Changes

The '''American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009''', called a "stimulus bill" by its supporters but branded a "pork bill" by its opponents,

The '''American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009''', called a "stimulus bill" by its supporters but branded a "pork bill" by its opponents, was passed by Congress on Friday the 13th of February 2009 after a vote sharply divided along party lines. The purpose was to invigorate the economy that was still spiralling downward in the ongoing [[Recession of 2008]]. Conservatives Republicans proposed a similar bill about one-third smaller in dollar terms, but were overwhelmed by solid Democratic control of the House.  The Bill passed the Senate because three Republicans broke party ranks to vote for it; one of  them<ref> Senator Spector of Pennsylvania</ref> soon switched to the Democratic Party.

was passed by Congress on Friday the 13th of February 2009 after a vote sharply divided along party lines.  

 

 

It was supported by Democrats and by the [[Obama Administration]].

It was supported by Democrats and by the [[Obama Administration]].

The bill passed the House and Senate with only three Republican senators voting for it and no Republican votes in the House and was signed by the president on February 17, 2009.  Since the passage of the "stimulus" bill, over 3 million American jobs have been lost, in spite of Obama's false promise that 4 million jobs would be created or "saved".<ref>[www.bls.gov]</ref>  In contrast, President Reagan's Economic Recovery Act of 1981 led to swift job creation, as opposed to a jobless recovery that was first seen in the 1990s after Bill Clinton's tax increase.<ref>http://www.heritage.org/research/labor/em917.cfm</ref><ref>http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2009/el2009-18.html</ref>  Because of the size of the stimulus bill, President Obama is now currently unable to fulfill his utopian promise of [[universal health care]].<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-2913-Boston-Republican-Examiner~y2009m7d28-How-the-stimulus-and-now-the-Gates-affair-have-damaged-Obamas-credibility]</ref>

The bill passed the House and Senate with only three Republican senators voting for it and no Republican votes in the House and was signed by the president on February 17, 2009.  Since the passage of the "stimulus" bill, over 3 million American jobs have been lost, in spite of Obama's false promise that 4 million jobs would be created or "saved".<ref>[www.bls.gov]</ref>  In contrast, President Reagan's Economic Recovery Act of 1981 led to swift job creation, as opposed to a jobless recovery that was first seen in the 1990s after Bill Clinton's tax increase.<ref>http://www.heritage.org/research/labor/em917.cfm</ref><ref>http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2009/el2009-18.html</ref>  Because of the size of the stimulus bill, President Obama is now currently unable to fulfill his utopian promise of [[universal health care]].<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-2913-Boston-Republican-Examiner~y2009m7d28-How-the-stimulus-and-now-the-Gates-affair-have-damaged-Obamas-credibility]</ref>

There will be $275 billion in tax cuts, including a $800 cash rebate to most families that will be spread out over a year, and an extra $250 quick payment to every person over age 65. The spending provisions cover a very wide variety of projects.<ref> [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29assess.html?hp David M. Herszenhorn, "Stimulus Package’s Components Vary in Speed and Efficiency," ''New York Times'' Jan. 28, 2009]</ref>

There will be $275 billion in tax cuts, including a $800 cash rebate to most families that will be spread out over a year, and an extra $250 quick payment to every person over age 65. The spending provisions cover a very wide variety of projects.<ref> [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29assess.html?hp David M. Herszenhorn, "Stimulus Package’s Components Vary in Speed and Efficiency," ''New York Times'' Jan. 28, 2009]</ref>

Responding to public outrage against bankers who paid themselves billions of dollars in bonuses while their banks were collapsing and investors losing 95% of their money, the bill imposes tight restrictions on executive bonuses at financial institutions. The provision, inserted by Senate Democrats over the objections of the Obama administration, affects banks that have received financial bailout funds. It prohibits cash bonuses and almost all other incentive compensation for the five most senior officers and the 20 highest-paid executives at large companies that receive money under the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.  Bonuses are limited to one-third of salary and must be in a form that is paid out only after the banks repay their loans from the government.<ref> Edmund L. Andrews and Eric Dash, "Stimulus Plan Sets New Limits on Executive Pay," [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/business/economy/14pay.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Feb. 13, 2009]</ref>

Responding to public outrage against bankers who paid themselves billions of dollars in bonuses while their banks were collapsing and investors losing 95% of their money, the bill imposes tight restrictions on executive bonuses at financial institutions. The provision, inserted by Senate Democrats over the objections of the Obama administration, affects banks that have received financial bailout funds. It prohibits cash bonuses and almost all other incentive compensation for the five most senior officers and the 20 highest-paid executives at large companies that receive money under the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, or [[TARP]].  Bonuses are limited to one-third of salary and must be in a form that is paid out only after the banks repay their loans from the government.<ref> Edmund L. Andrews and Eric Dash, "Stimulus Plan Sets New Limits on Executive Pay," [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/business/economy/14pay.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Feb. 13, 2009]</ref>

==Conservative criticism==

==Conservative criticism==

"The strategy under this bill is to throw billions of dollars in every bureaucratic direction, and cross our fingers and hope for the best," said Rep. Ken Calvert (R., Calif.) during debate. Rep. David Obey (D., Wis.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, responded, "We need to compare the cost of this package against the cost of doing nothing. The cost of nothing would be catastrophic."<ref> See [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123315486943524321.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy Jonathan Weisman, Greg Hitt And Naftali Bendavid, "House Passes Stimulus Package; $819 Billion Jolt to Economy Aims to Reshape Education, Health Care; Deficit to Soar," ''Wall Street Journal'' Jan. 29, 2009]</ref>   

"The strategy under this bill is to throw billions of dollars in every bureaucratic direction, and cross our fingers and hope for the best," said Rep. Ken Calvert (R., Calif.) during debate. Rep. David Obey (D., Wis.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, responded, "We need to compare the cost of this package against the cost of doing nothing. The cost of nothing would be catastrophic."<ref> See [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123315486943524321.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy Jonathan Weisman, Greg Hitt And Naftali Bendavid, "House Passes Stimulus Package; $819 Billion Jolt to Economy Aims to Reshape Education, Health Care; Deficit to Soar," ''Wall Street Journal'' Jan. 29, 2009]</ref>   

Liberals supporting the measure say it is aimed at preventing the economy from "collapsing" and at "restoring it to normal." Conservative critics claims it will do little to help the economy and is filled with non-essential spending.  

Liberals supporting the measure say it is aimed at preventing the economy from "collapsing" and at "restoring it to normal" by spending money that  the private sector is too frightened to spend. Conservative critics predict it will do little to help the economy recover and is filled with non-essential spending.  

The Heritage Foundation says, "But government spending plans do not stimulate the economy. They are based on the idea that feeding “new” money into the economy will create economic growth.  But the money isn’t new—it’s either taxed or borrowed. It's essentially redistributed from one group of people to another, and no new money is created."<ref> See [http://www.askheritage.org/Issues.aspx?ID=41 Heritage statement]</ref>  

The Heritage Foundation says, "But government spending plans do not stimulate the economy. They are based on the idea that feeding “new” money into the economy will create economic growth.  But the money isn’t new—it’s either taxed or borrowed. It's essentially redistributed from one group of people to another, and no new money is created."<ref> See [http://www.askheritage.org/Issues.aspx?ID=41 Heritage statement]</ref>  

The final version easily passed the House, which requires only a majority vote and where the Democrats hold a 255-to-178 advantage.  Seven House Democrats voted against the final bill; no House Republicans voted for the final bill. In the Senate, 60 votes are required to avoid a filibuster that can kill legislation, and the Democrats have the advantage 58-41, with one vacancy as Minnesota continues to count votes from the Nov. 2008 election. Therefore at least two GOP senators are needed, and the three voted yes (two from Maine and one from Pennsylvania.)

The final version easily passed the House, which requires only a majority vote and where the Democrats hold a 255-to-178 advantage.  Seven House Democrats voted against the final bill; no House Republicans voted for the final bill. In the Senate, 60 votes are required to avoid a filibuster that can kill legislation, and the Democrats have the advantage 58-41, with one vacancy as Minnesota continues to count votes from the Nov. 2008 election. Therefore at least two GOP senators are needed, and the three voted yes (two from Maine and one from Pennsylvania.)

Conservative Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the most senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, complained that 34 states and the District of Columbia will receive less Medicaid money than larger states. The stimulus package "shortchanges" Iowa by $185 million, he said. "It disregards the tough economic situation facing our state and others, and it fails to understand that the recession is hitting places like Iowa a little later than other states, but it is still hitting us."<ref> [http://grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=19319 Grassley Press Release, Feb. 12, 2009]</ref>  Grassley's efforts to amend the bill were voted down by the Democrats.

Conservative [[Charles E. Grassley]] of Iowa, the most senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, complained that 34 states and the District of Columbia will receive less Medicaid money than larger states. The stimulus package "shortchanges" Iowa by $185 million, he said. "It disregards the tough economic situation facing our state and others, and it fails to understand that the recession is hitting places like Iowa a little later than other states, but it is still hitting us."<ref> [http://grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=19319 Grassley Press Release, Feb. 12, 2009]</ref>  Grassley's efforts to amend the bill were voted down by the Democrats.

We all understand the economy is in crisis,” Mr. Cornyn said. But he was among numerous Republicans who said they would vote “no” rather than endorse a bloated bill that will be paid for by future generations of taxpayers.

We all understand the economy is in crisis,” Mr. Cornyn said. But he was among numerous Republicans who said they would vote “no” rather than endorse a bloated bill that will be paid for by future generations of taxpayers.

[[Category:Finance]]

[[Category:Finance]]

[[Category:Liberals]]

[[Category:Liberals]]