BY TIM TAPP
On August 10, 2019, Elon Musk once again made waves on Twitter. But this time, he wasn’t flaunting his disdain for the SEC or posting obscure memes. Instead, he was endorsing Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang. The three-word tweet, “I support Yang,” garnering a whopping 18,000 retweets, 94,000 likes, and a personal thank-you from the candidate himself.
The tech billionaire’s support for Yang lit the Twittersphere aflame, generating a flurry of press coverage and buzz. That’s undoubtedly good news for Yang, who is polling in the low single digits and has so far struggled to resonate with Democratic voters. In fact, some have even speculated that the announcement is just what the Democratic presidential contender needs to build momentum moving forward.
And yet, despite all the excitement surrounding the impromptu endorsement, Musk’s decision to support his fellow businessman is no big surprise. Here’s why:
The foundational principle of Yang’s campaign is the concept of a universal basic income—or as he likes to call it, the freedom dividend. Essentially, Yang wants to supply every single American adult with $1,000 a month in taxpayer-funded income, no questions asked. The proposal is, of course, totally ridiculous. Essentially, we’d be paying bureaucrats to increase taxes, funnel the money through various government entities, only to spit the funds back out in the form of a government-issued check.
It’s almost as if Americans would be better off keeping more of their own money themselves. But then again, at least according to the big-government progressives, what do we know about spending our own money? Of course, when it comes to spending - or more to the point, wasting money - they are experts.
But setting aside the obvious logistical and economic nightmare that the universal basic income plan would create, the so-called freedom dividend illustrates Yang’s political perspective. He clearly believes that people are entitled to government funds and that you can solve a problem by throwing money at it. That viewpoint, while deeply flawed, is nevertheless shared by Elon Musk. And that forms the core of Musk’s support for Yang.
Unsurprisingly, when Musk was asked about his thoughts on UBI, he responded that it was “obviously needed.” It would seem that Musk is a firm believer that the societal ills of poverty and automation can be alleviated simply by cutting a government check. But that raises an important question: why does Musk think that taxpayer funding can have such a profound effect on society? Probably because it’s a strategy that has worked wonders for him and his businesses.
Musk’s aerospace company, SpaceX, is almost entirely reliant on the government contracts to finance its work. Similarly, Tesla receives a wealth of taxpayer funds in the form of electric vehicle subsidies. Musk’s enterprises, it would seem, have benefitted substantially from government involvement in their respective industries. Indeed, Musk has made his bones off the back of the American taxpayer. And it’s that use of public funding that has undoubtedly colored his perspective toward programs like UBI.
But while the billionaire entrepreneur has undoubtedly benefitted from government intervention, the same cannot be said for the American taxpayer. For example, legislators in the U.S. House of Representatives recently managed to secure a $500 million carveout for SpaceX within the country’s yearly defense bill—the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The half-billion-dollar earmark would supply Musk’s company with a boatload of cash and give SpaceX a serious advantage over its industry competitors at the same time.
The provision has become known as the SpaceX earmark. It’s designed to give SpaceX an unfair leg-up in the government’s most recent space launch initiative, the National Security Space Launch program. But more than that, the earmark would waste valuable taxpayer dollars just to curry favor with SpaceX. Not to mention that other provisions in the bill would topple the Air Force’s competitive bidding processes. (A vital safeguard put in place to both prevent favoritism and to at least offer the illusion of stewardship of taxpayer dollars.)
There’s no doubt that the SpaceX earmark—and the House’s NDAA more generally—is a lousy piece of legislation that must be rejected. Still, the bill is illustrative of the fact that Musk, unlike everyday taxpayers, hasn’t had to deal with the negative repercussions of government intervention. It’s no surprise, then, that he supports Andrew Yang for president. After all, Musk is used to the government funneling him money.
On August 10, 2019, Elon Musk once again made waves on Twitter. But this time, he wasn’t flaunting his disdain for the SEC or posting obscure memes. Instead, he was endorsing Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang. The three-word tweet, “I support Yang,” garnering a whopping 18,000 retweets, 94,000 likes, and a personal thank-you from the candidate himself.
The tech billionaire’s support for Yang lit the Twittersphere aflame, generating a flurry of press coverage and buzz. That’s undoubtedly good news for Yang, who is polling in the low single digits and has so far struggled to resonate with Democratic voters. In fact, some have even speculated that the announcement is just what the Democratic presidential contender needs to build momentum moving forward.
And yet, despite all the excitement surrounding the impromptu endorsement, Musk’s decision to support his fellow businessman is no big surprise. Here’s why:
The foundational principle of Yang’s campaign is the concept of a universal basic income—or as he likes to call it, the freedom dividend. Essentially, Yang wants to supply every single American adult with $1,000 a month in taxpayer-funded income, no questions asked. The proposal is, of course, totally ridiculous. Essentially, we’d be paying bureaucrats to increase taxes, funnel the money through various government entities, only to spit the funds back out in the form of a government-issued check.
It’s almost as if Americans would be better off keeping more of their own money themselves. But then again, at least according to the big-government progressives, what do we know about spending our own money? Of course, when it comes to spending - or more to the point, wasting money - they are experts.
But setting aside the obvious logistical and economic nightmare that the universal basic income plan would create, the so-called freedom dividend illustrates Yang’s political perspective. He clearly believes that people are entitled to government funds and that you can solve a problem by throwing money at it. That viewpoint, while deeply flawed, is nevertheless shared by Elon Musk. And that forms the core of Musk’s support for Yang.
Unsurprisingly, when Musk was asked about his thoughts on UBI, he responded that it was “obviously needed.” It would seem that Musk is a firm believer that the societal ills of poverty and automation can be alleviated simply by cutting a government check. But that raises an important question: why does Musk think that taxpayer funding can have such a profound effect on society? Probably because it’s a strategy that has worked wonders for him and his businesses.
Musk’s aerospace company, SpaceX, is almost entirely reliant on the government contracts to finance its work. Similarly, Tesla receives a wealth of taxpayer funds in the form of electric vehicle subsidies. Musk’s enterprises, it would seem, have benefitted substantially from government involvement in their respective industries. Indeed, Musk has made his bones off the back of the American taxpayer. And it’s that use of public funding that has undoubtedly colored his perspective toward programs like UBI.
But while the billionaire entrepreneur has undoubtedly benefitted from government intervention, the same cannot be said for the American taxpayer. For example, legislators in the U.S. House of Representatives recently managed to secure a $500 million carveout for SpaceX within the country’s yearly defense bill—the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The half-billion-dollar earmark would supply Musk’s company with a boatload of cash and give SpaceX a serious advantage over its industry competitors at the same time.
The provision has become known as the SpaceX earmark. It’s designed to give SpaceX an unfair leg-up in the government’s most recent space launch initiative, the National Security Space Launch program. But more than that, the earmark would waste valuable taxpayer dollars just to curry favor with SpaceX. Not to mention that other provisions in the bill would topple the Air Force’s competitive bidding processes. (A vital safeguard put in place to both prevent favoritism and to at least offer the illusion of stewardship of taxpayer dollars.)
There’s no doubt that the SpaceX earmark—and the House’s NDAA more generally—is a lousy piece of legislation that must be rejected. Still, the bill is illustrative of the fact that Musk, unlike everyday taxpayers, hasn’t had to deal with the negative repercussions of government intervention. It’s no surprise, then, that he supports Andrew Yang for president. After all, Musk is used to the government funneling him money.
RSS Feed