have grown.

Grasping at straws, it may seem. But I do think the CTC expansions have a chance. And I hope that when an actual bill emerges, they provide more relief for families with older children, as Clinton suggests they might.

 


Another Right-Wing Way to Decimate Anti-Poverty Programs

September 29, 2016

Seems that the notion of a universal basic income has gained traction since I last blogged on it. Or perhaps it’s regained traction, since it’s had moments in the spotlight dating back to the Nixon administration.

Two books, I think, account for this. One is by Andy Stern, the former president of the Service Employees International Union. The other, by Charles Murray, isn’t brand new, but rather a second version of his 2006 book.

Stern tees up a UBI because, he says, the growing uses of technology will create more low-wage jobs — and fewer jobs altogether — regardless of our traditional policy solutions, e.g., investments in infrastructure, minimum wage increases.

Murray also cites the impending replacement of human workers by robots and the like. But that’s not the real reason he argues for a UBI.

He comes at his proposal from the far right, just as Stern comes at his from the left. He’s indebted to conservative economist Milton Friedman, whose negative income tax bears some resemblance to his UBI.

But he’s also a surprising heir apparent of the traditionally liberal architect of Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan — an early stab at ending welfare as we knew it. And of liberals whose labels need no qualification — Martin Luther King, Jr., for example.

He’s among less strange bedfellows at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, which has him on the payroll and published his book. Helped him promote it too by hosting a dialogue between him and Jared Bernstein, who’s in a relatively comparable position at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

That’s what got me started on this post, though I’ve thought of returning to the UBI for some time. So here’s the pared-down final draft, focused solely on Murray — what he advocates, why and why we who advocate for low-income people should care.

Murray would have the federal government give every adult citizen $13,000 a year. Nothing, one notes, for children, though they do cost money.

Nor for immigrants who aren’t citizens, but live here legally, including those who qualify for major safety net benefits if they’re poor enough.

But there’d be no such benefits. Murray would blow away all so-called transfer programs, both safety net and social insurance, i.e., Social Security and Medicare.

His privileged adults would have to spend $3,000 of their UBI for health insurance — not nearly enough for a policy that kicks in before very high out-of-pocket costs. They could, of course, spend more for a better policy, if they had the money.

If they didn’t, they’d be left with $10,000 for all other expenses — $1,180 less than the current federal poverty line for a single person. Murray admits that’s not enough to live on.

He seems to think that more people would work — or work for longer hours and/or higher wages — because they’d no longer have the “disincentives” built into safety net programs, i.e., the fact that benefits phase out and ultimately end as incomes rise.

Those purported disincentives probably don’t cause the vast majority of poor and near-poor people to remain so when they could instead earn enough to support themselves and their families.

But they too aren’t the main reason Murray wants to do away with all safety net and social insurance programs — obviously, since the latter mostly benefit people whom no one expects to work.

Not, of course, instead of donating to faith-based and other nonprofits that help our poor neighbors — many of which we taxpayers also collectively support through grants from federal programs.

The civil society Murray refers to is somewhat like the one House Speaker Paul Ryan claims our federal programs crowd out. But it’s also individuals. He suggests, for example, that a guy who’s got just that $10,000 a year could live with his girlfriend. (Not making this up.)

He also, however, thinks that the $10,000 would halt the declining marriage rate — and enable people, notably women to choose not to work. So they could “contribute their social capital” as they don’t now.

Set aside, if we can, this hostility to women in the workforce and the nostalgia for a golden age that never was. The Murray-type UBI may seem appealing mainly because it’s simple.

We do have a lot of programs exclusively for poor and near-poor people, though not so many as conservative opponents claim. And they do form a complex maze of differing eligibility requirements, administering agencies and the like.

All gone. Instead, a monthly deposit in your bank account. (Yes, you would have to have one.) And if you’re not dirt poor, you’d better keep some of your UBI there because Murray’s plan includes “clawback” tax on incomes over $30,000.

It would nevertheless transfer more of what we pay in taxes to people who need the extra income less. At the same time, more would need more than they do now — the elderly especially, though not us only.

One can imagine a UBI that replaces only programs for low-income people and gives them enough to live on, plus some to save for emergencies and investments that will make life better for them and their kids, e.g., a college education, a supplement (not replacement) for Social Security retirement benefits.

That’s what King had in mind for his “guaranteed income,” which would have been pegged to “the median for our society” and increased as total national income grew.

But even a UBI lower than Murray’s would cost an enormous amount. At $10,000 a year, it would consume about three-quarters of the entire federal budget — and nearly all the tax revenues the federal government collects, according to Center on Budget estimates.

So, of course, there’d be no money for safety net programs — or many other things we value, e.g. public education, medical research. And, as Bernstein noted, our economy would lose the corrective effects our responsive safety net programs provide during downturns.

Well, our federal policymakers won’t replace all our safety net and social insurance programs any time soon. Large majorities support them — Social Security and Medicare most of all, but the principle underlying safety net programs too.

So why should we concern ourselves with anything like the Murray plan? In part because it’s a better arrow in the quiver of anti-government types like him — and has been for a long time.

But also because versions, more and less fleshed out, span the political spectrum. And one can see how some form of guaranteed income could help reduce poverty.