I am a nice guy, hell I deserve a raise!

Not what I expected from Bruce Bartlett.

With a guaranteed income, some people would flirt with work as the article indicated did happen.

Perhaps a guaranteed income with skills training and job assessment and placement would be necessary to make sure people capable of working did just that and not opt out to enjoy personal activities.

I can see where it would be beneficial, but it's open for abuse by the individual as well as business ... rents and services raised to levels above the compensation given.

It would be interesting to see a debate on welfare v guaranteed income on the merits.

I assume the government would dole out the 10K over the year to ensure that people didn't blow their lump sum on January 2. Or maybe not. 10K all at once gives you a lot more leverage than 875 month after month.

Libertarians can be a bit like liberals in their optimistic disregard for the downside of "human nature." They believe in the liberating and uplifting power of people making their own choices autonomously and not having to follow others' rules--and disregard the pitfalls, or even celebrate the pitfalls.

Buried inside this celebration, however, they must feel that most people will make good, even better, decisions than bureaucrats who require people to use food stamps only for food (as an example).

From a practical standpoint, I'm not sure the electorate is in the mood for simply handing people money with no strings attached. They already think that TANF (under Obama, at least) is doing that.

Bruce doesn't seem to say, but would everyone, regardless of income or wealth, receive this 10K?