Coronavirus’ impact on Pennsylvania’s economy

One thing nearly all Pennsylvanians agree on regarding Covid-19 is concern about how it will impact the economy. In a poll taken by Baldwin Wallace University and reported by BizNewsPA.com, 88 percent of Pennsylvanians said that they are either very or somewhat concerned about the impact that Covid-19 will have on the economy, while 10 percent said they were not too concerned or not concerned at all about the virus’s impact. Nearly half of those polled think the economy has gotten worse in the last year, and more than half think it will get worse over the next year.

Not surprisingly, three quarters of those polled said they are very or somewhat concerned about the impact that Covid-19 will have on their personal finances, while one in five said they were not too concerned or not concerned at all. After watching the stock market set records for one-day losses, it’s hard to believe anyone whose retirement savings depend all or partly on investments in stocks could be “not concerned at all.”

About the virus itself, two thirds believe the worst is yet to come, while 10 percent believe the worst is behind us, and 11 percent believe that the virus is not likely to be a major problem. Still, two-thirds are worried that they or someone in their immediate family might catch Covid-19. A quarter of those polled think the threat posed by Covid-19 is blown out of proportion.

Two thirds of those polled approve of the way Governor Tom Wolf is handling the situation; fewer than half approve of the way Trump is handling it.

Republican Senator Mitt Romney was the first person in Congress to propose that “Every American adult should immediately receive $1,000 to help ensure families and workers can meet their short-term obligations and increase spending in the economy.” Nearly three quarters of Pennsylvanians approve of that proposal. And in fact, the economic stimulus package that Congress passed provides a one-time $1,200 check for an individual making up to $75,000 per year, or $2,400 for couples earning less than $150,000. After those amounts, it will be scaled down until it reaches a $99,000 income threshold for an individual or $198,000 for a couple and then phased out altogether. It also provides an additional $500 per child.

This one-time guaranteed income for nearly every American is, of course, in response to the economic crisis caused by Covid-19. But those with low or lack of income are always in economic crisis. It’s time to provide a consistent, guaranteed minimum income for everyone.

A guaranteed minimum income is an unconditional grant to every citizen regardless of wealth or age (some versions of a minimum income would not send checks to those in the top tax brackets or receiving Social Security). The amount would be small enough so that it would not encourage a high percentage of people to immediately leave the work force, but also large enough to allow all Americans to pay for necessities.

The guaranteed minimum income is not a left-right issue; it is not welfare for the poor or the rich. Liberals see it as a means of lifting millions of Americans out of poverty, while many conservatives and libertarians favor it as a means of decreasing government intervention and promoting individual choice in spending decisions. Milton Friedman, Richard Nixon, and Martin Luther King have promoted the concept.

Conservatives believe that creating an income floor is an effective way to fight poverty that would also reduce government spending and intrusion. For example, former Republican Congressman Paul Ryan proposed allowing states to combine different forms of federal anti-poverty funding (SNAP/food stamps, housing assistance, etc.) into a single funding stream. Conservative intellectual Charles Murray has proposed eliminating all other welfare programs, including Social Security and Medicare, and substituting an annual cash grant to everyone age 21 and older. It would eliminate 79 means-tested benefit programs which provide cash, food, housing assistance, medical care, social services, training, and targeted education aid to poor and low-income Americans, and it would abolish the large bureaucracies responsible for administering the programs, which have a multitude of rules, thresholds, and applications.

Research into guaranteed minimum income overwhelmingly supports the concept. A World Bank analysis of 19 studies found that cash transfers have been demonstrated to improve education and health outcomes and alleviate poverty. An MIT/Harvard analysis of seven cash transfer trials found “no systematic evidence that cash transfer programs discourage work.” The Brooks World Poverty Institute found that “money transfers to the poor are used primarily for basic needs.” Such programs have been shown to lead to reductions in crime and in malnutrition and infant mortality. With less stress at home, children do better in school.

Andrew Yang, one of the Democratic candidates for president, proposed paying Freedom Dividends, a monthly payment of $1,000 to every adult in the country. We really need that now.

Mark Berg is a community activist in Adams County and a proud Liberal. His email address is MABerg175@Comcast.net.