Pres. Reagan casually mentions UBI (Universal Basic Income) late in his presidency?

I agree. Reagan saying, “Why not brown-bag it once in a while?” is simply one data point. And one swallow does not a Summer make, and all that.

All the same, for this ATL, I’m counting on the fact that Reagan had an artist-like personally in which he seemed to have an ability to focus and laser beam in on particular topics.
 
at least two questions:

1) how could there have been a bigger and better conversation on the future of jobs during the 1991 recession, a higher trajectory all the way around, and

2) what are the major factors in the rise of right-wing anger, say, from 1990 to '93?
 
and going back to 1989 . . .
NO VOTE ON RAISE, HOUSE WHIP SAYS [set to automatically take effect Feb. 8, 1989 ! !]

New York Times (archives), Susan Rasky, Jan. 25, 1989

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/25/us/no-vote-on-raise-house-whip-says.html

'A Democratic House leader said today that the House would not vote to halt a proposed 50 percent Congressional pay increase set to take effect automatically at 12:01 A.M. Feb. 8. . . '

' . . . The pay increase, which would raise annual salaries for Federal judges, members of Congress and certain senior executive branch officials to $135,000 from the current $89,500, was proposed last December by a bipartisan commission and recommended by President Ronald Reagan in the budget he presented to Congress before leaving office. Mr. Reagan also proposed a ban on certain types of income members of Congress receive for outside speaking engagements [merely proposed, and not part of the package?], which was endorsed by Congressional leaders. . . '

' . . . This arrangement, widely reported in the press in the last month and a half, has drawn protests from such Congressional watchdog groups as Common Cause and the Ralph Nader organization, Public Citizen. Lawmakers said today that they have been deluged with angry letters from constituents opposed to the pay raise [Emphasis added]. . . '

' . . . A group of 35 House members, 30 of them Republicans [Emphasis added], wrote today to the Speaker of the House, Jim Wright, urging him to demand a vote on the proposed increase ''out of respect for the American taxpayer.'' . . '

' . . . Legislation to block the pay increase is to be introduced in the Senate on Wednesday by Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa [Emphasis added]. . . '
Yes, it is galling that they set up this tricky maneuver that they're going to get the raise unless they take action against it.

And how much opposition is almost a measure of public anger and/or hope for the future. And even if an honest Congress is one of the best bargains we can get, so be it, people were still pissed off about the pay raise, and the trickiness sure didn't help matters.

And notice that 1989 Democratic leadership in both the House and Senate seem to be behind the curve, and the Republicans more ahead of the curve. Even though I think Common Cause and Public Citizen are liberal organizations. So yes, maybe things could have played out differently.
 
Last edited:
at least two questions:

1) how could there have been a bigger and better conversation on the future of jobs during the 1991 recession, a higher trajectory all the way around, and

2) what are the major factors in the rise of right-wing anger, say, from 1990 to '93?
1) Not happening. Baby boomers were ascendent and we're talking a generation that lacks empathy as a whole.
2) Right-wing anger isn't the issue here, the democrats developing a technocratic, globalist wing -- your Bill Clintons and in later years OBamas/Clintons are the bigger factor stopping the start any actual conversation on UBI/healthcare/jobs
 
. . . bigger factor stopping the start any actual conversation on UBI/healthcare/jobs
Bill Clinton in '92 was all about jobs, and Obama in '08 was all about rebuilding the middle-class, and after Sept. '08 and the financial institution near-meltdown, rebuilding the overall economy in general.

True, in both cases the early momentum ran aground on the shoals of healthcare reform, but all the same, healthcare had been something each had talked about during the campaign.
 
Last edited:

(audio only)

youtube: President Reagan's Radio Address to the Nation on Education - 4/30/83

Toward the end, Reagan talked directly to students.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=41259


' . . . I would like to close with a special challenge to America's students who may think I just want to pile on more homework. Your generation is coming of age in one of the most challenging and exciting times in our history. High technology is revolutionizing our industries, renewing our economy, and promising new hope and opportunity in the years ahead. . . . . There's a dazzling new world [Emphasis added] waiting for you. My generation only discovered it. But you, by summoning all the faith, effort, and discipline you can muster can claim it for America.

'Until next week, thanks for listening, and God bless you.'
 
And so . . .

when high tech and the "service economy" isn't creating that many new jobs by 1988, this might be one factor pushing Reagan basically to level with people, especially kids, to talk frankly about the job situation we're facing and about a variety of good options while we still have plenty of time and a wide range of choices, still in his usual optimistic fashion.
 
Bill Clinton in '92 was all about jobs, and Obama in '08 was all about rebuilding the middle-class, and after Sept. '08 and the financial institution near-meltdown, rebuilding the overall economy in general.

True, in both cases the early momentum ran aground on the shoals of healthcare reform, but all the same, healthcare had been something each had talked about during the campaign.
Right. A conservation about jobs. Not much of any room for UBI as long as that's the focus of discussion as opposed to "Okay, we're not going to be able to create x number of "middle class" jobs, now what? We still need to keep consumption up somehow..."
 
Top