My biggest beefs with means testing are 1. it's costly, so costly in fact, that it inflates the price of this an enormous amount. If the government just wiped away $10K from everyone with no questions asked, it doesn't even come close to what we've already spent on weapons sent to Ukraine. And 2. it creates a system that is difficult to navigate and often keeps people that do qualify from getting the money because they don't have as many resources or as much time to navigate the system. Often times these systems are hard to navigate in order to dissuade the people that it should be helping the most.
I'm not advocating that everyone get it because I think that people making over $125K/year should have this *more* than other people, but instead because the simplest answers with the least amount of bureaucracy are usually the most effective programs that do the most good for a majority of the people. Social security and Medicare don't really have any means testing. Public utilities like the library don't have means testing, and everyone can agree that these programs are valuable and effective. Whereas programs like food stamps, welfare and Medicaid are all highly contested and often cost much more than they should because of bureaucratic means testing--like when Florida felt it necessary to drug test all their food stamps recipients only to find that over 98% of the people tested weren't on drugs (gee, how much did that cost the state?). I am a big fan of Medicare 4 All, as I believe that if our goal is a healthy, cohesive society where people feel supported in their communities, this is a no brainer. Also, helping kids get education to do the jobs we need is another great thing for society. We have to start asking ourselves what communities are we want to live in, and start investing in those things.
Okay, okay, I will jump off my soap box and go spin something.
