~by Victoria Riley, GreeneCountyNewsOnline
There’s still close to a year to go before the presidential caucuses in Iowa. News media are starting to count down days. Republicans and even some Democrats are already exclaiming, “Enough already!”
I’m not one of them. I didn’t mind the abundance of Republican candidates in 2015 and I don’t mind the abundance of Democratic candidates now.
I think every one of the candidates had or will have something to add to a national conversation about the future of our country. It’s brainstorming by some of the most dedicated, smartest, and ego-driven people on how we can move forward in ways most beneficial to the most people.
Candidates are all being asked about immigration and border security. Candidate John Delaney has the best suggestion I’ve heard about dealing with the proposed border wall.
When he visited AAI in Jefferson Jan. 31 he called the government shutdown, which was caused by failed negotiations about funding for a proposed wall, “stupid” and a “big mistake,” noting how costly the shutdown was to all government agencies and employees.
His suggestion – let the House decide how much to spend, and then have a task force of experts on border security and immigration develop the best way to use the allotted money. Agree before the task force starts that its plan will stand. Once the plan is written, implement it.
Well, of course. It’s so simple.
Politicians have ideas about policy, but they aren’t experts on border security. Maybe the Great Wall of Mexico is what’s needed, or maybe a picket fence with drone surveillance is enough. Who knows more about it than people who work at the border, engineers and techies?
Delaney’s suggestion is worth talking about, particularly as it could be used to get through other contentious issues.
Candidate Andrew Yang certainly raises eyebrows and gets mutters of “you’ve got to be kidding” with his proposal to provide every American citizen a basic income of $1,000 a month. He made it sound sensible when he explained it during a visit in Jefferson Feb. 1.
Yang is very smart and very personable, but he’s also very likely ahead of his time. Americans aren’t ready for his Freedom Dividend even if Alaskans have enjoyed a (much smaller) petroleum dividend for years.
But, Yang’s reason for proposing a universal basic income is valid and ought to be part of the campaign conversation.
He’s worried about people now working at jobs that will be replaced by automation. He wants to provide them a bit of financial security while the economy transitions, and to provide “ordinary” folks with money to spend to improve their family’s lives and their community’s economic vitality.
A week doesn’t go by that we don’t see news of evolving technology. We marvel to see robots the size of a Radio Flyer wagon delivering groceries to suburban homes. We’re amazed to see drones deliver Amazon packages. But, the robots and drones have replaced people who earned a wage delivering things.
Even without talking about the obvious peril Amazon and e-commerce have put on Main Streets across the country, we can certainly talk about – we need to talk about – the ever-increasing pace at which technology and automation are eliminating jobs for middle-skilled and unskilled workers.
We need to talk about the future of 3.5 million truckers who could be replaced by 350,000 tele-operators running autonomous semi tractor-trailers in the years ahead. Truck driving is the leading occupation in 29 states. We need to talk with candidates about transitioning to a new economy without truck drivers, production lines, and even fast food servers.
Ordering a Big Mac at a touch screen kiosk is the beginning of automation in that industry, and it’s right here in central Iowa.
Educators talk about preparing young people for careers of the future. What about their parents? That’s what Andrew Yang offers for conversation.
That’s a talking point for all of us.
