OPINION: Guaranteed basic income would create more efficient social safety net

Professor Butts and the Self-Operating Napkin was one of the more famous of artist Rube Goldberg’s cartoons in the early 1900s. His cartoons told the tale of Professor Lucifer Gorgonzola Butts, an Einstein-haired inventor who whipped up fantastical chain reaction machines turning the simplest tasks – such as licking a stamp or opening a door – into ridiculously overcomplicated three-ring circuses of completely unnecessary and super silly steps.

In this particular cartoon, Professor Butts has conjured up an invention to solve the ordinary problem of getting a drop of soup on his chin after he’s taken a spoonful. Easy enough. Put a napkin in your hand, bend the elbow, wipe, and repeat. The definition of elegant efficiency. But why be so straightforward and boring?

The fun begins when the professor lifts the soup spoon to his mouth. The spoon is tied to a string attached to a ladle that lobs a cracker up to tempt a toucan, who then dives for the cracker. The toucan’s movement pours seeds into a bucket that becomes heavy enough to pull on a cord that then lights a lighter that launches a rocket with a razor attached that cuts a string. The cut string frees a pendulum attached to a napkin that wipes Professor Butt’s soup-splashed chin.

Rube Goldberg’s magical contraptions make you forget about the entire point of the invention, in this case, blotting soup off of a chin. If you dare to build this madcap apparatus, you might discover that it is not exactly efficient, breaks down a lot, and is more expensive than the more direct route. (Alexa, what is a fair price for a toucan?)

The challenge is that the Self-Operating Napkin requires perfect execution of each stage. The toucan has a wing ache, and the machine no longer delivers on its promise. The wind in the room blows the cracker off course, and the napkin never makes it to its gooey target. There is no room for external variables such as human error or a change of weather. One little wrinkle, and the machine no longer serve its intended purpose of keeping Professor Butts’ chin clean.

Can we all agree that the direct napkin-to-chin method with arm and hand is more cost-effective and will generate a greater return on investment than the Self-Operating Napkin machine?

Rube Goldberg machines are not something anyone would ever build to get something done. There are just too many ways for things to go awry. Yet our entire social safety net is a giant broken Rube Goldberg machine.

A stand-in for Professor Butts

Let’s put a single working mother in the place of Professor Butts. Instead of a napkin machine, let’s make the goal of the machine for her to be able to have a full-time job and afford food, gas, rent, and any other basic human needs and provide for her children. Nothing extravagant, just enough.

Let’s take Desirae. Last year, when New Mexico Appleseed interviewed people at food banks around the state, asking what the biggest challenges were to have enough food, shelter, health care, and money to navigate life, we found Desirae.

Desirae is a single mother to a son. She and her boy live in Albuquerque but commute to Santa Fe for her job and her son’s school. Their daily commute from Albuquerque to work and school is 56 miles each way.

Desirae told us that she works all the way in Santa Fe because the difference in minimum wage between Santa Fe ($14.60 per hour) and Albuquerque ($12.00 per hour) is significant. That $2.60 an hour is needed.

“It sucks paying $20 a day in gas, but I make more in Santa Fe,” she says. She estimates that just an additional $1,000 a month would nearly cover all their basic needs.

“Between gas and rent, it’s hard to get by, and then there’s food. That’s expensive, too. I finally just started working two and three jobs to be able to afford a place for me and my son,” she shares.

A natural human reaction might be, “Wow, this is profoundly unfair. How can she not even be able to afford an apartment with a full-time job?” and “What will happen to her and her son if one of the revenue streams falls through? How can she even parent when she has three jobs?”

There are Desiraes all over the state who are trying to do everything that is asked of them, but the money flowing in is greatly dwarfed by the money they need to have a decent life. Of those we surveyed, the majority described scenarios of working multiple jobs and still being unable to keep up with the increasing cost of living (66.3%), and many said they had to decide between needs each month (26.5%). Others experienced unstable work hours (21.4%), lack of income due to lay-offs or retirement (9.2%), the burden of income tax on already low checks (5.1%), and missing days due to health issues (1%).

So that begs the question, who can help her? And why should anyone help?

The fool’s errands

That’s what federal and state support programs are meant for. Some of them are amazing and incredibly helpful, while others are completely useless (let’s save that question for a different day). Almost all of them, however, require sending under-resourced and overwhelmed people through that same three-ring circus that could be significantly more effective and less expensive.

Federal programs are the world’s worst Rube Goldberg machine.

If the point was to ensure that every human being in the country could exist above poverty levels, the programs have failed. They are inefficient and expensive to operate. Programs offer much less money than people need, and the ROI for trying to get the proverbial toucan to eat the proverbial cracker is low.

Programs require extensive documentation and frequent recertification. Asset limits mean that you can’t save for the future because you lose support in the present. The Women, Infants, and Children program (WIC) requires the mother to give a blood sample in order to be certified.

Desirae was approved for SNAP, what used to be food stamps, and Medicaid after a “horrible” experience with the application process.

“It was well over two months before I even had a phone interview with them,” she said. “We hardly ate because we didn’t have food. I just received papers saying there was another delay because they needed something else. If you call, you’re on hold for an hour, too. I got a letter yesterday that Medicaid is delayed.”

She gave up on the federal Section 8 housing list after waiting for eight years with no progress.

A better way

Most people (66%) we surveyed stated that even $1,000 a month would be life-changing for them. Instead of subjecting Desiraes to the painfully inefficient Self-Operating Safety Net machine, let’s help her in a different way by giving her the cash she needs to meet her standard of living.

Given the amount of money taxpayers put toward government oversight of these programs, providing some form of guaranteed basic income could reduce administrative costs and streamline support, allowing people like Desirae to lead more stable and productive lives. And more stability means higher graduation rates, healthier children, and a better New Mexico.

This money is spent in communities on things like groceries, car repairs, and supporting local businesses. It reduces the strain on public health systems and creates a more efficient and cost-effective social safety net.

And for those of you worried that this cash would go to something nefarious, like drugs or alcohol (or a toucan), global studies show that when people are provided cash assistance, they spend it on exactly what you would hope – they make their lives better.

Jennifer Ramo is founder and executive director of New Mexico Appleseed.