Stimulus Bill Political Communication Political Communication During

Stimulus Bill Political Communication

Political Communication during the Stimulus Bill Debate

In times of economic uncertainty and national emergency, the government has the capacity to make decisions that it believes will aid the country in its time of need. Such a time of need occurred in 2009 when the country continued to face an existence of dire economic circumstances involving national cash-flow and jobs. In order to set economic recovery into motion, President Obama called for the passing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), otherwise regarded as the stimulus bill. While such a bill was considered pivotal by many government officials in order to get the country back on its feet, crucial differences in policy and bill structure could be viewed in assessing the opinions Democrats and Republicans brought to the floor in terms of the bill's passing. In understanding the basis of the bill itself, along with gauging the opinions of two noted leaders from each party, one can better assess the capacity of which political communication, the mass media, and public opinion have upon the passage of such bills, and more specifically the ARRA of 2009.

Bill Overview

As previously noted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 -- or the stimulus -- is an economic package enacted by the United States Congress in February of 2009 and signed into law by President Barack Obama on February 17, 2009. The bill was set in motion in order to combat the effects of the late-2000s recession. During this time, the United States suffered greatly from a severe and continuous economic problem that began in late 2007 and took a drastic and sharp downward turn in the fall of 2008. The economic landscape of the time saw unparalleled unemployment, drastic issues in the housing market, and an overall case of economic calamity. The stimulus bill was set into motion in order to both save and create jobs first and foremost. Second, the bill contained objectives to provide temporary relief programs for those impacted most by the recession and invest in infrastructure, education, health, and green energy (Bernstein and Romer, 2009, p.1). In the field of healthcare alone, the stimulus would launch significant funding for the research and coordination of policies and guidelines that would mandate health coverage and reimbursement for bills paid during the recession (Steinbrook, 2009, p. 1059). In the field of green technology, the ARRA would introduce spending and tax credits of $70 billion for clean-energy and transportation programs (Makower, Pernick and Wilder, 2009, p.18). The effects would be significant, and would aid more facets of the economy than the financial market.

The approximate cost of the stimulus package was labeled at $787 billion at the time of its passage, and it included direct spending in infrastructure, education, health, energy, federal tax incentives, and expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions (Calmes, 2009, p.1). The bill was found to hold a significant basis in monetary policy, nominal interest rates and the rule-of-thumb behavior that has long been attributed to the new Keynesian model (Cogan, Cwik and Taylor, 2010, p. 281). The rationale for the stimulus bill was based on the 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 (Espo, 2009, p.1).

Democratic Politician's Ideology and Arguments

Upon taking office in 2009, left reeling in the wake of the financial system's collapse, no Democrat was as pivotal in the passage of the stimulus bill as President Barack Obama. President Obama began his work toward a fiscal stimulus even before his swearing in, working side-by-side with many Democratic Congressional leaders in an effort to determine what the size and shape of his plan should be immediately upon taking his place within the White House.

His rationale was basic and direct: assist the American economy in a manner that wastes no further time in order to alter the situation he began his presidency dealing with. In pushing for the passage of his bill in public forums, Obama warned of dire and lasting consequences if Congress chose not to pump such unprecedented dollars into the economy, and his first speech post-election dealt solely with the mammoth spending proposal that was to follow (Obama, 2009, p.1). The passage of the stimulus would reverse the upward trend in inequality between the economy and the income scale, and Democrats heralded it as the savior the country needed (David and Leeper, 2011, p. 213). At this time, the president-elect noted that the recession "could linger for years," unless Congress aligned with his plans and passed the bill. He went on to note "I don't believe it's too late to change course, but it will be if we don't take dramatic action as soon as possible" during his speech delivered at George Mason University in Virginia (Obama, 2009, p.1). Obama's pitching of his bill to Congress and the American public was unrelenting, and he went on to speak on the topic consistently in the weeks up to his presidency and in the weeks that came soon afterward. He called directly for Congressional bipartisanship, noting that it was time to put good ideas ahead of the old ideological battles; a sense of common purpose above the same narrow partisanship; and insist that the first question each of us asks isn't "What's good for me?" But "What's good for the country my children will inherit?" (Obama, 2009, p.1). The bill, Obama argued, would set in motion an age of new financial structure in the country despite the collapse of past models (Strobel, 2009, p. 84).

Despite significant turmoil within Congress brought on from Republican

disagreement with the proposed plan, President Obama continued on with his plan to pass the stimulus while critiquing the GOP's economic policy. Despite Republican Congressional suggestions for modifications and addendums to the bill, the President continually held firm to his proposed plan. At a speech at the United States Energy Department, the President asserted that Republican ideologies on the topic were outdated and irrelevant in the case of the current economic situation, noting that in the last few days, we've [Congress] seen proposals arise from some in Congress that you [the public] may not have read but you'd be very familiar with, because you've been hearing them for the past 10 years, maybe longer (Obama, 2009, p.1).

He went on to note that Republican ideologies of the past were largely rooted in the idea that tax cuts alone can solve many of the country's problems, including the economic situation of the time. Obama continued to cite Republican tendency to ignore economic challenges, citing that the government must not play a significant role. Democrats, on the other hand, had a fresh idea and a fresh ideology. The Republican presidency of George W. Bush and the eight years prior to Obama's taking office had left the country where it was, and it was now up to Democratic standards to fix it. Obama noted in the same Energy Department speech that the [Republican] ideas have been tested, and they have failed. Republican ideas had taken us from surpluses to an annual deficit of over a trillion dollars, and they've brought our economy to a halt (Obama, 2009, p.1). Now was the time to move forward, not back. Obama called for action.

Democratic ideology in terms of the stimulus bill was rooted directly in the facets of Keynesian economics, along with the notion that the initiatives taken by the previous Republican administration had not been effective in attempting to counter the impending crisis. Rather than counter the economic crisis at hand, George W. Bush and the Republican Party did little to make an effective mark on the path to economic recovery. Democrats now labored under the belief that small stimulus package and disjointed efforts were not only ineffective, but outdated. In order to move the country forward, the Democratic Party -- led by President Obama -- placed focus on large numbers that would truly make a difference as well as bipartisan efforts.

Republican Politician's Ideology and Arguments

Since the passage of the 2009 stimulus package, Republicans have largely labeled the bill a failure, despite economists' general consensus that it helped stave off deeper job losses and supported a modest recovery (NYT, 2011, p.1). Such opposition to the bill could be seen far before its eventual passage and into its planning stages, especially from Republican senator and Obama presidential challenger, John McCain. Despite his lacking significant power within the Senate, McCain -- fresh off the campaign trails -- levied significant power in terms of media attention and therefore in public opinion.

McCain became a pivotal player in lobbying against President Obama and the Democrats' bill by voicing Republican criticisms. McCain and Republicans argued that such a liberal spending bill would not solve the problem of the economic crisis, but only inflate the government, contributing further to the national economic debt which could ultimately lead to socialism within the country (Alarkon, 2009, p.1). McCain and other Senate Republicans claimed that the bill was passed too quickly and wasteful government spending was allowed to creep into the bill (AP, 2009, p.1).

McCain largely criticized Democratic dismissal of Republican concerns over the massive status of the package. He noted that the whole point was to enact tax cuts and spending measures that truly stimulate the economy. McCain believed there were billions and tens of billions of dollars in the bill which would have no effect within three, four, five, or more years, or as he continuously noted -- ever (McCain, 2009, p.1.)

While Democratic ideology aligned with a model representative of Keynesian

economics, Republicans called for government spending in a manner that would align with the ideology presented in Reaganomics. Republicans argued for the inclusion of economic tactics such as tax cuts to small businesses and reduced government spending adherent to this ideology, rather than increased government spending as proposed by Democrats. Under such a conservative model, government tax cuts to small businesses would encourage the owners to expand due to a lower cost of capital; tax cuts to employees, Republicans argued, would encourage them to work or to seek work harder, and businesses would then hire additional employees, thus expanding the economy with minimal government intervention (Belle, 2009, p.1).

Democratic Perspective Personal Alignment

While the nation is still currently functioning in a state of economic uncertainty and apparent disrepair in certain areas, the fact remains that the United States is in far better shape than it was at the height of the economic recession several years ago. Not only were millions of jobs saved, but the creation of new jobs further occurred with the passage of the stimulus package. With the package came the opportunity for a newly-elected Democratic president and the Democratic majority at the time to take a stand congressionally in pulling America from the brink of depression and placing it on the road to economic recovery.

Republicans had utilized their own versions of stimulus passages in the years leading up to and during the recession, including the stimulus package passed by then-president George W. Bush in 2008. Bush's stimulus package was small in scale and haphazardly designed. While it had some positive effects, Bush's package was nowhere near enough to counteract the downward spiral in the economy that was being brought on by the housing collapse. In the wake of such huge economic issues, Democrats understood that the only way to counter-attack a massive economic recession was with an equally massive and aggressive plan of attack.