The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was passed in 2009 to stimulate the US economy by promoting spending and economic growth. The $787 billion funding was allocated to various agencies and initiatives, including tax credits, competitive grant programs, and direct relief to state budgets. Economists had mixed opinions on the effectiveness of the funding. The ARRA aimed to finance “shovel-ready” projects for immediate spending and hiring, but critics argued that it did not occur at the expected scale or speed. States used the funding to offset budget deficits, but the temporary nature of the funding delayed addressing systemic budget shortfalls.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding is money allocated by the United States federal government to a variety of agencies and institutions to promote spending and economic growth. It was passed in early 2009 by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama. Its purpose was to stimulate the weak American economy by promoting things like construction projects, weathering efforts, and other capital expenditures.
The ARRA financing was provided as a direct result of the worldwide recession which saw home values plummet and unemployment soar to nearly 10% between late 2008 and 2009. The related financial crisis made it very difficult to obtain credit for both enterprises than for the local government, making it difficult to undertake capital projects or purchase large items. To stimulate spending, the US government has chosen to provide funding for a variety of projects to help stimulate the economy and job growth.
Total ARRA funding was $787 billion United States Dollars (USD). The program included expanded unemployment benefits, new tax credits, competitive grant programs, direct relief to state budgets, and numerous other programs and initiatives. Each element was intended to preserve and create jobs, promote economic growth and efficiency, protect the country’s most vulnerable populations, and minimize cuts to essential services.
Economists were divided on their opinion of financing the ARRA as a way to tackle the recession. While many saw it as the ideal way to stave off the recession, others believed that more government spending was not the answer. Still others believed that funding levels weren’t actually large enough to compensate for the depth of the recession.
One of the main concepts of the ARRA funding was that it financed “shovel-ready” projects that would involve immediate spending and hiring. Ideally, the bill’s craftsmen envisioned local governments using the funding to initiate bridge repairs and similar large-scale projects for which they previously lacked the money. That has happened in many cases, but critics of the stimulus bill have argued that it hasn’t occurred at the scale or as quickly as had been expected.
Despite fairly stringent requirements on how ARRA funds could be spent, many states have been able to use them to offset their budget deficits. While this generally prevented the need to raise taxes or institute austere service cuts, the temporary nature of the funding meant that states were delaying rather than addressing systemic budget shortfalls. In early 2011, conventional wisdom held that ARRA funding had eased the worst of the recession, but it was unclear how states and the federal government would meet its ongoing costs.
Smart Asset.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
