American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: GDP and Economic Impact
This paper examines the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 and its effects on the U.S. economy in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. Drawing on Congressional Budget Office projections and Keynesian economic models, the paper evaluates how ARRA's combination of stimulus spending and tax cuts influenced GDP growth, employment, inflation, and the federal deficit. The analysis argues that while ARRA provided short-term relief, it failed to address systemic economic problems, as the stimulus was insufficiently large to close the consumer spending gap and did not generate the velocity of money needed for sustained recovery. The paper also considers the long-term risks of an expanded budget deficit, including underfunded pension programs and distorted credit markets.
- Introduction: The 2008 Recession and the Case for Stimulus: Context for ARRA amid 2008 economic crisis
- CBO Projections and Keynesian Framework: CBO forecasts and Keynesian demand-supply modeling
- Impact of Increased Spending on GDP and Output: How stimulus spending affected GDP and money velocity
- Effects of Decreased Taxes on the Economy: Tax cut provisions and their limited economic impact
- Budget Deficit Risks and Long-Term Consequences: Deficit risks including pensions and distorted credit markets
- Conclusion: Systemic Failures and the Limits of ARRA: ARRA's failure to resolve underlying economic rot
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper integrates macroeconomic theory (Keynesian aggregate demand-aggregate supply modeling) with specific legislative data — dollar amounts, tax credit figures, and CBO projections — grounding abstract arguments in concrete evidence.
- It takes a consistent analytical stance: rather than simply summarizing ARRA, the paper argues throughout that the act's approach was structurally insufficient, building toward a clear conclusion.
- The forest-fire metaphor is an effective rhetorical device that makes the abstract economic concept of "above normal growth" accessible without sacrificing analytical rigor.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates critical evaluation of policy outcomes against theoretical expectations. It sets up the CBO's Keynesian projections as the benchmark, then systematically shows where actual outcomes diverged and explains the mechanisms responsible — devaluation through money printing, the lower multiplier effect of tax cuts versus direct spending, and the absence of conditions required for regenerative growth. This compare-and-contrast structure between prediction and reality is a standard and effective technique in economics policy analysis.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with the political and economic context of the 2008 crisis, moves into CBO projections and the theoretical framework, then separately analyzes the spending and tax-cut components of ARRA before addressing long-term deficit risks. It concludes with a synthesis arguing for systemic rather than symptomatic reform. The structure follows a logical problem–response–evaluation–consequence arc.
Introduction: The 2008 Recession and the Case for Stimulus
In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and the ensuing recession, the U.S. government developed a plan to shore up the economy in the face of dwindling economic activity. That plan combined federal stimulus spending with tax breaks to help fill the gap created by cuts in consumer spending. The steps taken by the government were meant to create a short-term solution — but the controversy surrounding those steps was similar to that of a doctor treating only the symptoms of a disease by placing a temporary bandage over an obviously infected wound: it did nothing to address the underlying causes directly. Part of the reason was that those in charge of addressing the issue were not situated to tackle the actual causes of the problem. This paper examines the steps taken by the government via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and how the act affected GDP and other aspects of the economy.
CBO Projections and Keynesian Framework
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expected the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 to have a positive effect on both employment in the U.S. and GDP. The CBO anticipated GDP growth as a result of the stimulus in the range of 1.4% to 3.8% by year's end, with a tapering effect on growth over the following five years (Young & Sobel, 2013). The CBO also expected economic output to increase and unemployment numbers to drop as a result of ARRA — at least in the short term. The longer-term side effect of the stimulus, however, would be a net decrease of up to 0.3% relative to baseline by 2020 (Young & Sobel, 2013). Spending allocations approved by Congress also set aside $70 billion to be used to shield more than 20 million American taxpayers from the alternative minimum tax in the year of ARRA's implementation.
However, because the allocation was not adjusted for inflation, the funds did not perform as originally intended, and a separate bracket of taxpayers — outside the original target — was affected. Using the aggregate demand–aggregate supply model, with price level and output determined by the demand/supply ratio and grounded in Keynesian economics, the CBO based its projections on the expectation that stimulus would fill the gap in consumer shortfalls over the short term. The longer-term effect, according to the model, would be for the stimulus to taper off as consumer spending recovered with an anticipated economic upturn. However, this did not occur. As Krugman has noted, the stimulus was simply not large enough to cover the shortfall: it extended to only about one-third of the spending gap (Goldberg & Rosenthal, 2011).
Impact of Increased Spending on GDP and Output
The impact on GDP, output, and inflation caused by increased spending versus decreased taxes under ARRA was more integrated than a first glance would suggest. Roughly half of the measures taken to address unemployment "were tax cuts" — however, while tax cuts are said to "increase individual income," the "multiplier effect on overall output is generally thought to be slightly less than it is for government expenditures," because the individual has more incentive to save whereas the government does not (Economic Report of the President, 2014, p. 106). Additionally, with the government borrowing nearly $1 trillion from the Federal Reserve, the effect on the value of money already in circulation was one of devaluation. As currency is devalued through money printing — stimulus, quantitative easing, and related measures — inflation of assets and products follows, as seen across various asset classes from housing to the stock market.
Investment in private business, on the other hand, is not guaranteed — especially as bureaucratic red tape surrounding the permits required to launch a business continues to accumulate. The problem, therefore, goes far deeper than filling a consumer spending gap: it is systemic. ARRA's failure to resolve the issue is inherent in its approach. Increased spending does not directly impact GDP or increase output because it does not actually contribute to the velocity of money. There was no "above normal growth" because the underlying conditions that would permit regeneration were never established (Elwell, 2013, p. 369). After a forest fire, there is regrowth. The 2008 collapse did not fully run its course: central banks intervened to prop up markets, and the underlying issues were never resolved. The fire was not allowed to consume and destroy — which would have permitted above-normal growth afterward. Instead, the stimulus fed the fire, allowing it to continue smoldering.
Conclusion: Systemic Failures and the Limits of ARRA
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was designed to take a Keynesian approach to the economy — to stimulate demand by plugging a short-term gap while growth returned. However, in a system with deep structural problems, the expectation for growth is misplaced, and contradicting aims and policies cannot produce a positive outcome, as the evidence indicates. The failure of ARRA to fully stimulate the economy out of its recession is evident in any number of indicators — jobs data, declining industrial equipment sales, and little to no industrial growth. GDP has stalled not because ARRA did not go far enough in its own terms, but because it did not address the underlying issues at the heart of the problem — namely, that the rot must be allowed to run its course before genuine recovery can begin.
References
Economic Report of the President. (2014). Washington, DC: Council of Economic Advisers.
Elwell, C. (2013). Economic recovery: Sustaining U.S. economic growth in a post-crisis economy. Current Politics and Economics of the United States, Canada and Mexico, 15(3), 369–404.
Goldberg, G., & Rosenthal, M. (2011). The jobs crisis: How to solve it and begin to fix our broken economy. New Politics, 13(2), 60–67.
Young, A., & Sobel, R. (2013). Recovery and Reinvestment Act spending at the state level: Keynesian stimulus or distributive politics? Public Choice, 155(3), 449–468.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.