Labor Force Nonparticipation Undermines Recent Claims of ARRA Success

This essay examines the Buy American requirements of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) which was signed into law in February 2009. The Act provided for $787 billion in spending and tax cuts that were intended to stimulate the U.S. economy. The ARRA provided funds for contracts to be awarded by various federal agencies. These contracts were subject to significant constraints and compliance regulations, including requirements to Buy American.

Introduced in July 2012, H.R. 8, the Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act of 2012, sponsored by Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, was approved by the House of Representatives in August 2012 and forwarded to the Senate for consideration. Opponents of H.R. 8 maintain that the plan does not provide tax cuts for all American taxpayers while supporters on both sides of the aisle argue that these changes to the Internal Revenue Code are needed to sustain the nation's economic recovery and prevent another recession. To determine the facts in the debate over H.R. 8, the Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act of 2012, this paper provides a review of relevant governmental and media sources, followed by a summary of the research and important findings in the conclusion.

In fact, much of the recent reduction in the deficit is due to the decline in unemployment” (p. 1). With record high deficits within the last years the idea of the government spending to spur the economy that ultimately would help reduce the unemployment level seems near impossible without further affecting the deficit rather than helping reduce it.

Barack Obama’s policies are still in effect and apparently working. The proof is in, government spending cures an economy, just like John Maynard Keynes says. But, are Obama’s policies working? Princeton University Professor Alan S. Binder and Moody Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi published “How the Great Recession Was Brought to an End” in July, 2010. They calculated the effectiveness of various parts of President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 package with a comparison of how much each type of economic policy actually translated into an economic benefit – how much bang did each buck provide. Binder and Moody calculated “The bang for the buck is estimated by the one year $ change in GDP for a given $ reduction in federal tax revenue or increase in spending”.

Beginning with unemployment in the 2007-2009 recession, U.S. unemployment rates peaked at 10% as well as held 41 consecutive months at rates higher than eight percent (Lazear 1). The U.S. economy plummeted during this time; many attributed the shift to a large decrease in the number of employed workers. To be able to better understand the unemployment issue, we must first examine the form of unemployment faced by the U.S. economy. Many believe that the changes faced by the U.S. labor market

The objective of the American Recovery and Reinvestment act, also known as the “stimulus” was to end the recession that had occurred in 2008. The recession had a major impact on the U.S job market. The United States congress approved the act which consisted of an investment of 787 billion dollars in order to encourage customer spending and also to save old jobs and create new ones.

Given the critical circumstances the United States economy faces today, the current fiscal policy, in addition to the changes that will be made in the future, is under intense scrutiny. During the Obama administration, which will soon come to an end in about six months, a variety of policies were created in attempts to create employment, raise our GDP, and boost the state of the economy, among other ideas. The fiscal policies created by Congress and the President demonstrate success in some areas, while failing in other areas, as many, including myself, would argue. As the 2016 election quickly approaches, it is important to remember previous fiscal mistakes and successes, and the current economy, in order to better grasp what will be necessary for a successful fiscal policy in the future.

While there are expectations of a yearly gain of nearly 2.3 million net new jobs, the unemployment rate is still very high i.e. around 6.5 percent. The lower-than-expected job growth is fueled by various factors including government hiring, weather, and Obamacare. Actually, similar to December, January had a lower-than expected increase in job opportunities since only 113,000 jobs were created. However, the rate of unemployment still reduced to 6.6 percent in this month despite of the growth in labor force. The current rate of unemployment is the lowest in U.S. since the 2008 recession because more people are leaving the labor force instead of finding jobs.

…I asked my nominee for chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Dr. Christina Romer, and the vice president-elect's chief economic adviser, Dr. Jared Bernstein , to conduct a rigorous analysis of this plan and come up with projections of how many jobs it will create—and what kind of jobs they will be… The report confirms that our plan will likely save or create 3 to 4 million jobs… The jobs we create will be in businesses large and small across a wide range of industries. And they'll be the kind of jobs that don't just put people to work in the short term, but position our economy to lead the world in the long-term… The jobs being created by the House bill could cost as much as 2.5 times more than jobs created without the stimulus bill. (Grassley)

Classical macroeconomists have been, if whatever, even more opposed to fiscal enlargement than to economic growth. Keynesian economists, however, gave monetary policy a primary role in combating recessions. Monetarists argued that economic coverage was useless so long as the cash supply changed into held regular. However, that sturdy view has come to be distinctly rare. maximum macroeconomists now agree that fiscal coverage, like economic coverage, can shift the aggregate call for curve. maximum macroeconomists additionally agree that the authorities need to no longer are searching for to stability the finances regardless of the nation of the financial system: they agree that the role of the finances as an automatic stabilizer enables preserve

A different Bureau of Labor Statistics data reveals that the annual unemployment rate from 1986-2000 significantly fell from seven percent to four percent. These data support the positive effects the IRCA had in the U.S. labor force after it was implemented.

The U.S has gone through a major economic struggle and is still fighting for stability. It is, also, undergoing a recession which occurs whenever gross domestic product and the total output of goods and services fall for two consecutive quarters. The 789 billion dollars stimulus package has not created many private sector jobs and the hundreds of billions in TARP money squandered by Treasury Secretary Geithner to bail out General Motors, Chrysler, Bank of America, AIG and Citigroup has not reached most business and working Americans (Peter Morici). Though the unemployment rate has decreased, it is because many Americans have stopped looking for jobs and are no longer in the unemployment rates. This, of course, does not show any improvement in the U.S economy. Most of the taxpayers’ money is being used to support illegal families with American-born babies; while, many illegal Mexicans are taking jobs from citizens who are desperately searching for jobs. With this unattended problem the country’s economical repair will be prolonged.

| Advocates of active monetary and fiscal policy view the economy as inherently unstable and believe that policy can manage aggregate demand, and thereby, production and employment, to offset the inherent instability. When aggregate demand is inadequate to ensure full employment, policymakers should boost government spending, cut taxes, and expand money supply. However, when aggregate demand is excessive, risking higher inflation, policymakers should cut government spending, raise taxes, and reduce the money supply. Such policy actions put

The United States is currently experiencing a slow recovery from the recession of 2008-09. The current unemployment rate is 7.7%, which is the lowest level since December of 2008 (BLS, 2012). However, this rate is believed to higher than the rate that would occur if the economy was operating at peak efficiency, and it is also believed that there are structural issues still underpinning this performance. For example, the number of Americans who have exited the work force as the result of prolonged unemployment is believed to be higher than usual. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO, 2012) notes that long-term unemployment of greater than 26 weeks is at a much higher rate than normal, which will have adverse long-run effects on the economy, since workers with long-term unemployment often find their career paths derailed.

Theories about how the economy works and what will happen in the economy where there is monetary policy or fiscal policy intervention are appropriate in assisting policy-makers understand the possible implications of decisions they make or are under consideration. However, they are rarely complete models and often outcomes cannot be predicted. Reintroduction of a theory suggests that new evidence in support of the theory has been reported.