This article is decently detailed on Alaska's Permanent Fund Dividend (AFD), which is great. It goes a lot into how the AFD has affected recent elections in Alaska, and forewarns that something similar could happen if the US implemented a Universal Basic Income Plan. In essence Sundlee warns that a promise to raise the basic income amount could swing an election. What I really wanted to know is how would that be that different than promising to cut taxes, which has definitely swung elections recently? Overall, this is a really nice article with a lot of interesting information, but the argument it's making seems to still have some holes.

The article discusses, in great detail, the pros and cons of universal basic income. The points are valid, and the quotes sourced are on public record. Well written and informing, if a bit long

This piece spots some important issues of relevance to U.S. national politics today, but it is not a news article. It is an opinion piece full of value judgments that the author -- a professional partisan -- made on behalf of the reader. Additionally, it leaves out important facts, such as the year in which Alaska's PFD was first implemented.

Here's the REAL problem: UBI founder's notion that profits from the sale of NON-renewable resources can “transform oil wells pumping oil for a finite period into money wells pumping money for infinity.” This is pure physical and economic baloney. When economies resort to, as has our global system, mere ledger entries as THE basis of value, then inevitable collapse is on the way. It is clearly widespread baloney, however, as some multiple $$$quadrillions of obligations, that someone will eventually have to pay, have been generated by various, similar “money-from-money” derivative schemes. That basis of fantasy certainly spawns feckless politician ... by the busloads. The PFD simply is based on variable return from the investment system extant. Educate people about this and there will be some fore-knowledge to ignore the feckless idiots. I object to articles like these that blare a headline of doom ... almost always about a useful and horrendously needed program to aid people ... that one needs to wade through to find that a problem, IF it exists, is due ONLY to some cretin or cretins who want to manipulate the program or their own gains, which, of course, they do not actually need. Take, for example, Rick Scott, never-convicted mastermind of history’s largest 
CORPORATE Medicare fraud who parlayed that into a governorship and now a US Senate seat. “Feckless” hardly begins to describe monsters such as this. Note: Every $1000/person annual statewide payment requires just over 1% return on the stated balance in the annual fund. Perhaps the actual problem is the program needs a new investment manager.