Updated: May 16, 2022
I wrote a couple of posts about Asset-Based Welfare (ABW), arguing the case and showcasing a test case theory. In this post, I'll recap previous blog posts and provide an update of the evolution of the idea.
The idea started from the need to get funds / resources to people that need them, specifically for me it was my Nana, who was on disability before retiring, and the fixed income they give her now isn't survivable if she didn't have my grandpa. Ultimately, we will have to demand major changes to welfare and how the government helps and what it thinks is helping. In Part 1, I explain how a federally-sponsored WES Rose Program could establish, acquire, and leverage assets to stabilize households and eradicate poverty within America. By the end I was proposing the first draft of the WES Rose Program. Part 2 explored more of philosophy and the behavioral psychology intertwined in the subject of welfare. The reason why an ABW approach is preferred, is rather than relying primarily on state managed social transfers to counter the risks of poverty, individuals accept greater responsibility for their own welfare needs.
ABW is a policy approach that claims the individual ownership of assets is important for individual welfare. The term asset signifies all kinds of resources that help generate revenue as well as receivables. Assets are resources which often help to reduce expenses and enhance profitability. Examples of assets are cash and cash equivalents, account receivables, inventory, investments, PPE (property, plant, and equipment), vehicles, furniture, and patents. Some benefits assets provide are stabilized households by serving as a cushion against income shocks, assets stimulate development of other assets, including human capital; assets enable specialization and risk-taking, assets increase personal efficiency and social influence, assets increase political participation and community involvements, and assets enhance the welfare of offsprings.
This part (Part 3) will focus on why it needs to be private/ federally sponsored, and ways to secure it. I want participants to know they're in control and they have a say in their money. They will be able to return their WES: RT anytime up to 3 years, for a refund minus any distributions. Meaning they cannot keep any distributions, but can have their ticket price back. After 3 years they will be able to return the WES:RT for a full refund of their original purchase price and keep all distributions. Buying the tickets isn't as much of a problem, there will be a limited supply and only sold in batches for certain occasions. Maybe even auctioned for charity. Records are to be kept electronically and physically, with masters secured off grid. Protocols and standards will have to be developed to organize a network for distribution of funds. PM will appear to be essential for this part of the program. Ledger will be kept with higher management, and they will complete fund distributions. The PM will serve to exchange and transfer funds when needed.
I have a potential anchor, now I just need to figure out distribution logistics. The anchor is the centerpiece of the Asset-Based Basic Income (AB-BI). I would call it Universal Basic Income, but this program comes with limits and exceptions. Update on the anchor’s status, currently, the portfolio has nine holdings with two possible additions. Those holdings being in: utilities, CA bonds, ETFs, foreign, farm, medals, treasuries, water, and cash. CMV $4,501.74. Average dividend yield is 3.45%. Annual income is $136.63. Currently able to upkeep three individuals, paying them a $10 quarterly distribution. With the goal/ mandate to expand to include more individuals and monthly rebates, instead of quarterly.
The AB-BI program should be a part of a private/or federally sponsored company, in order to have access to The Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), a voluntary program created by statute, began in 1977 as an investment alternative for California's local governments and special districts and it continues today under Treasurer Fiona Ma's administration. Also there’s the Pooled Money Investment Account (PMIA), where the State Treasurer invests taxpayers’ money to manage the State’s cash flow and strengthen the financial security of local governmental entities. The Investment Division of the State Treasurer’s Office manages the PMIA under statutory authority granted by California Government Code sections 16430 and 16480.4. The Pooled Money Investment Board governs the PMIA. The State Treasurer chairs the Board, which also includes the State Controller and the State Director of Finance. The PMIA has three primary sources of funds: the State general fund; special funds held by State agencies; and monies deposited by cities, counties and other entities into the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF). PMIA moneys can be invested only in the following categories: U.S. government securities, securities of federally-sponsored agencies, domestic corporate bonds, interest-bearing time deposits in California banks, savings and loan associations and credit unions, prime-rated commercial paper, repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements, security loans, banker's acceptances, negotiable certificates of deposit and loans to various bond funds All securities are purchased under the authority of Government Code Section 16430 and 16480.4. The State Treasurer's Office takes delivery of all securities purchased on a delivery versus payment basis using a third-party custodian. All investments are purchased at market and a market valuation is conducted monthly. Under Federal Law, the State of California cannot declare bankruptcy, thereby allowing the Government Code Section 16429.3 to stand. This Section states that "moneys placed with the Treasurer for deposit in the LAIF by cities, counties, special districts, nonprofit corporations, or qualified quasi-governmental agencies shall not be subject to either of the following: (a) transfer or loan pursuant to Sections 16310, 16312, or 16313, or (b) impoundment or seizure by any state official or state agency." I think it would be a natural progression to have those funds invest and collaborate with WES: RS / AB-BI Program to establish a social safety net.
The part I'm most excited about is, Customize Employment: Work done for a private or individual customer (especially as opposed to factory or wholesale work); work done to order. Employment the way we have known it up until Covid, is over, changes are coming fast. In my opinion, customized employment aka gig work is able to connect people to access money to fund personal expenses, through gigs/contracted work provided by small business and charities. By providing individuals access to a selection of tasks/contracted work participants are equipped with freedom of wage control, with a majority of those jobs focused on tasks instead of time requirements like an 8 hour shift. The addition of customized employment dismantles a lot of opposition by allowing people with freedom and dignity in the innovative and adaptive labor market. Customized employment will be offered by the PM and funds will be transferred to the participant's WES:RS account / ledger and used as a tool to ensure goal completion and AB-BI. Customized employment is a way to provide participants with the opportunity to be self-sufficient and self-reliant while making an income / funds all while still promoting moral capitalism and getting money in the hands of people.
UPDATED PROGRAM: The individual first signs up for the program (either Solo, Tier 1 or 2). Next step, either place a down payment for the W.E.S. Shield or purchase a Rose ticket. No distributions or interest until ticket is purchased. Interest will be added to the ledger and compounded quarterly. The distributions are deposited into the WES:RS account. Once "HOLD" requirements are met, participants can withdraw funds with a PM or predetermined method. Cash from ticket sales go towards the cash stockpile until invested into Rose portfolios. Until that time, PM will assist organizing financial house and dismantling debt obligations and expenses. With the additional practice of customized employment, participates are offered opportunities to earn funds to further financial ease.
Bridge before a parachute. Our current welfare system isn't designed to actually uplift people out of poverty, it is designed to keep them there and shame them for it. So much like our rehabilitation system, our welfare system isn't really doing what it should be doing and what it is meant to be doing, which is to provide stability for people so they can get out of poverty. There are plenty of programs out there on how to combat poverty involving ABW and other things like Baby Bonds or what I have suggested on another blog post, Woodrow Bailout. Our political leaders simply need to adopt those policies here or at least test them here; or in cases like California, the laws (government codes) are already on the books, so they just need to use them. As Dr. King Jr. once said, “There is nothing new about poverty, what is new however, is that we have the resources to get rid of it.” The next focus will be to further enhance the idea of customized employment to perfectly compliment the program.