It's not "as bad as it was last year," either with the virus but especially with the consequences of the virus. Stimulus and unemployment stipend was an appropriate response to a plummetting of demand, plummetting of production, dramatic increase in unemployment, from the lowest since the end of WW2 to the highest since before WW2 in a matter of weeks.
It's basically the opposite now. Consumer demand is very, very high. Supply can't keep up. Production is nearly back to what it was pre-pandemic (or back depending on what you look at). Demand for services and hospitality is as high as it was pre-pandemic, higher for some sectors because of pent up demand. I'm usually the one pouring water whenever somebody writes a bad intentioned thread about inflation. In 2020, consumer demand and industrial production actually fell into recession territory in Jan and Feb, before the pandemic was really felt in the the US (there were positive cases and deaths we now know but most people think of the public health emergency really starting late Feb, early March).
That said I think further stimulus could make sense but it should be aggressively means tested, more so than the previous stimulus. This is a tale of two recessions: middle class and upperclass savings grew, lower class savings was depleted. I think people making less than the median salary probably should get some further economic relief, but it's a hard case to make when demand is outpacing supply as much as it has in the last 3-6 mos that 80% of Americans should get stimulus relief. Passing stimulus that just targets those who need it most is difficult because it ends up lacking majority support usually. One reason the means testing was pretty relaxed for even the last stimulus was because it's easier to pass a stimulus law that benefits 80% of Americans instead of 35% of Americans, but economically that'd have the biggest positive impact.
Combined with making the child tax credit that's part of Biden's American Families Plan permanent, I think a stimulus for low earners, hourly employees, and those who's income is X% lower in 2021 versus 2019 would make sense to also bring that earnings/savings gap a little closer. Politically though that's a non starter.
A better case could be made to target an extension of unemployment benefits for all of the states suffering the worst of the delta surge -- Republican, conservative states that have low vaccination rates. Especially targeting poor communities where hourly employees have to go back to work and they're more exposed to covid due to lower vaccination rates. I'm not sure if that could win a majority politically but it'd be the most effective way to spend the money, although it'd effectively be a blue state bailout for bad governance in red states something that most people in revenue generating states (largely coastal democratic states, liberal cities) have a harder time swallowing. There's also the factor that those conservative Republicans states won't use the unemployment stipend.
Locally, there is billions in leftover funding from the previous covid bills and the ARP. I think my city has $110m in unused rescue plan funding. I think that's a solid candidate for distribution either as stimulus or unemployment benefits. That could also be targeted to people who need it most where the affect will be felt the strongest (eg high risk, retail, low income or front line hourly workers). In my city we're supporting a racial justice commission which will be involved on how best to use those funds. It's not exactly being labelled as "reparations" because that'd kill the proposal even in a progressive city, but the intention of the commission/advisory group is to target areas of need with the money the most, which are generally black, latino, and white working class urban neighborhoods.
