ugh. it's whack a mole with this targeting argument:

1) federal government DOES NOT KNOW how much your income in 2020. 44% of US households with income $75-$150k in 2019 LOST INCOME during Covid crisis. https://twitter.com/byHeatherLong/status/1354123148128563201

2) THE CHECKS ARE TARGETED. top 10% of US households did NOT get anything. (except Fed saving their stocks.) pre-Covid MASSIVE inequality. one example, top 10% by income took in as much in compensation as bottom 60% combined. even 80% to 90% are not anything like the top.

3) one set of results from Raj Chetty DO NOT OVERTURN. countless studies by countless researchers over 20 years.

my research summary https://equitablegrowth.org/get-more-money-immediately-to-u-s-families-and-help-them-out-of-the-coronavirus-recession/ with Mike Garvey on 2020 checks from the CARES Act.

my summary of 2001, 2008 checks https://hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/Sahm_web_20190506.pdf (p 72-74).

4) many of these papers suggest that getting money to families who do not have much savings or cash would lead to more spending and faster. (good for macroeconomy getting back on track). but federal government DOES NOT KNOW what's in your bank accounts ...

turns out income is not a good proxy for low savings. why? even many upper-middle class families need their paycheck for their mortgage or tuition bills. across research studies correlation with income and spending is not robust. Opp Insights finds it. many many others don't.

I love love love reading every new study on spending out of fiscal stimulus. I believe checks have more benefits than spending. paying off debt (past spending) is huge help for many and getting a rainy day fund (savings) and spending later helps others. I want to empower people.

finally after more than a decade giving policymakers advice on how relief to families in a recession supports their well being and how effective it is as a tool in recessions/recoveries, I know we must to use results that many high-quality studies find. not just the latest.

last one. I am pragmatic. policy is about tradeoffs. my thread last night: https://twitter.com/Claudia_Sahm/status/1353819754524454912?s=20
monkey around with where income phase out begins and how fast it runs down. I would not cut out more than 20% of people (10% now). but for the love of god get the money out.

updating a piece for @jc_econ on why $2,000 checks are good policy. reading that Opportunity Insights piece that argues sending money to families with $78,000 in income is a waste of relief aid. yikes! https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Oi_Secondstimulus_analysis.pdf

my main concerns:

1) to analyze effects of $600 checks. they have LESS THAN a month of spending date after the relief package passed.

2) short study means some people in their study haven't even gotten their checks. basically no study ever shows pre-spending.

continued ...

3) December relief package had MORE relief than $600 checks. importantly, unemployed got extra $400 per week and extensions on extra weeks and coverage (low-wage more likely unemployed). they can't isolate effects of checks!!

4) study is not peer reviewed (not looking good).

cc @OppInsights let me know if I am missing something in your analysis. a rapid-fire referee report via Twitter not most convention but your a news item on a live policy debate, so I think it's necessary.