David Schweikert: “In many ways we are all saying the same thing. It is just, once again, trying to make the argument, if we do this…”

“In many ways we are all saying the same thing. It is just, once again, trying to make the argument, if we do this smartly and well-targeted, we can do it for a dramatically more efficient cost and actually help more of the poor that we know are suffering, more of the people who have been crushed, more of the small businesses. And a simple example, Opportunity Insights has predicted that, with a $2,000 check to functionally every household that makes less than $46,000, only $420, functionally, of what they receive will get spent. The rest goes in the bank. Maybe that is a good thing. Maybe that is the audience you want to target. But when you start doing the same thing to populations, and for some reason they use $78,000, only $105 gets spent. So think of that. Mr. Speaker, increase the check another $1,400, a population that makes $78,000 or more, they are only spending $105. The rest is going in the bank account. Maybe that is wonderful, but that is not what we are debating. We are trying to create a multiplier effect of some stimulus in our society to get the economy going so we see those GDP numbers go up; the unemployment go down; and we get back to the miracle we were at in 2018 and 2019, where income and equality actually shrank for the first time in 2 years, where food insecurity shrank for the first time in decades and decades and decades, where the working poor actually were doing better than they had in decades and decades and decades.…”