Breitbart reports that Oakland, California, this week, started a guaranteed income program aimed at, among other things, eliminating “racial disparities.”
As we will see, what the program actually does is fight racism with racism.
The guaranteed income program is being called the “Oakland resilient Families Program.”
In order to qualify for the program, an Oakland resident must have at least one child under the age of 18, and the income of that family must be either equal to or less than the median income for the area, which is about $59,000 for a family of three. It is being reported, though, that at least half of those selected will have a family income of $30,000 or less, again for a family of three.
If selected, then the family will get a guaranteed income of $500 a month for at least eighteen months, adding up to $9,000. That money will not be taxed, and recipients will be able to use it however they want.
The funds, according to reports, come from private donations, not taxes. So far, the program is said to have raised almost $7 million.
Who will be chosen?
It is being reported that 600 families will be chosen at random.
But, a document released by Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf states:
Who is this for? Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) (i.e. groups with the greatest wealth disparities per the Oakland Equity Index) with low incomes and at least 1 child under 18, regardless of documentation status. The term “family” is defined broadly to recognize that families come in all shapes and sizes.
In other words, white people in poverty appear to be left out.
Schaaf further stated, in a statement released about the program, that “the poverty we all witness today is not a personal failure, it is a systems failure. Guaranteed income is one of the most promising tools for systems change, racial equity, and economic mobility we’ve seen in decades.”
She added, “I’m proud to work with such committed local partners to build a new system that can help undo centuries of economic and racial injustice, and point us all toward a more just society.”
This, of course, begs the questions: is it right to try to “undo” economic and racial injustice by way of economic and racial injustice? And, can our society become more just by way of injustice?