Former California mayor pushes guaranteed income as fix for affordability crisis
The nation’s affordability crisis has prompted a growing cohort of municipal leaders to experiment with direct, unconditional cash payments. At the forefront of this movement is the advocacy coalition Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, founded by former Stockton, California, mayor Michael Tubbs. Tubbs argues that “giving families direct, unrestricted cash is the fastest way to address the affordability crisis,” and adds that “it’s time for us to get to work and make it a reality.” He notes that “half of U.S. states saw some kind of guaranteed‑income legislation introduced” this year, underscoring the rapid spread of the idea.
The coalition’s push gained a high‑profile endorsement in Alameda, California, where city officials marked the conclusion of the “Rise Up Alameda” pilot on October 13. The program, funded with $4.6 million from the federal American Rescue Plan Act, provided 150 low‑income households with $1,000 each month for two years. City staff presented the final 24‑month evaluation report to the Alameda City Council on October 6. Alameda Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft said the initiative “is a proven tool to help our most vulnerable residents achieve financial stability,” and expressed pride that Alameda “launched this critical program when families need it most.” Ashcraft also emphasized her focus on the health and wellbeing of the city’s residents.
Tubbs points to a substantial body of evidence supporting cash transfers. He says there are “more than 30 independent, scientifically rigorous studies, including around 10,000 recipients,” representing the most extensive research on guaranteed income to date. While acknowledging that data alone does not tell the whole story, he stresses the importance of hearing directly from participants about the “real‑life impacts” of unconditional support. Recent polling, he adds, shows a bipartisan majority of Americans favor guaranteed income as an intervention for the affordability crisis.
Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, a network now comprising over 150 mayors, has backed dozens of local pilots since its 2020 inception. The group’s model relies on direct taxpayer‑funded stipends rather than means‑tested benefits. In a notable development, Cook County, Illinois, became the first county government to embed guaranteed cash payments permanently in its budget after an initial ARPA‑funded trial.
The momentum, however, faces fiscal and political headwinds. Most pandemic‑related relief funding must be spent by the end of 2026, and cities that have relied on those funds may confront budget shortfalls unless alternative sources are secured. Critics, largely Republican state officials and conservative policy groups, argue that unconditional cash “discourages work, increases dependence on government assistance, and risks misusing taxpayer money.” Four states — Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa and South Dakota — have enacted laws prohibiting local governments from administering such transfers, while Kansas’ ban took effect without a governor’s signature. In Texas, the Supreme Court blocked Harris County’s “Uplift Harris” cash program after the attorney general challenged it, effectively halting direct payments in that county.
Conversely, some Democratic leaders are moving in the opposite direction. Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed a Republican‑led bill that would have barred municipal guaranteed‑income initiatives, signaling a partisan divide on the issue.
As the deadline for pandemic relief funds approaches, the debate over how to sustain and expand cash‑transfer programs intensifies. Proponents like Tubbs and Ashcraft argue that the growing body of research, the visible impacts on participants, and public support provide a compelling case for broader adoption, potentially culminating in a federal response. Opponents remain wary of the economic and political implications, leaving the future of unconditional cash assistance uncertain but undeniably active on the national stage.