Announcing The Launch Of The CARES Act Bot
By Ethan Winter and Colin McAuliffe
On March 27, 2020, President Donald Trump signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which allocated almost $2 trillion economic relief. From the standpoint of progressives, “the bill’s crown jewel,” was a provision that increased standard weekly unemployment benefits by $600 for four months, with this provision expiring July 31. In addition, a newly created Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program was created, extending benefits to those typically excluded—namely, freelancers, furloughed employees, and gig workers. This measure was intended to ensure that the average workers who lost their jobs would have 100 percent of their wages replaced. This benefit was a massive increase over the $25 per week added to people’s checks during the 2009 recession.
Furthermore, the government issued a $1,200 cash stimulus to all citizens, with many receiving an additional $500 for each child dependent (although means-testing, poor administrative infrastructure, and the exclusion of non citizens has opened some holes in the program).
Despite the problems in rolling out both the cash payments and expanded unemployment benefits, both policies were fairly successful when judged in aggregate. For millions of workers, the expanded unemployment insurance (UI)—which totals $600 a week—means they make more on unemployment than while they were employed. The $1,200 cash stimulus operated in a similar way: Research shows that as the economy began to shutter, American’s real income actually rose in April. A study published in the New York Times suggests that the growth of poverty was slowed because of the CARES Act. This should demonstrate, unequivocally, the efficacy of direct transfers as a policy course.
In a July 2020 survey, Data for Progress (DFP) sought to capture the impact of these two provisions on voters’ lives and households. We started by asking registered voters if they received a $1,200 stimulus check, then asked if they’ve gone on unemployment since the start of the pandemic. If a voter responded in the affirmative to either question, they were shown a third question, which asked them “what has the effect of receiving this additional money had on you?” They were then provided an open end response option where they could, in their own words, describe what the impact of receiving this money has been on them.
This Twitter account -- you can follow it here -- will share those responses, which it will present anonymously, excluding any possible identifying information. Taken together, we hope this tells a story that shows that the government can, in fact, improve the material condition of people’s lives.
The expanded unemployment insurance is set to expire at the end of July. After this, those who still qualify for state unemployment benefits may see only 30–40 percent of their pre-pandemic wages replaced. For those who received the cash stimulus, the $1,200 has likely run out by now, and many are wondering when more help will arrive.
DFP has extensively polled both the extension of the expanded UI benefit as well as the issuance of an emergency, universal basic income. Repeatedly, we’ve found that a sort of emergency, universal basic income is enormously popular with voters. In addition, support for extending supercharged unemployment benefits is extremely high. To that end, Senators Ron Wyden and Chuck Schumer have introduced legislation that would extend the expanded UI until the economy meets certain indicators of stability—a form of automatic stabilizers. On the DFP blog, Wesley Bignell, Colin McAuliffe, and Marshall Steinbaum also argued that the expansion of UI be made permanent. Also on the DFP blog, Darrick Hamilton argued for a paycheck guarantee where the federal government would directly cover up to $90,000 of worker’s wages for the duration of the pandemic and showed that this is incredibly popular with voters. In the House, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal introduced legislation that would do exactly this. In the Senate, Mark Warner Mark Warner, Bernie Sanders, Doug Jones, and Richard Blumenthal have introduced similar legislation.
For many, life in the United States is like sitting in a foxhole. Even those making more than $100,000 are only a lost job or a surprise medical bill away from a downward spiral that leads to financial ruin. It simply doesn’t need to be this way. Our hope is that, with this bot, we can highlight the real headway that these payments have made in delivering material benefits to vulnerable Americans. We should take the lesson of this significant policy victory and build on it. One first step is for the Senate to pass and President Donald Trump to subsequently sign the HEROES Act, a relief bill DFP’s tracker poll has shown is very popular with voters. What’s clear is that Congress must extend the expanded UI, issue more checks, and modernize its administrative state to ensure all who need aid get it as quickly as possible.
Ethan Winter (@EthanBWinter) is an analyst at Data for Progress. You can email him at ethan@dataforprogress.org.
Colin McAuliffe (@colinjmcauliffe) is a co-founder of Data for Progress. You can email him at colin@dataforprogress.org
From July 2 through July 3, 2020, Data for Progress conducted a survey of 1,303 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 +/- 2.7 percentage points.