American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Full title	An act making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, State, and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.
Acronym	ARRA
Colloquial name(s)	The Recovery Act, Stimulus
Enacted by the	111th United States Congress
Effective	February 17, 2009
Citations
Public Law	111-5
Legislative history
Introduced in the House as H.R. 1 by Dave Obey (D-WI) on January 26, 2009 Committee consideration by: Appropriations and Budget Passed the House on January 28, 2009 (244—188) Passed the Senate on February 10, 2009 (61–37) Reported by the joint conference committee on February 12, 2009; agreed to by the House on February 13, 2009 (246—183) and by the Senate on February 13, 2009 (60—38) Signed into law by President Barack Obama on February 17, 2009
v t e

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, abbreviated ARRA (Pub.L. 111-5) and commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act, is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009 and signed into law on February 17, 2009, by President Barack Obama.

To respond to the late-2000s recession, the primary objective for ARRA was to save and create jobs almost immediately. Secondary objectives were to provide temporary relief programs for those most impacted by the recession and invest in infrastructure, education, health, and ‘green’ energy. The approximate cost of the economic stimulus package was estimated to be $787 billion at the time of passage, later revised to $831 billion between 2009 and 2019.^{[citation needed]} The Act included direct spending in infrastructure, education, health, and energy, federal tax incentives, and expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions. The Act also included many items not directly related to economic recovery such as long-term spending projects (e.g., a study of the effectiveness of medical treatments) and other items specifically included by Congress (e.g., a limitation on executive compensation in federally aided banks added by Senator Dodd and Rep. Frank).

The rationale for ARRA was from Keynesian macroeconomic theory which argues that, during recessions, the government should offset the decrease in private spending with an increase in public spending in order to save jobs and stop further economic deterioration.

Legislative history[link]

Both the House and the Senate versions of the bills were primarily written by Democratic Congressional committee leaders and their staffs. 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^[1] that provided a preliminary analysis of the impact to jobs of some of the prototypical recovery packages that were being considered.

House of Representatives[link]

Official seal of Recovery.gov, the official site of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

The House version of the bill, H.R. 1, was introduced on January 26, 2009.^[2] It was sponsored by Democrat David Obey, the House Appropriations Committee chairman, and was co-sponsored by nine other Democrats. On January 23, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said that the bill was on track to be presented to President Obama for him to sign into law before February 16, 2009.^[3] Although 206 amendments were scheduled for floor votes, they were combined into only 11, which enabled quicker passage of the bill.^[4]

On January 28, 2009, the House passed the bill by a 244–188 vote.^[5] All but 11 Democrats voted for the bill, and 177 Republicans voted against it (one Republican did not vote).^[6]

Senate[link]

The senate version of the bill, S. 1, was introduced on January 6, 2009, and later substituted as an amendment to the House bill, S.Amdt. 570. It was sponsored by Harry Reid, the Majority Leader, co-sponsored by 16 other Democrats and Joe Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats.

The Senate then began consideration of the bill starting with the $275 billion tax provisions in the week of February 2, 2009.^[7] A significant difference between the House version and the Senate version was the inclusion of a one-year extension of revisions to the alternative minimum tax which added $70 billion to the bill's total.

Republicans proposed several amendments to the bill directed at increasing the share of tax cuts and downsizing spending as well as decreasing the overall price.^[8] President Obama and Senate Democrats hinted that they would be willing to compromise on Republican suggestions to increase infrastructure spending and to double the housing tax credit proposed from $7,500 to $15,000 and expand its application to all home buyers, not just first-time buyers.^[9] Other considered amendments included the Freedom Act of 2009, an amendment proposed by Senate Finance Committee members Maria Cantwell (D) and Orrin Hatch (R) to include tax incentives for plug-in electric vehicles^[10] and an amendment proposed by Jim DeMint (R) to remove language from the bill that would prohibit funds which would be "used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission".^[11]

The Senate called a special Saturday debate session for February 7 at the urging of President Obama. The Senate voted, 61–36 (with 2 not voting) on February 9 to end debate on the bill and advance it to the Senate floor to vote on the bill itself.^[12] On February 10, the Senate voted 61–37 (with one not voting)^[13] All the Democrats voted in favor, but only three Republicans voted in favor (Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter), with Specter later switching to the Democratic party.^[14] At one point, the Senate bill stood at $838 billion.^[15]

Comparison of the House, Senate and Conference versions[link]

President Barack Obama signs the ARRA into law on February 17, 2009 in Denver, Colorado. Vice President Joe Biden stands behind him.

President Barack Obama speaks about the 2,000th project approved through the ARRA. The president is joined by Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood.

Senate Republicans forced a near unprecedented level of changes (near $150 billion) in the House bill which had more closely followed the Obama plan. The biggest losers were states^[16] (severely restricted Stabilization Fund) and the low income workers (reduced tax credit) with major gains for the elderly (largely left out of the Obama and House plans) and high income tax-payers. A comparison of the $827 billion economic recovery plan drafted by Senate Democrats with an $820 billion version passed by the House and the final $787 billion conference version shows huge shifts within these similar totals. Additional debt costs would add about $350 billion or more over 10 years. Many provisions will expire in two years.^[17]

The main funding differences between the Senate bill and the House bill are: More funds for health care in the Senate ( $153.3 vs $140 billion), for green energy programs ($74 vs. $39.4 billion), for home buyers tax credit ($35.5 vs. $2.6 billion), new payments to the elderly and a one year increase in AMT limits. The House has more funds appropriated for education ($143 vs. $119.1 billion), infrastructure ($90.4 vs. $62 billion) and for aid to low income workers and the unemployed ($71.5 vs. $66.5 billion).^[18]

Spending (Senate-$552 billion, House-$545 billion)[link]

Obama addresses a joint session of Congress, with Vice President Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Obama addresses the 111th United States Congress	Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (February 24, 2009) Barack Obama's February 24, 2009 Address Before a Joint Session of Congress. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was a focal point of the speech. Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (February 24, 2009) (audio) Audio-only version
Problems listening to these files? See media help.

• Aid to low income workers and the unemployed
  • Senate – $47 billion to provide extended unemployment benefits through Dec 31, increased by $25 a week, and provide job training; $16.5 billion to increase 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.

• Direct cash payments
  • Senate — $17 billion to give one-time $300 payments to recipients of Supplemental Security Income and 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.^[19]

• Infrastructure
  • 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.

• Health care
  • Senate — $21 billion to subsidize the cost of continuing health care insurance for the involuntarily unemployed under the 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 preventative 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.^[20]

• Education
  • 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.
  • 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.^[21] Hard hit states such as Nevada cannot possibly find enough funds to get to the 2005–06 state funding levels for education.^[22] Some states with no current budget cuts for education, such as Arkansas and North Carolina, may get nothing.^[23] 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.

• Energy
  • 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 so-called 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.

• Homeland security
  • 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.

• Law enforcement
  • Senate — $3.5 billion in grants to state and local law enforcement to hire officers and purchase equipment.
  • House – Comparable provision.

Tax Changes ($275 billion)[link]

• New tax credit
  • 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 don’t 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.^[24]

• Alternative minimum tax
  • 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 can’t 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.^[24]

• Expanded child credit
  • 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.^[25]

• Expanded earned income tax credit
  • 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.

• Expanded college credit
  • 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.

• Homebuyer credit
  • 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.^[25]

• Home energy credit
  • 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;

• Unemployment
  • 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

• Bonus depreciation
  • House — $5 billion to extend a provision allowing businesses buying equipment such as computers to speed up its depreciation through 2009.
  • Senate – Similar.

• Money losing companies
  • 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 refunds.
  • 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^[26]

• Government contractors
  • 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.

• Energy production
  • House — $13 billion to extend tax credits for renewable energy production.
  • Senate – Same.
  • Conference – Extension is to 2014.

• Repeal bank credit
  • 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.

• Bonds
  • 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.

• Auto sales
  • 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.^[27]

Conference report[link]

Congressional negotiators that they had completed the Conference Report on February 11.^[28] On February 12, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer scheduled the vote on the bill for the next day, before wording on the bill's content had been completed and despite House Democrats having previously promised to allow a 48-hour public review period before any vote. The Report with final handwritten provisions was posted on a House website that evening.^[29][30] On February 13, the Report passed the House, 246-183, largely along party lines with all 246 Yes votes given by Democrats and the Nay vote split between 176 Republicans and 7 Democrats.^[31][32][33]

The Senate passed the bill, 60-38, with all Democrats and Independents voting for the bill along with three Republicans. On February 17, 2009, President Barack Obama signed the Recovery Act into law.

Provisions of the Act[link]

Composition of the Act:
Tax incentives – includes $15 B for Infrastructure and Science, $61 B for Protecting the Vulnerable, $25 B for Education and Training and $22 B for Energy, so total funds are $126 B for Infrastructure and Science, $142 B for Protecting the Vulnerable, $78 B for Education and Training, and $65 B for Energy.
State and Local Fiscal Relief – Prevents state and local cuts to health and education programs and state and local tax increases.

Section 3 of ARRA listed the basic intent behind crafting the proposal. This Statement of Purpose included the following:

1. To preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery.
2. To assist those most impacted by the recession.
3. To provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health.
4. To invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits.
5. To stabilize State and local government budgets, in order to minimize and avoid reductions in essential services and counterproductive state and local tax increases.

The Act specifies that 37% of the package is to be devoted to tax incentives equaling $288 billion and $144 billion or 18% is allocated to state and local fiscal relief (more than 90% of the state aid is going to Medicaid and education). The remaining 45% or $357 billion is allocated to federal spending programs such as transportation, communication, waste water and sewer infrastructure improvements; energy efficiency upgrades in private and federal buildings; extension of federal unemployment benefits; and scientific research programs.

The following are details to the different parts of the final bill:^{[34][35][36][37]}

Tax incentives[link]

Total: $288 billion

Tax incentives for individuals[link]

Total: $237 billion

• $116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.^[24]
• $70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.^[24]
• $15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes).
• $14 billion: Expanded college credit 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.
• $6.6 billion: Homebuyer credit: $8,000 refundable 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. This only applies to first-time homebuyers.^[38]
• $4.7 billion: Excluding from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
• $4.7 billion: Expanded earned income tax credit to increase the earned income tax credit — which provides money to low income workers – for families with at least three children.
• $4.3 billion: Home energy credit 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.
• $1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.

Tax incentives for companies[link]

Total: $51 billion

• $15 billion: Allowing companies to use current losses to offset profits made in the previous five years, instead of two, making them eligible for tax refunds.
• $13 billion: to extend tax credits for renewable energy production (until 2014).
• $11 billion: Government contractors: Repeal a law that takes effect in 2012, 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.
• $7 billion: Repeal bank credit: 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.
• $5 billion: Bonus depreciation which extends a provision allowing businesses buying equipment such as computers to speed up its depreciation through 2009.

Healthcare[link]

More than 11% of the total bill is allocated to help states with Medicaid

Total: $155.1 billion^[39]

• $86.8 billion for Medicaid
• $25.8 billion for health information technology investments and incentive payments
• $25.1 billion to provide a 65 percent subsidy of health care insurance premiums for the unemployed under the COBRA program
• $10 billion for health research and construction of National Institutes of Health facilities
• $2 billion for Community Health Centers
• $1.3 billion for construction of military hospitals (military)
• $1.1 billion to study the comparative effectiveness of healthcare treatments
• $1 billion for prevention and wellness
• $1 billion for the Veterans Health Administration
• $500 million for healthcare services on Indian reservations
• $300 million to train healthcare workers in the National Health Service Corps
• $202 million for a temporary moratorium for certain medicare regulations

Education[link]

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg visit with students at Explore Charter School.

Total: $100 billion

• $53.6 billion in aid to local school districts to prevent layoffs and cutbacks, with flexibility to use the funds for school modernization and repair (State Fiscal Stabilization Fund)^[40]
• $15.6 billion to increase Pell Grants from $4,731 to $5,350
• $13 billion for low-income public schoolchildren
• $12.2 billion for IDEA special education
• $2.1 billion for Head Start
• $2 billion for childcare services
• $650 million for educational technology
• $300 million for increased teacher salaries
• $250 million for states to analyze student performance
• $200 million to support working college students
• $70 million for the education of homeless children

Aid to low income workers, unemployed and retirees (including job training)[link]

Payments to Social Security recipients and people on Supplemental Security Income were parts of the ARRA.

Total: $82.2 billion

• $40 billion to provide extended unemployment benefits through Dec 31, and increase them by $25 a week
• $19.9 billion for the Food Stamp Program
• $14.2 billion to give one-time $250 payments to Social Security recipients, people on Supplemental Security Income, and veterans receiving disability and pensions.
• $3.45 billion for job training
• $3.2 billion in temporary welfare payments (TANF and WIC)
• $500 million for vocational training for the disabled
• $400 million for employment services
• $120 million for subsidized community service jobs for older Americans
• $150 million to help refill food banks
• $100 million for meals programs for seniors, such as Meals on Wheels
• $100 million for free school lunch programs

Infrastructure Investment[link]

Total: $105.3 billion

Transportation[link]

Road and highway construction is the biggest single line infrastructure item in the final bill. Projects funded by the ARRA have a sign marking them, like this one in Middletown, Rhode Island.

Sign for an ARRA funded road-widening project on Colorado State Highway 9 north of Breckenridge, Colorado.

Total: $48.1 billion,^[41] some in the form of Transportation Income Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Grants

• $27.5 billion for highway and bridge construction projects
• $8 billion for intercity passenger rail projects and rail congestion grants, with priority for high-speed rail
• $6.9 billion for new equipment for public transportation projects (Federal Transit Administration)
• $1.5 billion for national surface transportation discretionary grants
• $1.3 billion for Amtrak
• $1.1 billion in grants for airport improvements
• $750 million for the construction of new public rail transportation systems and other fixed guideway systems.
• $750 million for the maintenance of existing public transportation systems
• $200 million for FAA upgrades to air traffic control centers and towers, facilities, and equipment
• $100 million in grants for improvements to domestic shipyards

Water, sewage, environment, and public lands[link]

Total: $18 billion^[42]

• $4.6 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers for environmental restoration, flood protection, hydropower, and navigation infrastructure projects
• $4 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund wastewater treatment infrastructure improvements (EPA)
• $2 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund drinking water infrastructure improvements (EPA)
• $1.38 billion for rural drinking water and waste disposal projects
• $1 billion to the Bureau of Reclamation for drinking water projects for rural or drought-likely areas
• $750 million to the National Park Service
• $650 million to the Forest Service
• $600 million for hazardous waste cleanup at Superfund sites (EPA)
• $515 million for wildfire prevention projects
• $500 million for Bureau of Indian Affairs infrastructure projects
• $340 million to the Natural Resources Conservation Service for watershed infrastructure projects
• $320 million to the Bureau of Land Management
• $300 million for reductions in emissions from diesel engines (EPA)
• $300 million to improve Land Ports of Entry (GSA)
• $280 million for National Wildlife Refuges and the National Fish Hatchery System
• $220 million to the International Boundary and Water Commission to repair flood control systems along the Rio Grande
• $200 million for cleanup of leaking Underground Storage Tanks (EPA)
• $100 million for cleaning former industrial and commercial sites (Brownfields) (EPA)

Government buildings and facilities[link]

Impact of the ARRA on Department of Defense facilities across the nation.

Total: $7.2 billion

• $4.2 billion to repair and modernize Defense Department facilities.
• $890 million to improve housing for service members
• $750 million for federal buildings and U.S. Courthouses (GSA)
• $250 million to improve Job Corps training facilities
• $240 million for new child development centers
• $240 million for the maintenance of United States Coast Guard facilities
• $200 million for Department of Homeland Security headquarters
• $176 million for Agriculture Research Service repairs and improvements
• $150 million for the construction of state extended-care facilities
• $100 million to improve facilities of the National Guard

Communications, information, and security technologies[link]

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) map showing the availability of broadband internet access in the U.S.

Total: $10.5 billion

• $7.2 billion for complete broadband and wireless Internet access
• $1 billion for explosive detection systems for airports
• $500 million to update the computer center at the Social Security Administration
• $420 million for construction and repairs at ports of entry
• $290 million to upgrade IT platforms at the State Department
• $280 million to upgrade border security technologies
• $210 million to build and upgrade fire stations
• $200 million for IT and claims processing improvements for Veterans Benefits Administration
• $150 million to upgrade port security
• $150 million for the security of transit systems
• $50 million for IT improvements at the Farm Service Agency
• $26 million to improve security systems at the Department of Agriculture headquarters

Energy Infrastructure[link]

Total: $21.5 billion^[43][44]

• $6 billion for the cleanup of radioactive waste (mostly nuclear weapons production sites)^[45]
• $4.5 billion for the Office of Electricity and Energy Reliability to modernize the nation's electrical grid and smart grid.
• $4.5 billion to increase energy efficiency in federal buildings (GSA)
• $3.25 billion for the Western Area Power Administration for power transmission system upgrades.
• $3.25 billion for the Bonneville Power Administration for power transmission system upgrades.

Energy efficiency and renewable energy research and investment[link]

Loans and investments into green energy technology are a significant part of the final bill

Total: $27.2 billion

• $6 billion for renewable energy and electric transmission technologies loan guarantees
• $5 billion for weatherizing modest-income homes
• $3.4 billion for carbon capture and low emission coal research
• $3.2 billion toward Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants.^[46]
• $3.1 billion for the State Energy Program to help states invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy
• $2 billion for manufacturing of advanced car battery (traction) systems and components.
• $800 million for biofuel research, development, and demonstration projects
• $602 million to support the use of energy efficient technologies in building and in industry
• $500 million for training of green-collar workers (by the Department of Labor)
• $400 million for the Geothermal Technologies Program
• $400 million for electric vehicle technologies
• $300 million for energy efficient appliance rebates
• $300 million for state and local governments to purchase energy efficient vehicles
• $300 million to acquire electric vehicles for the federal vehicle fleet (GSA)
• $250 million to increase energy efficiency in low-income housing
• $204 million in funding for research and testing facilities at national laboratories
• $190 million in funding for wind, hydro, and other renewable energy projects
• $115 million to develop and deploy solar power technologies
• $110 million for the development of high efficiency vehicles
• $42 million in support of new deployments of fuel cell technologies

Housing[link]

Total: $14.7 billion^[47]

• $4 billion to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for repairing and modernizing public housing, including increasing the energy efficiency of units.
• $2.25 billion in tax credits for financing low-income housing construction
• $2 billion for Section 8 housing rental assistance
• $2 billion for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program to purchase and repair foreclosed vacant housing
• $1.5 billion for rental assistance to prevent homelessness
• $1 billion in community development block grants for state and local governments
• $555 million in mortgage assistance for wounded service members (Army Corps of Engineers)
• $510 million for the rehabilitation of Native American housing
• $250 million for energy efficient modernization of low-income housing
• $200 million for helping rural Americans buy homes (Department of Agriculture)
• $140 million in grants for independent living centers for elderly blind persons (Dept. of Education)
• $130 million for rural community facilities (Department of Agriculture)
• $100 million to help remove lead paint from public housing
• $100 million emergency food and shelter for homeless (Department of Homeland Security)

Scientific research[link]

NASA is among the government agencies receiving additional funds under the Act

Total: $7.6 billion^{[citation needed]}

• $3 billion to the National Science Foundation
• $2 billion to the United States Department of Energy
• $1 billion to NASA, including "$400 million for space exploration related activities. Of this amount, $50 million [was] to be used for the development of commercial crew space transportation concepts and enabling capabilities."^[48]
• $600 million to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
• $580 million to the National Institute of Standards and Technology
• $230 million for NOAA operations, research and facilities
• $140 million to the United States Geological Survey

Other[link]

President Obama in Ohio on March 6, 2009 for the Graduation of the Columbus Police Division’s 114th Class, saying that the ARRA did bring some good news.

Total: $10.6 billion

• $4 billion for state and local law enforcement agencies^[49]
• $1.1 billion in waivers on interest payments for state unemployment trust funds
• $1 billion in preparation for the 2010 census
• $1 billion in added funding for child support enforcement
• $750 million for DTV conversion coupons and DTV transition education
• $749 million in crop insurance reinstatement, and emergency loans for farmers
• $730 million in SBA loans for small businesses
• $500 million for the Social Security Administration to process disability and retirement backlogs
• $201 million in additional funding for AmeriCorps and other community service organizations
• $150 million for Urban and Rural economic recovery programs
• $150 million for an increase of claims processing military staff
• $150 million in loans for rural businesses
• $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts to support artists
• $50 million for the National Cemetery Administration

Buy American provision[link]

ARRA included a 'Buy American' provision that imposed a general requirement that any public building or public works project funded by the new stimulus package must use only iron, steel and other manufactured goods produced in the United States.

A May 15, 2009 Washington Post article reported that the 'Buy American' provision of the stimulus package caused outrage in the Canadian business community, and that the government in Canada "retaliated" by enacting its own restrictions on trade with the U.S.^[50] On June 6, 2009, delegates at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities conference passed a resolution that would potentially shut out U.S. bidders from Canadian city contracts, in order to help show support for Prime Minister Stephen Harper's opposition to the "Buy American" provision. Sherbrooke Mayor Jean Perrault, president of the federation, stated, "This U.S. protectionist policy is hurting Canadian firms, costing Canadian jobs and damaging Canadian efforts to grow in the world-wide recession." There will be a 120 day delay before the resolution takes effect.^[51] On February 16, 2010, the United States and Canada agreed on exempting Canadian companies from Buy American provisions which would have hurt the Canadian economy.^[52][53]

Recommendations by economists[link]

President Barack Obama announces the creation of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board on February 6, 2009.

Economists such as Martin Feldstein, Daron Acemoğlu, National Economic Council director Larry Summers, and Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences winners Joseph Stiglitz^[54] and Paul Krugman^[55] favored large 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.^[56] 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."^[57] Other economists, including John Lott,^[58] Robert Barro and Nobel Memorial Prize-winners Robert Lucas, Jr.,^[59] Vernon L. Smith, Edward C. Prescott and James M. Buchanan, were more critical of the government spending.

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. 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."^[60] The funding for this advertisement came from the Cato Institute.^[61]

On February 8, 2009, a letter to Congress signed by about 200 economists in favor of the stimulus, written by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, said that Obama's plan "proposes important investments that can start to overcome the nation's damaging loss of jobs," and would "put the United States back onto a sustainable long-term-growth path."^[62] This letter was signed by Nobel Memorial laureates Kenneth Arrow, Lawrence R. Klein, Eric Maskin, Daniel McFadden, Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow. The New York Times published projections from IHS Global Insight, Moody's.com, Economy.com and Macroeconomic Advisers which indicated that the economy may have been worse without the ARRA.^[63][64]

Congressional Budget Office reports[link]

CBO estimates of the impact of the stimulus on GDP

A February 4, 2009, report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said that while the stimulus would increase economic output and employment in the short run, the GDP would, by 2019, have an estimated net decrease between 0.1% and 0.3% (as compared to the CBO estimated baseline).^[65]

The CBO estimated that enacting the bill would increase federal budget deficits by $185 billion over the remaining months of fiscal year 2009, by $399 billion in 2010, and by $134 billion in 2011, or $787 billion over the 2009–2019 period.^[66]

In a February 11 letter, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf noted that there was disagreement among economists about the effectiveness of the stimulus, with some skeptical of any significant effects while others expecting very large effects.^[67] Elmendorf said the CBO expected short term increases in GDP and employment.^[67] In the long term, the CBO expects the legislation to reduce output slightly by increasing the nation's debt and crowding out private investment, but noted that other factors, such as improvements to roads and highways and increased spending for basic research and education may offset the decrease in output and that crowding out was not an issue in the short term because private investment was already decreasing in response to decreased demand.^[67]

The CBO estimated that an increase in the GDP of between 1.4 percent and 3.8 percent by the end of 2009, between 1.1 percent and 3.3 percent by the end of 2010, between 0.4 percent and 1.3 percent by the end of 2011, and a decrease of between zero and 0.2 percent beyond 2014.^[67] The impact to employment would be an increase of 0.8 million to 2.3 million by the end of 2009, an increase of 1.2 million to 3.6 million by the end of 2010, an increase of 0.6 million to 1.9 million by the end of 2011, and declining increases in subsequent years as the U.S. labor market reaches nearly full employment, but never negative.^[67] Decreases in GDP in 2014 and beyond are accounted for by crowding out, where government debt absorbs finances that would otherwise go toward investment.^[67]

Recovery.gov[link]

Recovery.gov, the website created for this Act.

A May 21, 2009 article in The Washington Post stated, "To build support for the stimulus package, President Obama vowed unprecedented transparency, a big part of which, he said, would be allowing taxpayers to track money to the street level on Recovery.gov... But three months after the bill was signed, Recovery.gov offers little beyond news releases, general breakdowns of spending, and acronym-laden spreadsheets and timelines." The same article also stated, "Unlike the government site, the privately run Recovery.org is actually providing detailed information about how the $787 billion in stimulus money is being spent."^[68]

Reports regarding errors in reporting on the Web site made national news. News stories circulated about Recovery.gov reporting fund distribution to congressional districts that did not exist.^[69][70]

A new Recovery.gov website was redesigned at a cost estimated to be $9.5 million through January 2010.^[71] The section of the act that was intended to establish and regulate the operation of Recovery.gov was actually struck prior to its passage into law. Section 1226, which laid out provisions for the structure, maintenance, and oversight of the website were struck from the bill. Directives are currently being given to those organizations handling the stimulus dollars that tie directly to recovery.gov that will require that detailed reports be provided that will end up on recovery.gov which tie the dollars spent to activities in the bill.

On July 20, 2009, the Drudge Report published links to pages on Recovery.org which Drudge alleged were detailing expensive contracts awarded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for items such as individual portions of mozzarella cheese, frozen ham and canned pork, costing hundreds of thousands to over a million dollars. A statement released by the USDA the same day corrected the allegation, stating that "references to '2 pound frozen ham sliced' are to the sizes of the packaging. Press reports suggesting that the Recovery Act spent $1.191 million to buy "2 pounds of ham" are wrong. In fact, the contract in question purchased 760,000 pounds of ham for $1.191 million, at a cost of approximately $1.50 per pound."^[72]

Developments under the Act[link]

Chart of BLS job-loss data based on OFA's chart.

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden speak to state legislators about the implementation of the Recovery Act on March 20, 2009.

The Congressional Budget Office reported in October 2009 the reasons for the changes in the 2008 and 2009 deficits, which were approximately $460 billion and $1.41 trillion, respectively. The CBO estimated that ARRA increased the deficit by $200 billion for 2009, split evenly between tax cuts and additional spending, excluding any feedback effects on the economy.^[73]

On February 12, 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which regularly issues economic reports, published job-loss data on a month-by-month basis since 2000.^[74] Organizing for America, a community organizing project of the Democratic National Committee, prepared a chart presenting the BLS data for the period beginning in December 2007. OFA used the chart to argue, "As a result [of the Recovery Act], job losses are a fraction of what they were a year ago, before the Recovery Act began."^[75] Others argue that job losses always grow early in a recession and naturally slow down with or without government stimulus spending, and that the OFA chart was mis-leading.

In the primary justification for the stimulus package, the Obama administration and Democratic proponents presented a graph in January 2009 showing the projected unemployment rate with and without the ARRA.^[1] The graph showed that if ARRA was not enacted the unemployment rate would exceed 9%; but if ARRA was enacted it would never exceed 8%. After ARRA became law, the actual unemployment rate exceeded 8% in February 2009, exceeded 9% in May 2009, and exceeded 10% in October 2009. The actual unemployment rate was 9.2% in June 2011 when it was projected to be below 7% with the ARRA. However, this can be accounted for by noting that the actual recession was subsequently revealed to be much worse than any projections at the time when the ARRA was drawn up.

Projected Unemployment Rate

According to a March 2009 Industry Survey of and by the National Association of Business Economists, 70.6% of their economists who had reviewed the fiscal stimulus enacted in February 2009 projected it would have modest to strong impact in shortening the recession, with 29.4% anticipating little or no impact. The aspects of the stimulus expected by the NABE to have the greatest effectiveness were physical infrastructure, unemployment benefits expansion, and personal tax-rate cuts.^[76]

One year after the stimulus, several independent macroeconomic firms, including Moody's and IHS Global Insight, estimated that the stimulus saved or created 1.6 to 1.8 million jobs and forecast a total impact of 2.5 million jobs saved by the time the stimulus is completed.^[77] The Congressional Budget Office considered these estimates conservative.^[78] The CBO estimated according to its model 2.1 million jobs saved in the last quarter of 2009, boosting the economy by up to 3.5 percent and lowering the unemployment rate by up to 2.1 percent.^[79] The CBO projected that the package would have an even greater impact in 2010.^[79] The CBO also said, "It is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package."^[80] The CBO's report on the first quarter of 2010 showed a continued positive effect, with an employment gain in that quarter of up to 2.8 million and a GDP boost of up to 4.2 percent.^[81] On the other hand, economists Timothy Conley of the University of Western Ontario and Bill Dupor of the Ohio State University used state level variation to estimate that while the stimulus created or saved 450 thousand government jobs, it destroyed or forestalled 1 million private sector jobs, thus costing jobs on net.^[82] Conley and Dupor's analysis has been criticized for its seemingly statistically irrelevant results.^[83][84][85] Other researchers have come to significantly more positive conclusions about the bill's effects on jobs. Economist Dan Wilson of the Federal Reserve, who used similar methodology, without the same identified errors, estimates that "ARRA spending created or saved about 2 million jobs in its first year and over 3 million by March 2011."^[86]

The CBO also revised its assessment of the long-term impact of the bill. After 2014, the stimulus is estimated to decrease output by zero to 0.2%. The stimulus is not expected to have a negative impact on employment in any period of time.^[87]

In 2011, the Department of Commerce revised some of its previous estimates. Economist Dean Baker commented:

[T]he revised data ... showed that the economy was plunging even more rapidly than we had previously recognised in the two quarters following the collapse of Lehman. Yet, the plunge stopped in the second quarter of 2009 – just as the stimulus came on line. This was followed by respectable growth over the next four quarters. Growth then weakened again as the impact of the stimulus began to fade at the end of 2010 and the start of this year. 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.^[88]

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee established a "Hypocrisy Hall of Fame" to list Republican Representatives who had voted against ARRA but who then sought or took credit for ARRA programs in their districts. As of September 2011, the DCCC was listing 128 House Republicans in this category.^[89] Newsweek reported that many of the Republican legislators who publicly argued that the stimulus would not create jobs were writing letters seeking stimulus programs for their districts on the grounds that the spending would create jobs.^[90]

The stimulus has been criticized as being too small. In July 2010, a group of 40 prominent economists issued a statement calling for expanded stimulus programs to reduce unemployment. They also challenged the view that the priority should be reducing the deficit: "Making deficit reduction the first target, without addressing the chronic underlying deficiency of demand, is exactly the error of the 1930s."^[91]

In July 2010, the White House Council of Economic Advisers estimated that the stimulus had "saved or created between 2.5 and 3.6 million jobs as of the second quarter of 2010."^[92] At that point, spending outlays under the stimulus totaled $257 billion and tax cuts totaled $223 billion.^[93] In July 2011, the White House Council of Economic Advisers estimated that as of the first quarter of 2011,^[94] the ARRA raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by between 2.4 and 3.6 million. The sum of outlays and tax cuts up to this point was $666 billion. Using a straight mathematical calculation, critics reported that the ARRA cost taxpayers between $185,000 to $278,000 per job that was created, though this computation does not include the permanent infrastructure that resulted.

In August 2010, Republican Senators Tom Coburn and John McCain released a report listing 100 projects it described as the "most wasteful projects" funded by the Act. In total, the projects questioned by the two senators amounted to about $15 billion, or less than 2% of the $862 billion. The two senators did concede that the stimulus has had a positive effect on the economy, though they criticized it for failing to give "the biggest bang for our buck" on the issue of job creation. CNN noted that the two senators' stated objections were brief summaries presenting selective accounts that were unclear, and the journalists pointed out several instances where they created erroneous impressions.^[95]

One of the primary purposes and promises Act was to launch a large number of "shovel-ready" projects that would generate jobs^[96] However, a sizable number of these projects, most of which pertained to infrastructure, took longer to implement than they had expected by most.^[97][98] This was largely attributed to the regulatory process that is involved in such projects.^{[citation needed]}

Some of the tax incentives in the Act, including those related to the American opportunity tax credit and Earned Income Tax Credit, were extended for a further two years by the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010.^[99]

In November 2011 the Congressional Budget Office updated its earlier reports concerning the Act. The CBO stated that "the employment effects began to wane at the end of 2010 and have continued to do so throughout 2011." Nevertheless, in the third quarter of 2011, the CBO estimated that the Act had increased the number of full-time equivalent jobs by 0.5 million to 3.3 million.^[100]

Oversight and administration[link]

In addition to the Vice President Biden's oversight role, a high-level advisory body, the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board (later renamed and reconstituted the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness), was named concurrent to the passage of the act.

As well, the President named Inspector General of the United States Department of the Interior Earl Devaney and the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board to monitor administration of the Act.^[101] Eleven other IG's served on the RATB, and the Board also had an Recovery Independent Advisory Panel.

In late 2011, Devaney and his fellow IG's, on RATB and more who were not, were credited with avoiding any major scandals in the administration of the Act, in the eyes of one Washington observer.^[102]

See also[link]

• 2010 United States federal budget
• Build America Bonds
• Energy law of the United States
• European Economic Recovery Plan
• Federalreporting.gov
• Late-2000s financial crisis
• Infrastructure
• Pathways out of Poverty (POP)
• School Improvement Grant
• Race to the Top

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikisource has original text related to this article: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

• Complete text of enacted statute at Wikisource
• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Fully Searchable Conference Version
• Recovery.gov – A website of the Executive for transparency of actions taken under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
• Full Video of The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 signing ceremony on February 17, 2009 (from C-SPAN)
• Vice President Biden and President Obama speeches on the 1 year anniversary of the ARRA (from C-SPAN)

Analysis

• Stimulus.org Tracking the Stimulus, Financial Bailout, and Recovery Spending
• Stimulus Analysis – An economic and fiscal analysis of the Act, from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
• Onvia Tracking Recovery project database
• Stimulus Watch.org – built to help the new administration keep its pledge to invest stimulus money smartly
• A report of estimated ARRA funds for students with disabilities in public schools by state
• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 from Discourse DB
• EERE Network News, from Energy.gov

Bob Casey, Jr.
United States Senator from Pennsylvania
Incumbent
Assumed office January 3, 2007 Serving with Pat Toomey
Preceded by	Rick Santorum
34th Treasurer of Pennsylvania
In office January 18, 2005[1] – January 3, 2007
Preceded by	Barbara Hafer
Succeeded by	Robin Wiessmann
49th Auditor General of Pennsylvania
In office January 21, 1997[2] – January 18, 2005
Preceded by	Barbara Hafer
Succeeded by	Jack Wagner
Personal details
Born	Robert Patrick Casey, Jr. (1960-04-13) April 13, 1960 (age 52) Scranton, Pennsylvania
Political party	Democratic
Spouse(s)	Terese Foppiano Casey
Children	Elyse Casey Caroline Casey Julia Casey Marena Casey
Residence	Scranton, Pennsylvania
Alma mater	College of the Holy Cross (B.A.) The Catholic University of America (J.D.)
Occupation	Attorney
Committees	Foreign Relations, Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Joint Economic Committee, Special Committee on Aging
Religion	Roman Catholic[citation needed]
Website	casey.senate.gov

Robert Patrick "Bob" Casey, Jr. (born April 13, 1960) is an American attorney and politician. He is currently senior United States Senator from Pennsylvania, and a member of the Democratic Party. He previously served as Pennsylvania Treasurer and Pennsylvania Auditor General.

Born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, Casey is the son of Bob Casey, Sr., a former Governor of Pennsylvania. After graduating from Scranton Preparatory School in 1978, he attended the College of the Holy Cross. He received his law degree from the Columbus School of Law at The Catholic University of America.

Casey practiced law in Scranton, Pennsylvania, before beginning his political career as Pennsylvania's Auditor General, a post to which he was elected to in 1996 and re-elected in 2000.

In the 2002 Pennsylvania gubernatorial election, Casey attempted to follow his father's footsteps in a run for Governor of Pennsylvania. He was defeated, however, in the Democratic primary by eventual general election victor Ed Rendell. After being term-limited out of his position as Auditor General, Casey was elected State Treasurer in the 2004 election.

Casey defeated incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Rick Santorum in the 2006 election. He is the first Democrat to be elected to a full term in the U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania since Joe Clark won reelection in 1962.^[3] He is running for reelection to his seat in the U.S. Senate in the 2012 election.

Early life, education, and law career[link]

Casey was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, one of eight children of Ellen (née Harding) and Bob Casey, the 42nd governor of Pennsylvania. He is of Irish descent on both his mother's^{[citation needed]} and father's side.

Casey played basketball and graduated from Scranton Preparatory School in 1978. Following in his father's footsteps, he graduated from the College of the Holy Cross in 1982, and received a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from the Columbus School of Law at The Catholic University of America in 1988. Between both college and law school, Casey served as a member of the Jesuit Volunteer Corps, and spent a year teaching 5th grade and coaching basketball at the Gesu School in inner city Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Casey practiced law in Scranton from 1991 until 1996.

Early political career[link]

State Auditor General[link]

Casey ran for and was elected Pennsylvania State Auditor General in 1996. He was re-elected in 2000, and served for two terms, from 1997 to 2005. While holding this position, Casey attempted to combat fraud and was fiscally conservative.

In a 2002 PoliticsPA feature story designating politicians with yearbook superlatives, he was named the "Most Likely to Succeed."^[4]

2002 gubernatorial election[link]

Casey attempted to follow in his father's footsteps by running for Pennsylvania Governor. Casey faced former Philadelphia mayor Ed Rendell in the Democratic primary election. The Pennsylvania Democratic Party threw their support behind Casey, whom they saw as a more electable candidate against Rendell. In a bitter primary, Rendell won the nomination by winning only 10 out of 67 counties: Philadelphia and its suburbs: Bucks, Chester, Montgomery, and Delaware, its Lehigh Valley exurbs: Berks, Lehigh and Northampton, and Centre County, the home of Penn State University.^[5] Rendell went on to win the general election.

State Treasurer[link]

In 2004, Casey, who was term limited in his auditor general position, ran for another state-wide office. He was elected Pennsylvania State Treasurer on a platform advocating government accountability. In this capacity, he fought to make children's healthcare and daycare more affordable, nursing homes safer, and Megan's Law as a better enforced provision.^[6]

During his tenure in this post, a corruption scandal known as Bonusgate was exposed. Described as "the biggest corruption scandal in state government in memory,"^[7] it involved the siphoning off of state funds, overseen by Casey, to pay civil servants to spend time working for Democratic party goals. A grand jury “found that between 2004 and 2006 alone, Pennsylvania House Democratic Caucus employees were secretly paid $1,641,550 in taxpayer money as compensation for working to elect Democratic candidates.”^[8] Several people were convicted of wrongdoing, including former House Democratic Whip Mike Veon and former Speaker Bill DeWeese.^[9]

U.S. Senate[link]

Elections[link]

2006

In 2005, Casey received calls from U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, as well as Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), the Senate Minority Leader. Both men asked him to run for U.S. Senate in 2006 against Republican incumbent Rick Santorum. On March 5, 2005, Casey announced he would seek the Democratic nomination for the Senate race. Casey's run for the Senate was his fifth statewide campaign in nine years.

After he announced that he would run, Casey was almost immediately endorsed by Governor Ed Rendell, his primary election opponent from 2002.^[10] He was endorsed by two Democrats who had been mentioned as possible U.S. Senate nominees: former Congressman Joe Hoeffel who ran against Pennsylvania's other Senator, Arlen Specter, in 2004, and former State Treasurer Barbara Hafer, whom many in the pro-choice movement attempted to convince to run against Casey in the Democratic primary.

In the Democratic primary, Casey faced two Democrats with more liberal viewpoints: college professor Chuck Pennacchio and pension lawyer Alan Sandals. Both argued that Casey's views on abortion and other social issues were too conservative for most Pennsylvania Democrats. However, Casey easily defeated both challengers in the May 16 primary, receiving 85% of the vote.

On election night, Casey won the race with 59% of the vote, compared to 41% for incumbent Senator Rick Santorum. Casey's margin of victory was the highest ever for a Democrat running for the United States Senate in Pennsylvania.^[11] Casey's 17.4-point victory margin was the largest victory margin for a challenger to an incumbent Senator since James Abdnor unseated George McGovern by 18.8 points in 1980.

Casey was the first Pennsylvania Democrat elected to a full term in the Senate since Joseph Clark was reelected in 1962.

2012

Casey is up for re-election in 2012, and has stated that he intends to seek a second term in the Senate.^[12][13] His re-election prospects are uncertain. Observers have noted that as the election approaches, Casey, an early supporter of Obama, has “started to oppose the president outright or developed more nuanced responses to events that differentiate him from Mr. Obama. Analysts say Mr. Casey wants to put some distance between himself and a president whose job approval ratings in Pennsylvania are poor.”^[14] In October 2011, the National Journal noted that “the Scranton area is hugely important for 2012” for both Obama and Casey, but “the city has among the worst unemployment in the state, and it's filled with the blue-collar Dems who weren't very enthusiastic about Obama when he first ran for president. How Casey navigates his relationship with the president will speak volumes about his re-election prospects.”^[15]

On March 13, 2010, an “Interfamily Transfer and Dissolution” for a property located at 2406 Victor Street in Easton, PA, 18042, was recorded. An “Interfamily Transfer and Dissolution” is often undertaken in order to reduce taxes on a property.^[16]

In December 2011, it was reported that the AFL–CIO would be spending “over $170,000” on pro-Casey TV ads.^[17]

Tenure[link]

Casey speaks during the second day of the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado.

On March 28, 2008 Casey announced his endorsement of frontrunning candidate Senator Barack Obama in the Democratic Party presidential primary.^[18] The Pennsylvania Report said that he "struck gold" by endorsing Obama early in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, a move that gave him "inside access to the halls of the White House.".^[19] Casey campaigned across Pennsylvania in support of Obama's candidacy in the months leading up to the primary in that state; they bowled together at Holiday Bowl in Altoona, PA.

SOPA/PIPA

Casey is a co-sponsor of S.968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act. ^[20] This act, as well as the associated H.R.3261, Stop Online Piracy Act, has been widely criticized by its many opponents to threaten the very existence of a free, uncensored internet. ^{[21] [22] [23] [24]}

Health care reform

Casey supported President Barack Obama's health reform legislation; he voted for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in December 2009,^[25] and he voted for the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.^[26]

Illegal immigration

Casey supported the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1348), a bill voted down in the 110th United States Congress, which could have provided a path to legal citizenship for undocumented persons currently residing in the United States. He has also supported the Clinton amendment, the Menendez amendment, and the Alaska amendments.^[27]

During the 2006 Senate race, Casey also expressed support for the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, saying this: "if I were in the United States Senate I would vote yes."^[28]

Abortion

Casey, like his father did, identifies as pro-life. He has publicly stated his support for overturning Roe v. Wade.^[29] From Casey's election until Specter's party switch in April 2009, Pennsylvania had the distinction of being represented in the Senate by a self-identified pro-life Democrat and a pro-choice Republican (Arlen Specter).

He supports the Pregnant Women Support Act,^[30] legislation that grew out of Democrats for Life of America's 95-10 Initiative. The Initiative and the Pregnant Women Support Act seek to reduce the abortion rate by providing support to women in unplanned pregnancies. He expressed support for the confirmation of both John Roberts^[31] and Samuel Alito^[32] for seats on the Supreme Court of the United States; these judges are believed to be in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. Casey also opposes the funding of embryonic stem-cell research.^[33]

However, Casey voted against barring HHS grants to organizations that provide abortion services, though such services may often not be central to the organization’s chief purpose.^[34] Casey also supports over-the-counter sale of emergency contraception,^[35] and has voted to overturn the Mexico City policy, which bars the issuance of federal funds to overseas organizations that perform or refer for abortions.^[36] The authenticity of Casey's pro-life commitment has been questioned by some partisan Republican pro-life sources.^[36][37]

In January 2010, a writer for CBN wrote, “I wouldn't want to be Senator Bob Casey right about now. He is coming under enormous pressure from pro-life groups because they say the 'Pro-life' Democratic Senator has not stood strong on the abortion issue during the current healthcare debate.” Casey, according to the CBN writer, had recently gotten “an earful and then some from pro-lifers during a press conference held at the Pennsylvania Capitol.”^[38]

LGBT issues

Casey was a co-sponsor of and voted for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010.^[39][40]

Casey was a co-sponsor of and voted for the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Casey is a co-sponsor of S. 1584 (Employment Non-Discrimination Act)^[41]

Casey is a supporter of civil unions for same-sex couples.^[42]

Casey on several occasions supported same sex partners adopting children,^[43][44] and specifically expressed his opposition to legislation that would prohibit adoption by same-sex couples.^[45]

Birth control

In an diocesan survey, Casey expressed support for "requiring employers or health insurance plans to cover contraceptives in their prescription drug plans". He also stated his support for "a provision in the state’s budget to fund contraceptive services."^[44] Casey's views on this extend to the federal funding of contraception, which he also supports. However, Casey also opposes laws that would "force pharmacists to fill a prescription contrary to their moral beliefs."

Economics

On economic and education-based issues, Casey falls more closely in line with mainstream Democratic policies.

Casey's website reports he has also criticized what he views as "draconian cuts to Medicare and Medicaid," and has stated that Medicare Part D is "fundamentally flawed" and in need of a "complete overhaul." Furthermore, it states Casey's support for the Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act, which would expand the Family and Medical Leave Act, authored in the early 1990s by Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, to companies with at least 25 employees.^[46]

Casey is an opponent of privatizing Social Security,^[47] and is a critic of many recent tax cuts, which he claims have "not caused the 'trickle-down' economic growth" that was promised from them. Casey had also criticized Santorum for voting against increasing the minimum wage.^[48]

Education

According to the candidates' questionnaire, Casey opposes school vouchers.^[44]

Environment

Casey opposes drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Instead, he supports increased federal investment in hybrid and alternative fuel technology to help wean the United States off of foreign oil.^[49] In a debate, Casey criticized his Republican opponent Rick Santorum for not recognizing the danger of global warming.^[50] He also supports increased funding for Brownfield cleanup, as well as a reinstatement of the polluter-pays principle for the Superfund program.^[51]

Committee assignments[link]

• Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
  • Subcommittee on Jobs, Rural Economic Growth and Energy Innovation
  • Subcommittee on Nutrition, Specialty Crops, Food and Agricultural Research (Chairman)
  • Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, Poultry, Marketing and Agriculture Security
• Committee on Foreign Relations
  • Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs (Chairman)
  • Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs
  • Subcommittee on European Affairs
  • Subcommittee on International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs and International Environmental Protection
• Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
  • Subcommittee on Children and Families
  • Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging
• Special Committee on Aging
• Joint Economic Committee (Chairman)

Electoral history[link]

Casey speaking at Abington High School in support of Sen. Barack Obama, October 2008

Personal life[link]

Casey and his wife Terese were married in 1985, and they have four daughters.

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Bob Casey, Jr.

• U.S. Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr. official U.S. Senate site
• Bob Casey for U.S. Senate official campaign site
• Biography at WhoRunsGov.com at The Washington Post
• Biography at the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress
• Voting record maintained by The Washington Post
• Biography, voting record, and interest group ratings at Project Vote Smart
• Congressional profile at GovTrack
• Congressional profile at OpenCongress
• Issue positions and quotes at On the Issues
• Financial information at OpenSecrets.org
• Staff salaries, trips and personal finance at LegiStorm.com
• Campaign finance reports and data at the Federal Election Commission
• Campaign contributions at the National Institute for Money in State Politics
• Appearances on C-SPAN programs
• Collected news and commentary at The New York Times