Voters Want the Government to Send Everyone $1,000

By Ethan Winter, Nic Fishman, and Andrew Mangan

The last two days have brought the idea of giving every American $1,000 from the fringe of the policy landscape into the mainstream. As cities shut down bars and restaurants, as employers lay off service workers en masse, and as stocks continue to crash, people need relief now. Many politicians are starting to recognize this, too. Some form of the policy has been supported by Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Maxine Waters––whose legislation is more ambitious, calling for sending each adult $2000/month and $1000/month for each child–– as well as by Republican Senators Mitt Romney and Tom Cotton, though neither Republican has offered legislation. In short, there is now bipartisan support for a policy many once thought radically progressive. 

Not only is giving each American $1,000 morally necessary and politically viable but also it is economically savvy: Economist Claudia Sahm of Equitable Growth argues that direct payments “provide a rapid, frontline defense early in a recession and a commitment to sustained support in a severe recession.” Citing work from 2001 and 2008, Sahm shows that giving Americans $1,000 a month would boost spending and stabilize demand; it would also sustain both those left in the lurch by uncertain markets and firms (and their employees) enough to keep them open during the pandemic. (For those interested in learning more about Sahm’s policy, she was recently interviewed on The Weeds.)

What is also becoming quickly clear is that simply sending Americans one check of $1,000 dollars is not enough. It would be far better to make them monthly, with $1,000 representing the floor and not the ceiling of how much money should be sent out. 

There is also a technocratic elegance to universal programs like this. Without the snarls that means-testing necessarily entails, the government will simply send all Americans a check, giving cash to those currently in need of it. Standing on the edge of a recession, time is of the essence. 

The purpose of us was simply to test attitudes among voters regarding sending people checks of $1,000 dollars, not to fully test Sahm’s policy in full. On March 2, sending every American a check of $1,000 sat 15 percentage points underwater (33 percent support, 48 percent oppose). By March 17, however, the policy enjoyed a 32-point margin of support—a dramatic 17-point swing (58 percent support, 26 oppose). Voters, faced with the tumbling economy and the oppressive strain of Covid-19, see the logic: People need money, so give it to them. 

Among voters overall, the policy was supported by 32 points (58 percent support, 26 oppose). Voters under the age of forty-five are especially supportive of the policy, backing it by a 47-point margin (65 percent support, 18 percent oppose), though voters over forty-five still support the policy by 26 points (55 percent support, 29 percent oppose). Only two groups express less than majority support: those self-identifying as “somewhat conservative” (48 percent support, 38 percent oppose) and those self-identifying as “very conservative”(43 percent support, 44 percent oppose). In fact, this “very conservative” group is the only group that doesn’t support the policy with a plurality.

Compare these results to those from March 2, when voters opposed the policy by 15 points (33 percent support, 48 percent oppose). And while the policy was popular with some groups—namely, those self-identifying as “very liberal” (+43 points)—the margins of support were much narrower when they existed at all. 

For Democrats in Congress, now is not the time for timidity. The opinion of voters has shifted dramatically in roughly two weeks. Considerable portions of the economy have been shuttered in an effort to slow the spread of coronavirus, and people are beginning to lose their jobs in droves. The economy is edging closer to a recession, and as Eric Levitz argues in New York Magazine, “Democrats must learn to stop worrying and love sending all Americans free money.” 

Authorship & Methodology

Ethan Winter @EthanBWinter is a senior advisor for Data for Progress. 

Nic Fishman @njwfish is a senior advisor for Data for Progress.

Andrew Mangan is a senior editor for Data for Progress.

From March 16 through March 17, 2020, Data for Progress conducted a survey of 2,509 likely voters nationally, using web-panel respondents. The sample was weighted to be representative of likely voters by age, gender, education, race, and voting history. The survey was conducted in English. The margin of error is ± 1.9 percent.

For rounding purposes, all results conveyed in the charts sum to 100 percentage points and thus may deviate slightly from crosstab data.