\n\n“A new poll of 1,164 likely voters conducted January 15 to 19 by Vox and Data for Progress (DFP) reveals an oft-ignored truth: Sometimes the reason optimal policy doesn\u2019t happen isn\u2019t because of bad politicians; it\u2019s because voters don\u2019t want it to pass.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the poll, 60 percent of likely voters said they would support sending a $1,400 one-time payment to most Americans as part of Covid-19 relief. That\u2019s great news \u2014 the $1,200 stimulus checks last year were shown to have reduced poverty<\/a> and helped Americans stay afloat in the first months of the crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But that same number (60 percent) support means-testing the aid, agreeing with the statement: \u201cChecks should be phased out based on income so higher income people receive less money.\u201dThe poll, which has a margin of error of 2.9 percentage points, also found that nearly as many likely voters (56 percent) are opposed to sending stimulus checks to undocumented people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Voters may not fully understand the trade-offs to means-testing and restricting aid to undocumented Americans(namely, that many people experiencing financial difficulties may be left out due to poor targeting). But the stance is consistent with another DFP finding, whichMatt Yglesias wrote about for his newsletter Slow Boring<\/a>, revealing that voters would rather some vaccine doses expire than allow \u201csome people to cut in line.\u201d In essence, that means most voters would rather have more people get Covid-19 and potentially die than have someone get a vaccine dose before they \u201cshould.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Opposition to the wealthy receiving financial assistance from the government and hostility to undocumented immigrants isn\u2019t surprising, but these findings showcase something very important: Voters are so concerned about the perceived \u201cfairness\u201d of the economic response that it couldhamstring optimal policymaking.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “America is in a crisis, and it\u2019s a trade-off between speed and accuracy. Yes, some people who get the money may save it, they may not be financially harmed by the pandemic, and it may feel unfair, but it\u2019s better that everyone struggling gets the money as quickly as possible than we slow down the process over a flawed conception of justice.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Proponents of means-testing may point to recent data<\/a> that stimulus checks to Americans earning over $75,000 don\u2019t benefit the economy \u2014 in essence arguing it\u2019s a waste of government spending. However, as Matthews pointed out, the simple fix to this would be to just tax rich people more later to recoup the costs instead of wasting time during a pandemic trying to design the optimal program. Additionally, we only have this data in hindsight \u2014 at the time, it wasn\u2019t obvious where the dividing line between \u201caffected by the pandemic\u201d and \u201cunaffected\u201d was.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “One silver lining in the poll is the finding that 51 percent of likely voters are in favor of automatic stabilizers<\/a> that \u201cautomatically trigger more spending on programs like unemployment insurance or SNAP if the economy experiences a contraction.\u201d It\u2019s something Biden has signaled his support for<\/a> and that could help the nation avoid wasting precious time the next time there\u2019s a recession.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n