American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Difference between revisions

Both the House and the Senate versions of the bills were primarily written by [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] congressional committee leaders and their staffs.<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Calabresi |first=Massimo |date=February 5, 2009 |title=Can Obama Regain Control of Congress's Stimulus Bill? |url=https://time.com/time/politics/article/0%2C8599%2C1877192%2C00.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090206220909/http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1877192,00.html |archive-date=February 6, 2009 |access-date=August 1, 2022 |magazine=Time}}</ref> Because work on the bills started before President Obama officially took office on January 20, 2009, top aides to President-Elect Obama held multiple meetings with committee leaders and staffers. On January 10, 2009, President-Elect Obama's administration released a report<ref name="RC">{{Citation | last1 = Romer | first1 = Christina| author-link = Christina Romer | last2 = Bernstein| first2 = Jared | author2-link = Jared Bernstein| title = The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan| date = January 10, 2009| url = http://www.ampo.org/assets/library/184_obama.pdf| access-date =July 7, 2011 | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110709043551/http://www.ampo.org/assets/library/184_obama.pdf| archive-date= July 9, 2011 | url-status= live}}</ref> that provided a preliminary analysis of the impact to jobs of some of the prototypical recovery packages that were being considered.

All the Democrats voted in favor, but only three Republicans voted in favor ([[Susan Collins]], [[Olympia Snowe]], and [[Arlen Specter]]).<ref>{{USSRollCall|111|1|60}}</ref> Specter [[party switching in the United States|switched]] to the Democratic Party later in the year. At one point, the Senate bill stood at $838 billion.<ref name="AJC Stimulus survives">{{cite news|author=David Espo |agency=[[Associated Press]] |newspaper=[[Atlanta Journal-Constitution]] |url=http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2009/02/10/stimulus0210.html |title=Stimulus bill survives Senate test |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090211230856/http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2009/02/10/stimulus0210.html |archive-date=February 11, 2009 }}</ref>

** Senate – $47 billion to provide extended unemployment benefits through December 31, increased by $25 a week, and provide job training; $16.5 billion to increase [[Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program|food stamp]] benefits by 12 percent through fiscal 2011 and issue a one-time bonus payment; $3 billion in temporary welfare payments.

** House – Comparable extension of [[unemployment insurance]]; $20 billion to increase food stamp benefits by 14 percent; $2.5 billion in temporary welfare payments; $1 billion for home heating subsidies and $1 billion for community action agencies.

** Senate – $17 billion to give one-time $300 payments to recipients of [[Supplemental Security Income]] and [[Social Security (United States)|Social Security]], and veterans receiving disability and pensions.

** House – $4 billion to provide a one-time additional Supplemental Security Income and Social Security Disability Insurance payment to the elderly, of $450 for individuals and $630 for married couples.

** Conference – $250 one-time payment to each recipient of Supplemental Security Income, Social Security (Regular & Disability) Insurance, Veterans pension, Railroad Retirement, or State retirement system<ref>Conference report 111-16, Division B Title II 2/13/09</ref>

** Senate – $46 billion for transportation projects, including $27 billion for highway and bridge construction and repair and $11.5 billion for mass transit and rail projects; $4.6 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers; $5 billion for public housing improvements; $6.4 billion for clean and drinking water projects.

** House – $47 billion for transportation projects, including $27 billion for highway and bridge construction and repair and $12 billion for mass transit, including $7.5 billion to buy transit equipment such as buses; and $31 billion to build and repair federal buildings and other public infrastructures.

** Senate – $21 billion to subsidize the cost of continuing health care insurance for the [[involuntary unemployment|involuntarily unemployed]] under the [[Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985|COBRA]] program; $87 billion to help states with [[Medicaid]]; $22 billion to modernize health information technology systems; and $10 billion for health research and construction of [[National Institutes of Health]] facilities.

** House – $40 billion to subsidize the cost of continuing health care insurance for the involuntarily unemployed under the COBRA program or provide health care through Medicaid; $87 billion to help states with Medicaid; $20 billion to modernize health information technology systems; $4 billion for preventive care; $1.5 billion for community health centers; $420 million to combat avian flu; $335 million for programs that combat AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases and tuberculosis.

** Conference – A 65% COBRA subsidy for 9 months will apply to workers laid off between Sep 1, 2008 and Dec 31, 2009. Those already laid off have 60 days to apply for COBRA.<ref>Conference report 111-16</ref>

** Senate – $55 billion in state fiscal relief to prevent cuts in education aid and provide block grants; $25 billion to school districts to fund special education and the [[No Child Left Behind]] K–12 law; $14 billion to boost the maximum [[Pell Grant]] by $400 to $5,250; $2 billion for [[Head Start Program|Head Start]].

** House – Similar aid to states and school districts; $21 billion for school modernization; $16 billion to boost the maximum Pell Grant by $500 to $5,350; $2 billion for Head Start.

** Conference – The Conference Report merged most education aid with the State Fiscal Stabilization fund (administered by the Department of Education) and gave power over the funds to each governor under voluminous restrictions. The Governor is "Required" to spend $45 billion of the money on education to restore funding to 2008 levels but the mechanisms to enforce state maintenance of effort at 2005–06 levels are complex and potentially impossible to implement.<ref>Conference report 111-16, 2-13-09, Title 14</ref> Hard hit states such as Nevada cannot possibly find enough funds to get to the 2005–06 state funding levels for education.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.lvrj.com/news/39257837.html |title=ReviewJournal.com – News – Stimulus in Nevada: Raggio presses Reid: 'We can't be required to give what we don't have' |publisher=Lvrj.com |date=February 7, 2009 |access-date=February 18, 2009| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090210113741/http://www.lvrj.com/news/39257837.html| archive-date= February 10, 2009 | url-status= live}}</ref> Some states with no current budget cuts for education, such as Arkansas and North Carolina, may get nothing.<ref>{{cite news |last=Davey |first=Monica |title=States and Cities Angle for Stimulus Cash |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/us/politics/16stimulus.html?pagewanted=all |newspaper=The New York Times |date=February 16, 2009 |page=A1 |access-date=January 17, 2013}}</ref> This will result in a monumental 50 state legal and political fight over how to re-budget to best take advantage of the federal legislation. Many states will further reduce state funds for education to the 2005–06 minimum so these state resources can be used for other state priorities and the net gain for education will be far less than the total federal appropriation.

** Senate – $40 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, including $2.9 billion to weatherize modest-income homes; $4.6 billion for fossil fuel research and development; $6.4 billion to clean up nuclear weapons production sites; $11 billion toward a smart electricity grid to reduce waste; $8.5 billion to subsidize loans for renewable energy projects; and $2 billion for advanced battery systems.

** House – $28.4 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, including $6.2 billion to weatherize homes; $11 billion to fund a smart electricity grid.

** Senate – $4.7 billion for homeland security programs, including $1 billion for airport screening equipment and $800 million for port security.

** House – $1.1 billion, including $500 million for airport screening equipment.

** Senate – $3.5 billion in grants to state and local law enforcement to hire officers and purchase equipment.

** House – Comparable provision.

** House – About $145 billion for $500 per-worker, $1,000 per-couple tax credits in 2009 and 2010. For the last half of 2009, workers could expect to see about $20 a week less withheld from their paychecks starting around June. Millions of Americans who do not make enough money to pay federal income taxes could file returns next year and receive checks. Individuals making more than $75,000 and couples making more than $150,000 would receive reduced amounts.

** Senate – The credit would phase out at incomes of $70,000 for individuals and couples making more than $140,000 and phase out more quickly, reducing the cost to $140 billion.

** Conference – Tax Credit reduced to $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010 and phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers. Note retirees with no wages get nothing.<ref name="handwritten1">House Conference report 111-? Final partially handwritten report released by Nancy Pelosi's Office 2/13/09</ref>

** House – No provision.

** Senate – About $70 billion to prevent 24 million taxpayers from paying the alternative minimum tax in 2009. The tax was designed to make sure wealthy taxpayers cannot use credits and deductions to avoid paying any taxes or paying at a far lower rate than would otherwise be possible. But it was never indexed to inflation, so critics now contend it taxes people it was not intended to. Congress addresses it each year, usually in the fall.

** Conference – Includes a one-year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.<ref name="handwritten1" />

** House – $18.3 billion to give greater access to the $1,000 per-child tax credit for low income workers in 2009 and 2010. Under current law, workers must make at least $12,550 to receive any portion of the credit. The change eliminates the floor, meaning more workers who pay no federal income taxes could receive checks.

** Senate – Sets a new income threshold of $8,100 to receive any portion of the credit, reducing the cost to $7.5 billion.

** Conference – The income floor for refunds was set at $3,000 for 2009 & 2010.<ref name="conference1">House Conference report 111-16  2/13/09</ref>

** House – $4.7 billion to increase the [[earned income tax credit]] – which provides money to low income workers – for families with at least three children.

** Senate – Same.

** House – $13.7 billion to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.

** Senate – Reduces the amount that can be refunded to low-income families that pay no income taxes, lowering the cost to $13 billion.

** House – $2.6 billion to repeal a requirement that a $7,500 first-time homebuyer tax credit be paid back over time for homes purchased from Jan 1 to July 1, unless the home is sold within three years. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $150,000.

** Senate – Doubles the credit to $15,000 for homes purchased for a year after the bill takes effect, increasing the cost to $35.5 billion.

** Conference – $8,000 credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years.<ref name="conference1" />

** House – $4.3 billion to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.

** Senate – Same.

** Conference – Same.

** House – No similar provision.

** Senate – $4.7 billion to exclude from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.

** Conference – Same as Senate

** House – $5 billion to extend a provision allowing businesses buying equipment such as computers to speed up its depreciation through 2009.

** Senate – Similar.

** House – $15 billion to allow companies to use current losses to offset profits made in the previous five years, instead of two, making them eligible for [[tax refund]]s.

** Senate – Allows companies to use more of their losses to offset previous profits, increasing the cost to $19.5 billion.

** Conference – Limits the carry-back to small companies, revenue under $5 million<ref>{{cite news |last1=Hitt |first1=Greg |last2=Weisman |first2=Jonathan |title=Congress Strikes $789 Billion Stimulus Deal |newspaper=The Wall Street Journal |date=February 12, 2009 |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123436825805373367 |access-date=January 17, 2013}}</ref>

** House – Repeal a law that takes effect in 2011, requiring government agencies to withhold three percent of payments to contractors to help ensure they pay their tax bills. Repealing the law would cost $11 billion over 10 years, in part because the government could not earn interest by holding the money throughout the year.

** Senate – Delays the law from taking effect until 2012, reducing the cost to $291 million.

** House – $13 billion to extend tax credits for renewable energy production.

** Senate – Same.

** Conference – Extension is to 2014.

** House – Repeal a Treasury provision that allowed firms that buy money-losing banks to use more of the losses as tax credits to offset the profits of the merged banks for tax purposes. The change would increase taxes on the merged banks by $7 billion over 10 years.

** Senate – Same.

** House – $36 billion to subsidize locally issued bonds for school construction, teacher training, economic development and infrastructure improvements.

** Senate – $22.8 billion to subsidize locally issued bonds for school construction, industrial development and infrastructure improvements.

** House – No similar provision.

** Senate – $11 billion to make interest payments on most auto loans and [[sales tax]] on cars deductible.

** Conference – $2 billion for deduction of sales tax, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.<ref>Conference Report 111-16, 2-13-09</ref>

Economists such as [[Martin Feldstein]], [[Daron Acemoğlu]], National Economic Council director [[Larry Summers]], and [[Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences]] winners [[Joseph Stiglitz]]<ref>[https://www.irishtimes.com/business/obama-s-800bn-stimulus-may-not-be-enough-1.1234541 Obama's $800bn stimulus may not be enough], Irish Times</ref> and [[Paul Krugman]]<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25krugman.html | title=Stimulus Gone Bad |work=The New York Times | first=Paul | last=Krugman | date=January 25, 2008 | access-date=April 23, 2010}}</ref> favored a larger economic stimulus to counter the economic downturn. While in favor of a stimulus package, Feldstein expressed concern over the act as written, saying it needed revision to address [[consumer spending]] and unemployment more directly.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/2009_01_30_Harvard_prof_slams_stimulus_plan:_Dems___800b_%E2%80%98mistake_ | title=Harvard Prof Slams Stimulus Plan | work=Boston Herald | date=January 30, 2009 | access-date=February 2, 2009 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120930112843/http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/2009_01_30_Harvard_prof_slams_stimulus_plan:_Dems___800b_%E2%80%98mistake_ | archive-date=September 30, 2012 | url-status=dead | df=mdy-all }}</ref> Just after the bill was enacted, Krugman wrote that the stimulus was too small to deal with the problem, adding, "And it's widely believed that political considerations led to a plan that was weaker and contains more tax cuts than it should have – that Mr. Obama compromised in advance in the hope of gaining broad bipartisan support."<ref>{{Cite news| last = Krugman| first = Paul| author-link = Paul Krugman  | title = Failure to Rise| newspaper = [[The New York Times]]| page = A31| date = February 13, 2009| url = https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/opinion/13krugman.html?_r=1| access-date =February 15, 2011}}</ref> Conservative economist [[John R. Lott|John Lott]] was more critical of the government spending.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,487425,00.html |title=Obama's Stimulus Package Will Increase Unemployment – Opinion |publisher=Fox News |date=February 3, 2009 |access-date=February 18, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090215212728/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C487425%2C00.html |archive-date=February 15, 2009 |url-status=live }}</ref>

On January 28, 2009, a full-page advertisement with the names of approximately 200 economists who were against Obama's plan appeared in ''[[The New York Times]]'' and ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]''. This included [[Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences]] laureates [[Edward C. Prescott]], [[Vernon L. Smith]], and [[James M. Buchanan]]. The economists denied the quoted statement by President Obama that there was "no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy". Instead, the signers believed that "to improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth."<ref>{{cite web | url=http://cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf | title=Cato Institute petition against Obama 2009 stimulus plan | access-date=February 9, 2009 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090203170743/http://cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf | archive-date=February 3, 2009 | url-status=dead | df=mdy-all }}</ref> The funding for this advertisement came from the [[Cato Institute]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/mound-city-money/us-economy/2009/01/economists-say-stimulus-wont-work |title=Economists say stimulus won't work |date=January 29, 2009 |work=St. Louis Post-Dispatch |access-date=February 1, 2010 |archive-url=http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090712112057/http%3A//www%2Estltoday%2Ecom/blogzone/mound%2Dcity%2Dmoney/us%2Deconomy/2009/01/economists%2Dsay%2Dstimulus%2Dwont%2Dwork/ |archive-date=July 12, 2009 |url-status=live }}</ref>

In other words, the growth pattern shown by the revised data sure makes it appear that the stimulus worked. The main problem would seem to be that the stimulus was not big enough and it wasn't left in place long enough to lift the economy to anywhere near potential output.<ref>{{Citation| last = Baker| first = Dean| author-link = Dean Baker| title = US debt deal: how Washington lost the plot| newspaper = [[The Guardian]] | date = August 1, 2011| url = https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/aug/01/us-debt-deal-washington-unemployment | access-date =August 3, 2011 | location=London}}</ref></blockquote>