Why Republicans are fighting the basic-income programs many cities and states are adopting: 'Is money a birthright now?'

• Republican lawmakers from various states are seeking to ban guaranteed basic-income programs.
• These programs typically provide $500 to $1,000 monthly payments to low-income Americans for 1-2 years.
• Opponents argue these programs are costly for taxpayers and foster dependency on government.

As guaranteed basic-income programs get more popular, opposition is also on the rise.

In five states, Republican politicians are trying to ban programs that provide low-income people with monthly payments of $500 to $1,000 for a year or two, with no strings attached. Participants in recent pilot programs have reported using the money to pay rent and utilities, buy groceries, and pay off credit card debt.

Dia Broncucia and Justin Searls — participants in the Denver Basic Income Project — received $6,500 upfront and $500 monthly for a year. The payments helped them rent an apartment, buy a car, and improve their mental health.

Opponents have called programs like the Denver Basic Income Project and Austin Guaranteed Income Pilot "insane" and "socialist" and point to the fact that some of them are taxpayer-funded.

Business Insider reached out to politicians leading efforts to prohibit these programs. Most did not respond to a request for comment. State Rep. John Gillette, a lawmaker in Arizona, told BI that GBI programs are "socialist" and a "killer for the economy."

"Is money a birthright now? Do we just get born and get money from the government? Because I think the Founding Fathers would say that is very contrary to our capitalist system and encouraging people to work," Gillette said.

Republicans say basic-income programs would make people reliant on the government

In the past year, Arizona, Iowa, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin legislators have introduced bills to ban income programs, arguing they are too costly and could make participants too reliant on the government.

Several lawmakers, like Arizona's Gillette, believe that income programs would discourage work and could raise taxes.

"You get out, you get a job, you make money, you pay taxes, you live the American dream," Gillette told BI. "We were never designed to have the federal government supply a salary."

In Arizona, which has the fourth-highest rate of homelessness nationwide, the Republican-majority House of Representatives voted in favor of House Bill 2375, which would ban guaranteed basic-income programs. The bill must pass in the Arizona Senate, comprised of 16 Republicans and 14 Democrats.

The legislation states it would restrict "any program where persons are provided with regular, periodic cash payments that are unearned and that may be used for any purpose."

GOP Rep. Lupe Diaz, who authored the bill, specifically attacked a 2022 Phoenix program that gave $1,000 to 1,000 low-income families each month for a year, pulling from federal relief funds.

Gillette noted that such programs could damage social safety nets. On February 19, Gillette posted on X that income programs give "free money to lazy slobs."

"I never thought we would be going down the socialist road," Gillette told BI. "I spent 35 years in the Army fighting communism, fighting terrorism. Now we're slipping. The left is pushing us toward the socialist program."

He said most cities already have other kinds of short-term programs to help low-income people, and people who are unemployed or not enrolled in Social Security are doing so "by choice."

The Arizona news comes shortly after Iowa GOP state Rep. Steve Holt introduced a bill banning basic-income programs, which he called "socialism on steroids" at a recent hearing. House Study Bill 552 would prohibit Iowa cities and counties from "providing guaranteed income programs" and threaten programs that don't comply with prosecution by the state attorney general.

At the hearing, Rep. Skyler Wheeler noted that these "insane" programs would make participants more reliant on the government, incentivize them not to seek jobs, and strip taxpayers of money.

A recently introduced bill in South Dakota would ban basic-income programs at the state level and prevent municipal governments from creating local programs. The policy passed in the Senate Committee and is waiting to be heard by the state Senate.

GBI programs "undercut the dignity in earning a dollar, and they're a one-way ticket to government dependency," Republican state Sen. John Wiik, the bill's sponsor, said at a February committee meeting.

Such debates are also happening in Texas, where State Sen. Paul Bettencourt sent a letter in January to the state attorney arguing that a Houston-area program that gives participants $500 a month for 18 months is unconstitutional. Bettencourt noted that Uplift Harris, which received over 48,000 applications within the first three days, could violate a section of the Texas constitution stating the legislature cannot give counties the authority to grant public money for individual aid.

"They are not a Home Rule city," Bettencourt told Houston Public Media. "They cannot create new laws themselves. And I don't see anywhere since I've been in office that the state has granted them authority to have a program like Uplift Harris."

Ivanna Neri, senior director of partnerships at UpTogether, which partnered with Austin for the pilot, told BI that attempts to ban basic-income projects don't often consider that these programs could have long-term impacts on wealth inequality and could power the economy.

"We understand that the Attorney General has been asked to issue a formal opinion about the constitutionality of publicly funded guaranteed income payments administered at the county level in Texas," Neri said. "Harris County is vigorously defending its guaranteed income initiative and has pledged to continue doing so. UpTogether remains committed to partnering with governments to trust and invest in families."

In Wisconsin, lawmakers proposed banning programs using public funds that provide people with no-strings-attached payments. Gov. Tony Evers vetoed the bill in December 2023. The Madison Forward Fund, which launched in 2022, gave 150 Madison households $500 monthly payments.

Despite opposition, basic-income program participants have seen benefits

Pilot income programs have remained divisive with policymakers, but several major cities have seen positive results.

The Austin Basic Income Project has reasoned that providing funding to lower-income residents has and can continue to give people second chances. Austin was the first Texas city to launch a taxpayer-funded guaranteed-income program, which served 135 low-income families by giving them $1,000 monthly. While not everyone in the program was able to secure stable housing or jobs, many could at least survive more comfortably.

Stephanie Hendon, 34, lived in a shelter while her husband was living on the street, making it difficult for them to raise their four kids. After a year of payments from the Austin Guaranteed Income Pilot, she had a three-bedroom apartment, a new car, clothes for her children, a new job, and new financial strategies for the future.

Other programs in Minneapolis, Northern Virginia, Boston, St. Louis, and Oregon have all yielded similarly encouraging results for assisting low-income and housing-insecure residents.

"For us, it is a time to really act and start rethinking the poverty alleviation programs that we have and really think through, is this a more efficient way on how to support people?" Neri said. "They are pointing to that, and I think there are a lot of randomized control studies that are happening across the country to really prove what happens if you do this approach versus not doing anything."

In 2020, former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey pledged $15 million to Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, which helped 25 cities and towns nationwide begin basic-income programs. Durham, NC's mayor pro tempore, Mark-Anthony Middleton, previously told BI that the $1 million in funding for its program assisted formerly incarcerated residents.

"We're going to have to pay for these people one way or another, either in incarceration, benefits, homeless shelters, whatever it is," he said. "It seems to me that spending more money up front makes more sense than housing folks, monitoring and feeding them, and taking care of their healthcare in prison."