Video Summary

Bill Statistics

The Middle Class Position

The middle class supports.

How They Voted

62% with middle class
37% against middle class
1% did not vote
Pie Chart

Grades

Grade C
Senate

The Senate receives a grade of C for its support of the middle class on this piece of legislation.

61 Senators voted for the middle-class position; 37 voted against.

Share This Report Card

HR 1. (Economic stimulus) On passing a bill that would provide $838 billion in tax cuts and economic stimulus spending/On passing the bill

Introduced:
01.26.2009 [House]
Signed into Law: 02.17.2009
This bill is currently being reconciled with the House's version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
The Legislation: 

This vote was on passing a bill that would provide $838 billion for tax cuts and additional spending to stimulate the flagging U.S. economy.

The bill would provide funds for a state fiscal stabilization fund and a one-time payment to seniors, disabled veterans and those who receive disability payments.  It also would extend some bonus depreciation for assets in 2009, bolster and extend unemployment benefits (particularly in states with very high unemployment rates), and expand the homeownership tax credit by up to $15,000.

“We must act to replace some of the trillions of dollars in demand that the private sector lacks. We must act to support those who, through no fault of their own, have been thrown onto the rolls of the unemployed. We must act to prevent the economy from spiraling deeper into recession,” said Max Baucus, D-Mont.  “The road before us is clear. We must pass the economic recovery and reinvestment legislation before us today. We must speedily resolve our differences with the House of Representatives. And we must get this bill to the President for signature without delay.”

Republicans spent much of their time arguing that the bill, which would spend an unprecedented amount of money, will saddle America’s children and grandchildren with astounding amounts of debt.  They spent most of their time offering amendments that would have slashed the bill’s spending and instead bolstered tax cuts and tax credits.  Some also complained that they were not included enough in the process of drafting the final legislation.

Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said she believes that every senator would agree that a stimulus package is needed, but “it is how we spend the money that is in disagreement.”

“Right now the bill before us is one-third tax cuts and two-thirds spending. Even the tax cuts are not going to help create jobs or keep people in their homes, which should be our major focus,” Hutchison said.  “I know my colleagues on the Democratic side are trying to do what they think is right. I know the President is. I know the Republicans are too. We are in disagreement because we have not had the ability to fully come together in a way that will allow give and take.”

By a vote of 61-37, the Senate passed the bill.  Every Democrat present voted for the bill.  All but three Republicans present voted against the bill (Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania).  The end result is that the Senate passed a bill that would provide $838 billion for tax cuts and other spending aimed at stimulating the economy, easing unemployment and encouraging homeownership.

The Middle-Class Position: 

Middle Class Supports. Economic conditions are bleak. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if the economy continues on its current course, both the length and depth of the current downturn will be the worst since the Great Depression. For middle-class Americans, this means job and wage cuts, loss of health insurance, and, simply, a daily struggle to keep up with everyday costs like mortgage payments and college tuition.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if current economic conditions persist the unemployment rate could reach as high as 9.2% by 2010. With 46 million Americans already uninsured, the Kaiser Family Foundation reckons that if unemployment averages just 7% in 2009 (the current rate is 7.2%), the number of uninsured will increase by 2.6 million with an additional 2.4 million individuals enrolled in Medicaid and SCHIP. Indeed, state governments are struggling to provide the increased services needed to keep the swelling ranks of unemployed, uninsured individuals from falling out of the middle class. But the current economic climate has left states with decreased revenue from income, sales, and property taxes: 45 states face budget shortfalls with combined budget gaps of $350 billion through 2011. To confront these gaping budget holes, more than 20 states have implemented or are considering cuts to health insurance programs; the same is true of K-12 and early education programs and of funds for public colleges and universities.

Beyond the decidedly dire short-term outlook, economic improvement is probably quite far off. Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, has testified that “economic recovery is likely to be slow and protracted.” Thus, programs that address longer-term concerns – investment in infrastructure and green technology are two primary examples – are as important as an immediate, stimulative jolt to the economy.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ties together measures designed to assist middle-class households struggling to make ends meet, provisions that will provide an immediate economic stimulus, and investment that can help set the stage for an economy built on energy efficiency and durable infrastructure. Economists generally agree that the legislation will save around 3 or 4 million jobs by 2010, while increasing economic output. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office, Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com, and White House economic advisers all project that the legislation will reduce the unemployment rate by around 2%. Extended unemployment insurance will allow 6.7 million people to collect benefits. Importantly, aid to state governments for Medicaid and education programs would shore up budget gaps and help prevent cuts to vital services.

While assisting those most at need during the economic downturn, extended unemployment insurance and state fiscal assistance also generate the most “bang for their buck” in terms of stimulus because they funnel money into the hands of the people most likely to spend it. Extended unemployment insurance generates an estimated $1.63 in economic activity for each dollar spent; aid to state governments generates $1.38. In contrast, though they act more quickly than spending measures, tax cuts generate less stimulus. The Making Work Pay, Child, and Earned Income tax credits will help keep more than 2.1 million Americans out of poverty and the American Opportunity credit will make 3.8 million more students eligible for a higher education tax break. These are important measures that will assist aspiring middle-class and middle-class Americans struggling to make ends meet. But the expansions are temporary and tax cuts, even when refundable and directed at the low-income individuals most likely to spend them, are less effective stimulus measures. Worst of all, though, are tax cuts for businesses like accelerated depreciation and carryback loss provisions that have little economic benefit.

Despite concern that the spending included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will be delayed, perhaps a valid concern due to the legislation’s size and complexity, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 78% of spending would occur between 2009 and 2010. Indeed, funds for investment in infrastructure and energy efficiency, though perhaps more complicated to spend, are a critical step in longer term economic recovery. Beyond its stimulative value – infrastructure spending’s “bang for the buck” is $1.59 – the United States desperately needs new infrastructure to compete in the global economy. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that $2.2 trillion in infrastructure spending is now necessary. The funding for infrastructure projects included in the legislation is a first step in addressing this deficiency. Similarly, spending on a modernized electricity grid, retrofitted low-income housing, and weatherized homes creates the framework for a future economy less reliant on fossil fuels and, indeed, based on green technology.

Requirements for application of TARP funds to foreclosure prevention and for limitations on executive compensation and bonuses are first steps in establishing the accountability that has been missing from the financial bailout. Still, the bill does not set forth a comprehensive plan to address the foreclosure crisis that includes a moratorium on foreclosures, a mechanism to require modification of mortgages, and a change to the bankruptcy code to permit modification of mortgages on primary residences.

From the Experts: 

“The most concerning cut [in the Senate version of the stimulus package] is the $40 billion cut to state aid, which represents nearly 40% of the total cuts…This cut in particular will reduce the bill’s effectiveness as an economic stimulus, condemn hundreds of thousands to unemployment, and help prolong the recession...Only federal aid to states can break the cycle of economic downturn—and the more aid, the less states will have to resort to recession-enhancing spending cuts. For this reason, aid to states is highly stimulative, providing $1.36 in economic benefit for every dollar in aid and 33% more effective than across-the-board tax cuts.”
– Ethan Pollack, Economic Policy Institute, 2/8/2009

"Contrary to what some critics say, the economic recovery package working its way through Congress by and large is focused on the task at hand, which is to provide a needed boost to an economy that is in the midst of a long and deep recession. Much of the criticism of the package reflects a misunderstanding of how stimulus works and why the measures in the package will be effective as stimulus. Ironically, these misunderstandings create the danger that Congress may cut back effective stimulative measures and replace them with other measures that would make the package less effective."
– Chad Stone, Chief Economist, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/5/2009

Beyond this Bill: 

For all its benefits, the Senate version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act falls well short of the House proposal in significant ways and includes several provisions that will do little to help middle-class Americans. The Senate version includes only $39 billion in aid to struggling states to prevent cuts to education services, a cut that the Economic Policy Institute warns will lead to a longer and deeper recession. As described above, aid to struggling states is one of the best ways to stimulate the economy. The bill also omits $20 billion for school modernization, renovation, and repair that was included in the House text. Additionally, the Senate version includes only one of several important expansions of COBRA and Medicaid, incorporated in the House version, that would have kept 8.5 million individuals from losing insurance. As the unemployment rate rises, more and more middle-class households will find themselves not only jobless, but without health insurance. The Senate bill tilts more heavily toward tax cuts than the House bill and less effectively targets those tax breaks at the low-income households that both need the assistance and are most likely to spend the money. The Senate legislation also provides less money for Head Start, food stamps, and public transit.

Two tax credits are particularly poor stimulus. A $15,000 tax credit for new home purchases is available to people at all income levels, would cost $39 billion, and would have a very limited stimulative effect: the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that nine out of ten taxpayers eligible for the credit would have bought a home without it. Further, the credit would, in effect, prop up house prices, reinflating a housing bubble that was at the heart of the current financial crisis and encouraging reckless speculation. Another tax provision permitting deduction of interest and sales taxes on new car purchases would have a similarly limited stimulative effect.

In general, the inclusion of tax cuts for businesses in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act might have been a deft political maneuver, but these provisions will do little for middle-class Americans. Indeed, one such tax break, accelerated depreciation, provides only $0.25 in stimulus for every dollar spent. Funds devoted to tax cuts for businesses would have been much better spent on mass transit, which was shortchanged both in general and in comparison to the funding provided for highway construction. Transit authorities are strapped for cash and cutting service even as ridership increases, so government funds would be put to immediate use, while spending on new transit projects and equipment – even as ambitious as high-speed rail – would provide a cost-effective alternative to car travel. At the same time, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act involves numerous government agencies and even more government programs. Ensuring that spending provisions are carried out quickly and efficiently is key to the legislation’s success.

We recognize that there is a limit to what this stimulus package can and should attempt to accomplish. But we must be mindful that many of the measures included in the legislation make up – temporarily – for problems that have not been addressed in recent years. Modernization of unemployment insurance, health coverage for unemployed workers, infrastructure investment, and, indeed, investment in science and health technology should be the beginnings of a new policy regime that works to include more Americans in the middle class, not a passing reprieve in a time of economic gloom.

Maine New Hampshire Vermont Massachusetts Rhode Island Connecticut New York New Jersey Pennsylvania Delaware Maryland West Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia Florida Alabama Mississippi Tennessee Virginia Kentucky Ohio Indiana Michigan Illinois Wisconsin Louisiana Arkansas Missouri Iowa Minnesota Oklahoma Kansas Nebraska South Dakota North Dakota Texas Colorado New Mexico Arizona Utah Wyoming Hawaii Alaska Montana Nevada Idaho California Oregon Washington