The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)

The Recovery and Investment Act is one of the main legislations that have already been passed and adopted as law by the Congress during its 111th session. The Act came into being as a result of the need for the government to find ways of dealing with the effects of the then biting global economic crisis which had taken its toll on business enterprises as well as other investments in the country. This Act was enacted in February 2009, most of its initial stages having been undertaken by the previous session of Congress (114th session).

It was a close follow-up to two other Acts which were enacted specifically to address issues that were emerging in the economy and which had adverse effects on the health of the economy (New York Times, 2009). These two were enacted during the final moments of the 114th session of Congress. This Act was aimed at putting in place the appropriate legal requirements that would help realize or spur economic growth through targeted investment promotion in various sectors of the economy. The legislation gave powers to various institutions including government to use resources at its disposal to help achieve the required level of economic performance (New York Times, 2009). In essence, the Act focused on the economy, and how it could be improved especially in the face of the global economic crisis. This paper discusses a set of issues that are closely associated with this Act, including the process that led up to its final enactment, and the various players both inside and outside the house which were instrumental in the entire process.

The Legislation
This Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009 came up with the aim of addressing a number of fiscal policies geared towards ensuring accelerated economic growth. This would include putting in place appropriate measures to deliberately counter negative effects of the economic recession while at the same time inducing rapid economic growth through certain targeting sectors of the economy that were deemed to be critical to growth. The measures added to an amount that was about 787 billion US dollars, and would cover key areas such as infrastructure, healthcare, social welfare, benefits for the unemployed, the energy sector, reductions in federal taxes, educational spending, as well as other long term measures that are not related to economic recovery such as analyzing the success of the various plans and measures that have been put in place in the past to determine their feasibility (New York Times, 2009).

Specifically, the Act was aimed at accomplishing a set of targets all of which are expected to bring about the rapid and sustained growth of the economy of the country (Federal Government, 2009). It has provisions which will also allow for the American business community to be cushioned from the adverse effects of the economic recession, as well as to assist those investments which find themselves overwhelmed under the burden of the biting recession and other harmful economic effects that might come up in the future. Another aim of the Act was to try and assist those that were heavily hit by the recession so that they could be in a position to either reestablish their businesses or set up nm new ones. There was also a need to have the American public and business community provided with the investments they needed in order to help the country realize the much needed growth as well as to develop the required infrastructural frameworks that would help the country realize a more accelerated economic growth (Federal Government, 2009).

The need to boost the advancement of new technological trends especially in critical sectors of the economy such as health and science was also a key provision of the Act (Federal Government, 2009). Investment in infrastructure like roads and highways and measures aimed at conserving the environment were very critical considerations as well. Finally, there was a need to ensure that budgets, both for the states and the local counties, were made as stable as possible in order to ensure that there was no drop in the level at which essential services were provided to the people. This measure would also help ensure that tax measures that are deemed to be counterproductive are done away with to pave the way for the people to engage in more productive investments (Federal Government, 2009).

The Advantages and Disadvantages of the Bill
This bill, while being fronted by the Democrats, was fiercely opposed by the Republicans. The proponents argued that the country was already at a crossroads in its economic journey and as such needed rapid intervention in order to save it from eminent economic collapse. The other advantage of the Act was that it would help spur economic growth, giving a chance for the economy to grow after a long period of stagnation. Then the issue of tax cuts came in handy as Democrats held it that it was a time Americans were relieved of the heavy tax burden that they had borne throughout most of the George W. Bush presidency. They argued that the tax cuts would give people a chance to invest again and this would encourage the economy to start moving forth again (New York Times, 2009).
The economic recession had worse effects in the banking and financial services sector in the country most banks were faced with the so-called toxic assets (New York Times, 2009). As a result, banks were not willing to lend but preferred to hold onto their assets for fear of losing them. By passing the legislation, it would make bankers and other financial lenders to once again release their money into the economy. The legislation would guarantee bankers that their money was not going to be lost. The other advantage was that the legislation was to help the country reduce the unemployment rate which was soaring with the global economic crisis (New York Times, 2009). The Democrats favored the legislation as it was, saying it was only through increased pumping of money into the economy that the country would have any chance of getting out of the recession.

The Republicans could have none of these (Associated Press, 2009). They cited as causes of the recession other factors that were never going to be addressed by the Act. They reiterated that the legislation could not address the concerns of the country at the time, especially unemployment, in a more direct way and so called for sweeping amendments. The very fact that the government was going to engage in a lot of spending was a disadvantage of the Act. It was faulted for being too hyped to be of any real tangible help as it was just going to be a matter of increasing expenditure by the government when all that was needed was spurring economic growth and mitigating the threats posed by the economic recession (Associated Press, 2009). The republicans therefore, although wishing to see the countrys economic situation improved, wanted it to be approached in a manner that was not more cash-intensive but rather in the form of policies.

The Chronological order of the Legislation
EventDetailsDateTask Force StageThe task forces managed to deliberate on the key issues in the
bill seeking to have a consensus on at least the most controversial matters. 20080821The subcommittee stageThe subcommittee went through the initial draft of the bill and recommended to the committee on Appropriations the necessary changes 20081131The committee stageThe House Appropriations Committee scrutinized the bill and considered the possible amendmentsVoting on the final bill by the SenateThe Senate passed the bill 61-37 (Associated Press, 2009)20090210Presentation of the bill to the SenateSponsored by the Majority Leader Harry Reid and 16 other co-sponsors from the Democrats. It was, however, introduced as an amendment  to another bill  the House Bill (Associated Press, 2009)20090106Presentation of the bill to the House of RepresentativesThis was done by the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. David Obey, who was also co-sponsored by other democrats  9 of them (Associated Press, 2009)20090125Conference report completion and presentation to the houseAfter presentation to the House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the bill was to be voted on the following day even though the wording on it was not complete and there was to be a 44-hour review as promised by Democrats (Associated Press, 2009)20090212Voting on the final bill by the HouseThe bill was passed by a majority vote in the House. The bill was passed by the House 246-183 (New York Times, 2009)20090128Signing of the bill into law by President Barack ObamaThis was done at a conference in Denver, Colorado, where he was accompanied by vice president Joe Biden (New York Times, 2009)20090217

Importance of the Stages
Each of the stages in the process were very critical to coming out with a final law. In the Senate, the bill got a chance to be amended several times ( HYPERLINK httpbooks.google.co.kebooksqinauthor22CCHEditorialStaffPublication22clientfirefox-asourcegbs_metadata_rcad6 CCH Editorial Staff Publication  CCH Tax Law, 2009). At the task force stage of the bill, there was an opportunity for the members of the different task forces to explore the viability and possible implications of the proposed bill to the country. There was a chance for reviewing all the provisions of the bill at both the committee and the subcommittee stages, before a final draft of the law was agreed upon. Specifically, the committee stage of the senate decided to present to the house the bill as an amendment to the previous House Bill ( HYPERLINK httpbooks.google.co.kebooksqinauthor22CCHEditorialStaffPublication22clientfirefox-asourcegbs_metadata_rcad6 CCH Editorial Staff Publication  CCH Tax Law, 2009).

On the floor of the house, the controversial issues in the bill were pinpointed by the Republicans, while the Democrats sought to present their own views on the bill and gave reasons why it should be passed. These negotiations were critical even at this last moment because they enabled what might have been unclear to finally come out to the fore for scrutiny. In the House, the committee stage and the subcommittee stage were important for bringing about harmonization, especially owing to the great opposition that the bill faced from Republicans ( HYPERLINK httpbooks.google.co.kebooksqinauthor22CCHEditorialStaffPublication22clientfirefox-asourcegbs_metadata_rcad6 CCH Editorial Staff Publication  CCH Tax Law, 2009). There was an opportunity to reach out to each other so there could be a compromised position. Necessary amendments were recommended as well.

Impacts of House Rules and Procedures on the Process
The main effects that the regulations of the house and the senate had on the bill were more logistical than those touching on the content of the bill (BBC, 2009). By requiring that all the mandatory stages be followed, the bill had a chance to under rigorous reviewing and the requisite amendments were carried out on it. In essence, the regulations made it possible for both sides of the two chambers to scrutinize the bill and to come up with a version that had the least opposition. That requirement that the bill has to go through all the stages also ensured that the bill was not rushed through as the Democrats attempted to do. Although it delayed the entire process, these stages served a good purpose.

External Players
Although the bill became signed into law only after both chambers voted for it, it is critical to acknowledge the role that players not in the house played in the entire process. Economists were particularly vocal at either supporting or opposing certain provisions of the bill with a view to showing the impacts they would have on the final draft (Associated Press, 2009). As such, their contributions guided the legislators in making more informed choices. Civil society groups and lobbyists too were instrumental in determining the outcome of the bill as they pushed to have certain provisions entrenched or deleted, or even amended (New York Times, 2009).

The media can never have played a greater role. It informed the public, often having the main legislators give their views and explain their positions. Such publicity drove people to take on certain positions and so have their leader follow their desires. The president too, together with his staff at White House, played the role of providing the much needed direction and government position. This allowed legislators to vote with knowledge that it was a vote for the entire nation and not just a party (New York Times, 2009).

The Role of Public Opinion
Public views played a critical role in shaping the outcome of the vote on the bill. Leading opinion pollsters were at the time ranking the president very highly, having just won a landslide victory in the elections (New York Times, 2009). As such, all he said or supported then was rather taken as final and a majority of the people seemed to believe him. His support for the bill helped win over the few independents alongside the three Republican Senators who voted for the bill. A specific example was the comment made by a leading weekly paper, the Economist, highlighting the economic stimulus package that would be given to banks with the so-called toxic assets to help them start lending again. This helped create a lot of support for the bill. Opinion polls at the time indicated that a majority of the people were happy and in support of the bill and this helped bring about the win (New York Times, 2009).

The Voting Pattern
As per the voting, there was not a single Republican who voted for the bill in the house. On the contrary, there were three of them who voted for it in the Senate alongside one independent who transacts business with the Democrats (New York Times, 2009). The fact that the Republicans had a unified opposition to the bill is proof that they were still determined to have more amendments to the bill before its final presentation to the house. In the Senate, the breaking of ranks by the three was a move that showed their support for the policy that was in the bill and not just a party (New York Times, 2009). A part from this incident in the Senate, the voting was entirely on a partisan trend as Democrats were eager to assert their power while Republicans were seeking to show their unity following their humiliating defeat in the elections. The independents in both chambers voted according to the way they transact business, each supporting the party heshe caucused with (New York Times, 2009).

Conclusion
The final outcome of this entire process was not a foregone conclusion as many would want to claim. Instead, a different outcome would have been achieved if the senators particularly sought to retain the bill as it was than trying to present it with many unnecessary amendments. This is partly why some Senators broke ranks with their party and supported the bill. This Act would have been a better law capable of addressing the most pressing issues of the people if it had not been rushed through even in those final minutes. That aside, the Republicans ought to have sought to have only the very pressing issues amended instead of waiting for the final vote when they knew they formed as minority in the house and in the Senate.

0 comments:

Post a Comment