In politics it is claimed that the important things are not what candidates say, but what voters hear. Hillary Clinton’s memoir, What Happened, finesses this by suggesting that it might be as vital to understand what politicians considered before discarding. One surprising policy proposal the former Democratic presidential candidate contemplated was a form of universal basic income (UBI). Mrs Clinton eventually backed away – but now thinks she should have “thrown caution to the wind”. Her campaign suffered from the lack of inspiring policies to energise voters. For the most centrist, wonkiest politician of her generation to think of replacing incrementalism with such a big idea is both welcome and instructive.
UBI has been seen as a utopian dream that dissolves when one is awake to the pitfalls of paying people to do nothing and the practicality of finding the money for it. Mrs Clinton favoured Alaska’s UBI model where a fund financed by the state’s oil boom pays out a yearly dividend to every citizen. It’s a popular policy, delivering more than $4,000 a year to every household. It has reduced poverty and has helped make the state one of the most equal in the US. The cash is not seen as encouraging indolence, with voters viewing it as bounty from shared resources that helps the poorest most. Not every state has an oil boom to tap. Mrs Clinton tried, and failed, to make the numbers work by looking at spectrum levies. But if data is the new oil, why not tax the Googles of this world for the use of customers’ data? These could capitalise a fund that makes annual payouts. Citizens could then see they had collectively traded their privacy for something more tangible than tweets. Tech firms might squeal. But one of the fund’s biggest contributors would be Facebook – its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, backs UBI as an idea. He, and others, could now do so with their cash.
