Guns or Eggs: Rethinking Priorities in a Basic Income Era

Introduction

For decades, economists framed the nation’s spending choices as “guns or butter” – funding the military versus feeding the people. But here in 2026, that old metaphor is getting an upgrade. Welcome to the age of “guns or eggs.” Basic groceries like eggs have suddenly become symbols of economic anxiety, prompting a fresh look at our priorities. Should we keep pouring billions into weaponry, or ensure every family can afford their breakfast? In this charged political moment, it’s a question of values as much as budgets. And just like the most resonant political commentary of late 2025, we’ll tackle it with a bold, conversational tone and a focus on what really matters to Americans right now.

Context and Historical Background

The term “guns or butter” originated as shorthand for a country’s trade-off between military spending and domestic wellbeing. In simple terms, every dollar a government spends on “guns” (tanks, missiles, troops) is a dollar not spent on “butter” (schools, hospitals, or in our updated metaphor – eggs for your kitchen table). This concept famously echoed through history. During World War II, Nazi propaganda infamously proclaimed, “Guns will make us powerful; butter will only make us fat”, starkly illustrating how regimes justified hardship at home in pursuit of military might. U.S. leaders later flipped the script: President Lyndon B. Johnson invoked “guns vs. butter” while juggling the Vietnam War and his Great Society programs, highlighting the tension between war expenses and welfare investments. In short, the phrase has always been about priorities – choosing whether to strengthen the sword or the plowshare.

Now, why swap butter for eggs? Because in today’s America, nothing captures the household budget squeeze quite like the price of a carton of eggs. To understand the stakes, let’s crack open the economic realities behind the humble egg.

Why “Eggs” Matter in Today’s Economy

Monthly U.S. egg prices (retail & wholesale) spiked to all-time highs in late 2024 and early 2025, as millions of egg-laying hens were lost to avian flu. This everyday grocery item became a vivid symbol of inflation’s impact.

Just a year ago, Americans were shell-shocked by egg prices. Between late 2024 and early 2025, a virulent bird flu wiped out over 50 million egg-laying hens, gutting supply right when holiday baking sent demand soaring. The result? Egg prices surged more than 350% compared to the year prior. In fact, by March 2025 the national average price for a dozen eggs hit around $6.23 – an all-time high and nearly double what it was a year before. Some days saw even crazier spikes; in early March, wholesale egg prices briefly topped $8 a dozen. For context, that means a staple food once taken for granted suddenly cost more than some fast-food burgers.

This surge in food prices wasn’t just a quirky news item – it was a kitchen-table crisis. Families stretching paychecks had to think twice about omelets. Food banks saw longer lines as basics became luxuries. And the “eggs problem” underscored a bigger issue: inflation hurts most at the grocery store. Overall food prices rose about 3% over the past year, but that modest number hides the volatile spikes in essentials like eggs, milk, or bread. When wages don’t keep up, these price jumps effectively shrink Americans’ real income, especially for the most vulnerable. In other words, inflation in basic goods acts like a regressive tax, hitting low-income families hardest.

By talking about “guns or eggs,” we’re highlighting this reality. It’s a reminder that economic security isn’t abstract – it’s as tangible as a carton of eggs. If our nation can find money for massive defense programs, shouldn’t we also ensure a decent living for the people at home? Basic income advocates say yes, and they’re pointing to that grocery aisle as proof.

Incorporating Insights from Scott Santens and Andrew Yang

Leading voices in the basic income movement have long argued that we must rethink how we value our people versus our programs. Scott Santens, a prominent Universal Basic Income (UBI) advocate, often emphasizes that money itself is just a tool. “Money isn’t real… What matters is human life, human rights, and resources,” Santens explains. He notes that if we have the food, housing, and resources to meet everyone’s basic needs, we shouldn’t let a lack of political will – or misconceptions about “printing money” – stop us. When skeptics ask “but how would we pay for it?” Santens likes to point out that it’s the wrong question. Do we have enough ‘space bucks’? he jokes – referring to a famous South Park episode – before driving home the point: the real question is, do we have enough real resources for everyone? (And in a country as rich as ours, the answer is of course we do.)

Andrew Yang, who catapulted basic income into the mainstream during his 2020 presidential run, remains another influential voice in 2026. He has warned that the rapid rise of automation and AI makes UBI not just idealistic, but necessary. “AI is making Universal Basic Income a necessity. Who will make it happen?” Yang urged in 2025. He’s referring to a reality where self-checkout machines, algorithms, and robots already displace millions of workers. Yang and many tech leaders see a guaranteed income as a buffer against that upheaval. It’s a way to ensure no one is left behind by technological progress – a theme that resonates strongly with Gen Z influencers on TikTok and popular podcasters alike. In fact, the basic income idea has caught on well beyond wonky economic circles: it’s now a staple topic on platforms from Reddit forums to YouTube shows, where young creators talk about the right to a livable income with the same passion earlier generations talked about civil rights.

Both Santens and Yang also frequently address the biggest fears around basic income. They stress that giving people cash isn’t about creating dependency or fueling inflation – it’s about giving freedom. As Yang bluntly puts it, “No one should be working and be poor in America.” The goal of a basic income (even a small one) is to raise the floor so that hard work actually translates to a decent life, and entrepreneurship or career shifts become viable options, not risks. These insights from modern basic income champions set the stage: a stage where economic security is viewed not as a handout, but as an investment in our collective well-being.

The Broader Societal Benefits

A small basic income – say a few hundred dollars a month – won’t let you retire to a beach, but it can transform society in profound ways. Decades of research and recent pilot programs alike have shown a range of positive impacts. Here are some of the key benefits that cash transfer studies have documented:

• Reduced Poverty and Hunger: It might sound obvious, but it’s worth stating: when people receive even a modest guaranteed income, poverty rates fall. In experiment after experiment, families used the extra money to cover essentials like housing, food, and transportation, immediately reducing material hardship. As one researcher put it, “You give people money; they have money.” It’s that straightforward – more grocery budgets mean fewer kids going to bed hungry.

• Better Health and Lower Stress: Relieving financial strain has a measurable effect on health and mental well-being. Recipients of basic income pilots report less stress and anxiety, more stable home lives, and greater hope for the future. In one long-term Canadian experiment, the community saw improvements in physical and mental health outcomes when a basic income was provided. Doctors have even started talking about cash as a “social prescription,” since financial stability often leads to better nutrition, fewer stress-related illnesses, and increased ability to afford medicines or preventive care.

• Maintaining (Even Improving) Work Effort: One of the most common questions is, “If people get free money, won’t they stop working?” The data says no. None of the 27 pilot programs across the U.S. in recent years saw a drop in overall work participation. In fact, some saw employment increase among recipients. For example, in Stockton, California’s program, full-time employment rose from 28% to 40% among participants after a year of receiving $500/month. Freed from constant financial crisis, people could take risks – like searching for better jobs or enrolling in classes – that ultimately made them more employable and productive. As one report concluded, “Not a single pilot has resulted in reduced work.”

• Educational and Development Gains: When families have a bit more cushion, children tend to do better. Studies have linked extra income to higher school attendance and improved cognitive development in kids. Parents can afford school supplies, enrichment activities, or even just have the bandwidth to help with homework when they’re less stressed. The benefits of cash today can reverberate decades later; for instance, early 20th-century “mothers’ pension” programs (a precursor to basic income) led to the next generation earning more and achieving higher education.

• Lower Crime and Stronger Communities: Alleviating poverty can also make communities safer and more cohesive. In the famed Mincome experiment in Manitoba, Canada, crime rates fell by 17.5% during the period families received a basic income. Think about it: when people aren’t desperate, they’re less likely to turn to illegal activities to survive. Moreover, neighbors start to view society as fairer and more trustworthy, which strengthens civic bonds. Preliminary results from U.S. pilots similarly suggest declines in petty crime and economic-related offenses when financial strain is eased.

• Empowerment and Choice: Perhaps the hardest benefit to quantify is the increase in personal freedom. A guaranteed income gives everyone a bit more power to say “no” – no to a bad job, no to staying in an abusive relationship (because you aren’t financially trapped), no to dropping out of school for lack of bus fare. One essay by basic income scholar Karl Widerquist put it brilliantly: a livable UBI is like giving everyone an “inexhaustible strike fund” – it empowers workers and ordinary people to demand better treatment. Even a small basic income moves us in that direction, shifting leverage back to individuals. The result can be a more innovative economy (people are more willing to start a business if failure doesn’t mean destitution) and a healthier democracy (citizens with a bit of financial security are more able to participate in civic life).

In short, cash works. It’s not a theory anymore; it’s evidenced by numerous studies and real-world programs. From less poverty to better mental health to stable employment, the societal ROI (return on investment) of basic income has proven to be very high. Which raises the question: if it works so well, what’s holding us back? Let’s tackle a few of the common critiques head-on.

Addressing Counterarguments and Skepticism

Every bold policy idea comes with skeptics, and basic income is no exception. It’s healthy to ask hard questions about UBI – and it’s also important to answer them with facts. Let’s address a few of the big counterarguments you might hear, in a straightforward myth-vs-fact style:

• Critique 1: “Basic income will just make everything more expensive (inflation will skyrocket).”
  Reality: There’s no automatic link between giving people cash and runaway inflation. Inflation happens when demand outstrips supply, but remember, we’re already producing plenty of food, housing, etc. Basic income just helps people access what’s there. In fact, real-world evidence flatly contradicts the “UBI = inflation” fear. Take Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend (a yearly cash payout to all residents). After it began in the 1980s, Alaska’s inflation rate actually fell below the national average. Or consider Kuwait: when the Kuwaiti government gave a one-time universal bonus of about $4,000 per citizen in 2011, many predicted a price explosion – it never happened. Inflation actually dropped back to normal levels after the cash transfer. The lesson? Moderate, structured cash payments don’t inherently devalue the currency. Our economy is dynamic: if people spend more on eggs or milk, producers can respond by supplying more (if anything, UBI can stimulate productivity by boosting demand for goods). And smart policy design – like gradually phasing in a basic income or funding it by adjusting taxes on the wealthy – can further mitigate inflation risks. The bottom line is, inflation is not a given. As one New York Times analysis noted, even trillions in quantitative easing after 2008 failed to push inflation above the Fed’s target. What matters is managing the balance of supply and demand, something entirely feasible with today’s economic tools.

• Critique 2: “People will quit working if you give them free money.”
  Reality: This assumes that most folks only work because they have to. In truth, humans are wired to create, improve, and contribute – a basic income just lets them do it more productively. Research from numerous pilots confirms that receiving a basic income does not lead to people en masse dropping out of the workforce. In many cases it does the opposite: people use the security to find better jobs or get training. For example, when 122 people in Germany got roughly $1,300 a month in a recent three-year study, their work hours matched those of a control group, but with higher job satisfaction and more upskilling on the side. They weren’t idle; they were optimizing their lives. The only notable reductions in work hours tend to occur among new mothers and students – arguably a positive outcome, allowing moms to care for babies and young adults to focus on studies without financial stress. And as UBI advocate Karl Widerquist wryly observes, if some ultra-“privileged” critics worry no one would work if given a basic income, we should ask them: “Are your job offers so terrible that no one with the power to refuse would take them?”. In reality, UBI can raise the bar, pressuring employers to improve bad jobs and pay fair wages. But it doesn’t extinguish the desire to work – it fuels the ability to pursue meaningful work.

• Critique 3: “It’s too expensive; we can’t afford it without wrecking the budget or raising taxes sky-high.”
  Reality: Yes, a national basic income has a big price tag. But so do the many things our government manages to fund when it deems them a priority. The question is not “Can we afford it?” but “What do we want to afford?” During the COVID-19 pandemic, Washington found trillions of dollars overnight for stimulus checks, business loans, and more – without first raising taxes or waiting years to budget for it. When genuinely needed, the money was there. Likewise, the U.S. defense budget in 2025 was around $800 billion; major tax cuts in recent years have cost trillions over a decade. Society has a way of paying for what it prioritizes. A basic income could be funded through a combination of approaches: reallocating existing welfare spending more efficiently, implementing a modest VAT or wealth tax (as Yang proposed), or harnessing gains from automation (imagine a tiny AI dividend on big tech profits funnelled back to citizens). Economists have floated many viable recipes. The key is, our GDP and national wealth are higher than ever – the money exists. It’s about political will. A small basic income (for example, $500 a month) would represent a few percent of GDP. When skeptics say we “can’t afford” that, they’re really saying it’s not important enough to them. But if we decide it is important – that ensuring no American lives in destitution is as critical as, say, maintaining the world’s largest military – then we absolutely can afford it. It’s a matter of priorities, not pennies. Basic income advocates often point out how much poverty itself costs us: in higher healthcare, crime, and lost productivity. By investing in people up front, we could save on the back end. In other words, doing nothing has a cost, too – it’s just hidden in ER bills, prisons, and broken dreams.

• Critique 4: “People will waste the money on temptations or make bad decisions.”
  Reality: This is an age-old argument that tends to underestimate folks. In practice, the vast majority of basic income recipients spend it on exactly what you’d expect – needs and a few modest wants. Data from experiments (from Stockton, CA to rural Kenya) show higher expenditures on food, housing, education, and small business investments, not alcohol or gambling. And even if one person buys a few frivolous things, that’s their choice in a free society. We don’t judge how people use their student loans or tax refunds; a basic income should be no different. The unconditional aspect is a feature, not a bug – it treats adults like adults, empowering them to make choices. Over time, communities often benefit as people pool resources or support each other. The stereotype of irresponsible spenders just doesn’t hold up at scale. As one researcher quipped, when you trust people with money, “they overwhelmingly prove worthy of that trust.” Society runs on trust every day – employers trust employees with company resources, we trust drivers to follow rules, etc. Trusting people with a bit of financial freedom is no radical leap.

In summary, the common objections to basic income, while intuitive to some, haven’t borne out in reality. Inflation hasn’t spiked uncontrolled where cash transfers occur; work ethic hasn’t vanished; budgets haven’t imploded where political will to fund cash programs exists; and people typically use the help wisely. This isn’t to dismiss thoughtful debate – it’s to ground that debate in the evidence we have. And the evidence increasingly shows that a basic income is not only workable, but beneficial.

Conclusion and Call to Action

It’s time to rethink our national priorities. Guns or eggs is more than a clever phrase – it’s a challenge to all of us. Do we continue with business as usual, investing in instruments of war and hoping some benefits trickle down? Or do we invest directly in our people, ensuring everyone can afford life’s basic building blocks? A basic income era would mean no American has to choose between paying the heating bill and buying groceries. It would mean a country where working and poor is a contradiction, not a common reality.

Choosing “eggs” over “guns” doesn’t mean gutting our defense or abandoning security. It means recognizing that economic security for our citizens is just as crucial as military hardware. It means realizing that a few hundred dollars a month to a struggling family can do more for our nation’s stability and future than an extra fighter jet. It means having the courage to put people first.

At BasicallyIncome.org, we’re committed to making that vision a reality. But we can’t do it alone. This is where you come in. If you’ve been moved by the evidence and arguments you’ve read, now is the moment to act. By supporting our basic income advocacy – through donations, sharing this message, or contacting your representatives – you become part of a movement that’s reshaping the political conversation in America. Every dollar you contribute is a statement that you believe in an economy that serves all of us, not just the privileged few.

We stand at a crossroads in 2026. The old choices of the 20th century have given way to new ones. Guns or eggs? Fear or hope? A society that leaves people to fend for themselves, or one that provides a foundation for everyone to stand on? We at Basically Income PAC know what choice we’re fighting for. If you’re with us – if you believe that now is the time to secure that foundation for every American – then join us. Let’s make basic income not just a debate or a pilot program, but a permanent reality.

Donate today at BasicallyIncome.org and help us build a future where our national strength is measured not by what we can destroy, but by what we can nurture. Let’s choose eggs over guns – let’s choose people. Together, we can ensure that no one in the richest country on Earth is left scrambling to afford the next dozen eggs.

(Your support fuels our advocacy for policies that guarantee basic economic dignity. Spread the word, stay engaged, and thank you for being part of this movement.)

Works Cited

Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Consumer Price Index — December 2025.” U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed Jan. 19, 2026. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.htm

Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Average Retail Food and Energy Prices, U.S. and Midwest Region.” U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed Jan. 19, 2026. https://www.bls.gov/regions/mid-atlantic/data/averageretailfoodandenergyprices_usandmidwest_table.htm

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “USDA Reported H5N1 Bird Flu Detections in Poultry (Commercial).” Accessed Jan. 19, 2026. https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/situation-summary/data-map-commercial.html

Congressional Research Service. “U.S. Egg Production and Retail Prices.” IF12949 (July 3, 2025). Accessed Jan. 19, 2026. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12949

Congressional Research Service. “Avian Influenza (Bird Flu) in the United States.” R48580 (June 23, 2025). Accessed Jan. 19, 2026. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R48580

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. FRED. “Average Price: Eggs, Grade A, Large (Cost per Dozen) in U.S. City Average (APU0000708111).” (Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.) Accessed Jan. 19, 2026. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU0000708111

Jain Family Institute. “Guaranteed Income Pilots: Summarizing Results and Implications for Policy.” (Dec. 9, 2024). Accessed Jan. 19, 2026. https://jainfamilyinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Guaranteed-Income-Pilot-Report-Jack-Landry-12.9.24.pdf

Jones, Damon, and Ioana Marinescu. “Universal Cash Transfers and Inflation.” National Tax Journal. Accessed Jan. 19, 2026. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/720770

National Bureau of Economic Research. “The Employment Effects of a Guaranteed Income: Experimental Evidence from Two U.S. States.” Working Paper No. 32719 (rev. Jan. 2026). Accessed Jan. 19, 2026. https://www.nber.org/papers/w32719

Santens, Scott. “It’s Time to Walk the Walk for Universal Basic Income (UBI).” (Oct. 9, 2025). Accessed Jan. 19, 2026. https://www.scottsantens.com/its-time-to-walk-the-walk-for-universal-basic-income-ubi/

Santens, Scott. “17 Key Variables That Determine UBI’s Inflationary Impact.” (Jul. 28, 2025). Accessed Jan. 19, 2026. https://scottsantens.substack.com/p/17-key-variables-that-determine-ubis

Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED). “Employment.” Accessed Jan. 19, 2026. https://www.stocktondemonstration.org/employment

Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED). “Preliminary Analysis: SEED’s First Year” (report PDF). Accessed Jan. 19, 2026. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6039d612b17d055cac14070f/t/6050294a1212aa40fdaf773a/1615866187890/SEED_Preliminary%2BAnalysis-SEEDs%2BFirst%2BYear_Final%2BReport_Individual%2BPages%2B.pdf

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. “Poultry & Eggs: Sector at a Glance.” Accessed Jan. 19, 2026. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/poultry-eggs/sector-at-a-glance

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. “Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook: February 2025.” Accessed Jan. 19, 2026. https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/outlooks/110972/LDP-M-368.pdf

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. “Confirmations of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in Commercial and Backyard Flocks.” Accessed Jan. 19, 2026. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-detections/commercial-backyard-flocks

Yang, Andrew. “AI is making Universal Basic Income a necessity…” (social post). Accessed Jan. 19, 2026. https://www.facebook.com/andrewyang2021/posts/ai-is-making-universal-basic-income-a-necessity-who-will-make-it-happen/1273367480806168/