Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Portal:Legislative Branch
Features of Congress
Definitions
Classes of United States Senators • President Pro Tempore of the Senate • United States Speaker of the House • Filibuster • Reconciliation • Vote-a-ramas • Parliamentarian • Christmas tree bill
Notable events
Key votes • Presidential addresses
Elections
Election dates • Filing requirements for congressional candidates • Filling vacancies in Senate • Filling vacancies in House
Campaign finance
Federal Election Commission • Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee • National Republican Congressional Committee • Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee • National Republican Senatorial Committee
Sessions
119th Congress
118th • 117th • 116th • 115th • 114th • 113th • 112th • 111th • 110th

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was the Obama Administration's policy for "economic stimulus."[1] It passed in the 111th Congress in February 2009.

As a result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, private sector job growth saw a steep drop, while public sector jobs continued to increase. Government employment increased by 590,000 in 2009, while the private sector lost nearly 8 million jobs since the beginning of the recession. After the passage of the Recovery Act, these trends continued: the private sector lost an additional 2.7 million jobs, or 2.5% of total private employment, while state and federal governments continued to grow, having added an additional 400,000 jobs.[2]

Weatherization program

The stimulus program provided money for low-income people to make their homes more energy-efficient. The Weatherization Assistance Program overwhelmed federal and state agencies, bottling up billions of dollars in funding and halting the weatherization of homes for almost a year.[3]

In Texas, state inspections of a $22 million weatherization contract in Houston found workmanship flaws, administrative overhead running at about 50 percent (when the legal limit was five percent) and missing documentation. The weatherization work was conducted in February and March 2010.[4]

Errors

On November 16, 2009, many errors were found in the $747 billion plan that showed the plan set aside money for districts that did not exist. According to Recovery.gov, the plan outlined that its funds would go to 884 congressional districts, though there are only 435.[5][6]

The administrators at Recovery.gov eventually consolidated the fictitious congressional districts into "unassigned congressional districts."[7]

Alabama

The ARRA website created four phantom districts in Alabama.[8]

Alaska

In Alaska, the ARRA sent money to 13 fictitious districts, though it only had one congressional district.[9]

American Samoa

Though American Samoa had only an at-large, non-voting delegate, the ARRA sent stimulus funds to 3 non-existent districts.[10]

Arizona

ARRA sent up to $84 million to 14 phantom districts in Arizona.[11]

Arkansas

Arkansas’ 6th District received more than $360,000 from the stimulus package, according to ARRA's tracking website. However that district had not existed since 1963. In total, money was sent to nine fake districts.[12]

California

The ARRA website claimed to have to created jobs in nine congressional districts in California that did not exist.[13]

Colorado

Colorado appeared to have 10 extra districts, according to where ARRA money went, including District 00, which received over $10 million.[14]

Connecticut

Connecticut's eight phantom districts, according to the ARRA website, had explosive job growth in the fictitious 42nd District. There were 25 jobs created, despite receiving no stimulus dollars.[15]

Delaware

Delaware’s congressional representation rose by four, according to ARRA's tracking website, as $10 million dollars was pumped into four congressional districts that did not exist.[16]

Florida

According to the ARRA website, the stimulus package "created or saved" more than 100 jobs in six Florida districts that did not exist.[17]

Georgia

Millions of dollars in stimulus funds were disbursed among seven congressional districts in Georgia that did not exist, according to recovery.gov.[18]

Guam

Though Guam only had one non-voting delegate, the ARRA website stated that it sent nearly $221 million to six phantom districts.[19]

Hawaii

The ARRA contributed $2,284,000 to Hawaii in federal stimulus funds for the 11the Congressional District, $40,903,941 million for the 15th Congressional district, $1,651,811 for the “00” Congressional district and $799,656 in the 99th Congressional District, which created a combined “3.4” jobs or $13,423,355 per job. Hawaii had just two congressional districts.

The federal website (dead link) reported that those districts received $592,211,484 million and $174,075,308 respectively having created combined total of 1,541.5 jobs.[20]

Idaho

The Recovery.gov website overshot the number of congressional districts in Idaho by ten. The State’s 5th District received $1.2 million, though it did not exist.[21]

Illinois

The federal stimulus website sent money to six phantom Districts in Illinois. In fact, nearly $500,000 was directed towards the 20th District, which ceased to exist after the 2000 census.[22]

Indiana

Indiana gained five fictitious congressional districts through the ARRA website. The 18th District, for example, was given $2.2 million. Indiana’s population would have had to double, in order to have 18 districts.[23]

Iowa

More than $10.5 million in stimulus funds were distributed to eight congressional districts in Iowa that did not exist, according to the ARRA website.[24]

Kansas

The ARRA website created four fictional districts, creating or saving 5,934.8 or 5,940.37 jobs in Kansas. The jobs included ten in the 9th Congressional District, nine jobs in the 8th District, three in the 6th District and two in the 14th. The 00, 99th, 5th, 76th, 68th and 36th Districts saw no job creation. Kansas only had four congressional districts.[25]

Kentucky

The ARRA tracking website sent money to nine non-existent Districts in Kentucky. According to Recovery.gov, Kentucky's 7th District received more than $31 million from the stimulus package, despite being eliminated in the 1990 census.[26]

Louisiana

In addition to the eight non-existent districts the ARRA website sent money to in Louisiana, the state’s 8th Congressional District reportedly grew by more than 300 job through the stimulus package. However, the 8th District had not existed since 1990.[27]

Maine

Maine more than doubled its number of congressional districts, having added three more to its existing two, according to the ARRA tracking website.[28]

Maryland

The stimulus package distributed millions of dollars to 15 Maryland congressional districts that did not exist, according to ARRA's website. The state had only eight districts.[29]

Massachusetts

The state of Massachusetts had 10 congressional districts, but the ARRA website showed that there were six more that received funding. Non-existing districts were allotted to receive $29,882,326 to create/sustain at total of 189.9 jobs.[30]

Michigan

The ARRA website created 10 non-existing districts in Michigan, and awarded them $5,387,945 to "create/save" 49.5 jobs.[31]

The ARRA website listed the Michigan capital, Lansing, ZIP code as having received $1,217,275,548 and creating 17,966.9 jobs. The website credited Michigan with “creating/saving” 22,514 total jobs, meaning Lansing accounted for almost 80 percent of the jobs “created” statewide.

Minnesota

The ARRA website created 11 new congressional districts in Minnesota, adding to its existing eight districts. The website lists Minnesota as having a total of 19 congressional districts. Altogether, the eleven extra congressional districts posted received more than $7 million in stimulus spending, creating or saving about 50 jobs.[32]

Mississippi

The stimulus provided nearly $1 million to Mississippi's 5th District, which was eliminated following the 2000 census. In total, stimulus funds were sent to six fictitious Mississippi districts.[33]

Missouri

Missouri's 14th District, eliminated after the 1930 census, was set to receive $600,000 in stimulus money, according to the ARRA website. It was joined by a handful of other non-existent districts to receive stimulus dollars, totaling $928,566 to create/sustain 8.5 jobs.[34]

Montana

Though Montana only had one congressional district, the ARRA website showed that it gave funds to 13 districts. The twelve fictional Districts received $292,383,105 in funds to "create/save" a total of 1214.2 jobs.[35]

Nebraska

Nebraska had only three congressional districts, but the ARRA allotted $4,607,329 in funds for 15 districts, funding a total of 39.8 jobs.[36]

Nevada

Nevada had only three congressional districts, however, the non-existent 32nd District collected more than $6.3 million and produced only 12 jobs, according to ARRA's website. A total of $14,038,524 went to non-existent congressional districts to "create/save" 18 jobs.[37]

New Hampshire

The ARRA website invented three or four more congressional districts in New Hampshire, creating 2,879.1 jobs in these non-existent Districts (2,873.9 of which were in the 00 Congressional District, though one does not exist), using $197,167,473.[38]

New Jersey

New Jersey’s number of congressional districts grew from 13 to 31, according ARRA's website. Millions of stimulus dollars were distributed to 18 Garden State districts that did not exist, totaling $25,630,567 to "create/save" 574.6 jobs.[39]

New Mexico

The first of the errors was uncovered in New Mexico, were that there were only 3 congressional districts in the state, while the ARRA website reported that $26,462,307 in funds would go to 10 fictional districts to "create/save" at total of 61.5 jobs.[40]

New York

New York had 29 Congressional Districts, but its 00 District produced 31 jobs after taking home $3.8 million in stimulus funds. District 00 typically stands for the population of a whole state, when the state has only enough population to have an at-large representative. In total, the ARRA website attributed 11 extra, non-existent districts to New York and gave them a total of $12,025,926 to "create/save" 128.2 jobs.[41]

North Carolina

North Carolina distributed more than $5.7 million in federal stimulus money to six congressional districts that did not exist, according to ARRA's website.

The labels for the districts included 00 and 91.[42]

North Dakota

The ARRA website reports that more than $2 million was given to the 99th District of North Dakota, a state that has only one congressional district. In order to qualify for 99 districts, North Dakota would needed a population of about 60 million people, almost 24 million more people than California had at the time. The non-existent districts received $119,260,169 to "create/save" 264.2 jobs.[43]

Northern Mariana Islands

The ARRA website awarded the Northern Mariana Islands five phantom congressional districts, along with $44 million in stimulus funds.[44]

Ohio

ARRA's website overestimated Ohio's congressional districts by 10. Congressional District 00 and 99 were two of ten new congressional districts listed as receiving federal stimulus dollars this year. Eight of those districts received money, but did not create any jobs.[45]

Oklahoma

Oklahoma had five congressional districts, yet ARRA gave $1 million to its 6th District. The 6th District was eliminated by the 2000 census.

The state’s non-existent 51st District received $10.6 million in stimulus funds. In all, the phantom districts accrued more than $19 million, used to create or save 15 jobs. This amounted to nearly $1.3 million per job.[46]

Oregon

According to the ARRA website, Oregon’s congressional districts almost tripled from 5 to 14, including a non-existent District 00, which took home nearly $3.4 million in stimulus funds. The website shows that $4,932,024 went to fictional districts to create/sustain 15.1 jobs.[47]

Pennsylvania

The ARRA website reported that nearly $2 million was directed towards Pennsylvania's 21st District, which ceased to exist after the 2000 census. Almost $1.5 million was sent to another retired district, the 23rd, which was eliminated after the 1990 census.

There were $12.6 million distributed to six districts, which did not exist.[48]

Puerto Rico

Recovery.gov listed millions of dollars awarded to “congressional districts” bearing such distinctions as District 00, 99 and simply “congressional district” in Puerto Rico, though the territory had one non-voting, Congressional delegate.

Rhode Island

According to the ARRA website, Rhode Island’s fictitious 86th Congressional District saw nearly 60 new jobs develop in their community with the help of more than $10 million in stimulus funds. However, Rhode Island has only two congressional districts. In total, $11,917,875 went to save or create 57.9 jobs in non-existent districts in Rhode Island.[49]

South Carolina

ARRA's website shows that more than $27 million in funds went to the 7th District of South Carolina, which had not existed since the Great Depression. The seven phantom districts have received a total of $40,729,993 to create or save 52.4 jobs.[50]

South Dakota

More than $288 million in stimulus money went to phantom districts in South Dakota to "create or save" 862 jobs, according to the ARRA tracking website. About $280 million of those funds were locked in a district that was eliminated in the 1980 census. South Dakota had only one congressional district, represented by an at-large representative.[51]

Tennessee

A non-existent District in Tennessee received nearly $41 million in stimulus funds and used that money to produce zero jobs, according to Recovery.gov. District 00 received all but $13 million that was sent to the seven phantom districts in the state, but produced fewer jobs than the non-existent 11th District, which created or saved three jobs using $39,000, according to the site.

The 29th District, also non-existent, received the next largest sum of money, using nearly $10 million to create 20 jobs.[52]

Texas

The ARRA website reported that the stimulus package sent more than $14.7 million to seven congressional districts in Texas that did not exist. Two fictitious districts combined to receive $12.5 million of that sum, District 52 was given nearly $9 million and District 58 received nearly $3.7 million.

District 58 claimed to create or save 45 jobs, while District 52 did not produce any jobs, despite more than twice the amount of funding.[53]

Utah

The stimulus package sent nearly $1.7 million to four congressional districts in Utah that did not exist, according to the ARRA tracking website. Utah had only three congressional districts, but the majority of the stimulus money was distributed to two non-existent districts. District 4 was given more than $1.1 million and District 00, a label reserved for states with only one congressman, received nearly $540,000.

District 00 claimed to create or save 26 jobs, while District 4 did not produce any jobs, despite twice the amount of funding.[54]

Vermont

According to the ARRA website, the stimulus package sent almost $4.6 million to six congressional districts in Vermont and created 7.5 jobs. An additional $368 million was sent to two other districts in the state. However, Vermont had only District 00 and was represented by one representative. That district received nearly $320 million less than the non-existent District 1. Vermont’s fake districts received a total of $398,601,110 to "create/sustain" 1,909.2 jobs.[55]

Virginia

Virginia’s 12th District was written off at the start of the Civil War, but it received more than $2 million, according to ARRA's website.

Washington

The ARRA website overshot the number of Washington congressional districts by nine. Washington’s 39th Congressional District received over $300,000 in federal stimulus funds without a single job created.[56]

Washington, D.C

As of the passage of the ARRA, Washington, D.C. was a non-voting, single district, represented by Eleanor Holmes Norton. However, the ARRA website allocated money to many districts, including Congressional District 99.

The government-run website noted that DC's 99th District received $136,717,784 in stimulus which created 41.9 jobs. The 98th congressional district received $23,258,609 and created 22 jobs.

If the city was sliced into 99 districts, there would have been a congressional district every two-thirds of a square mile.[57]

West Virginia

The ARRA website added eight non-existent congressional districts in West Virginia, allotting $2,387,321 to eight fictional congressional districts: the 54th, 9th, 4th, 6th, 12th, 13th and 00, "creating/saving" a total of 5 jobs.[58]

Wisconsin

Recovery.gov shows it sent $2,209,169 to six districts in Wisconsin that did not exist: the 00th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 39th and 55th Congressional Districts.[59]

Wyoming

According to the ARRA website, the stimulus package sent almost $1.5 million to five congressional districts in Wyoming and created 6.3 jobs. An additional $471 million was sent to two other districts in the state. However, Wyoming had only one district, District 00. The at-large district received just under $30 million, which was $410 million less than District 1, a non-existent district. In total, $442,318,511 went to six fictional districts to "create/save" 785.3 jobs.[60]

Education

Information about the initial release of funds was provided on the U.S. Department of Education website. It outlined each state's share.

An example of the Recovery Act's effect on the public school system in the United States was that, in order to receive the money, states were obligated to restore school funding for the 2009-10 school year back to the levels provided in the 2005-06 school year. The Act outlined that if states could not do that, as Florida said it could not, then they needed to apply for a waiver and show that state education funding for the upcoming year was the same or more as the current school year, percentage wise.

The U.S. Department of Education's website provided the budget news concerning the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as well as a slideshow explaining how money was allocated to the states from the act.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan: Significant Impact on High Needs Schools

The following were the school district allocations of Recovery Act funds for each state:

Roads

Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a significant amount of money was spent on improving roads. The following chart lists 74 counties in 24 states, with the corresponding miles of roadway deemed unacceptable in each county, and the amount of money that was allocated from the bill to be spent on road repair in each county.[61]


County Miles of roadway Money allocated
Arizona - Maricopa County 148.1 $397, 616
Arizona - Pima County 67.7 $9,157,892
California - Los Angeles County 1,420.5 $320,816,751
California - Orange County 344 $47,887,969
California - San Bernardino County 315.8 $9,560,045
California - Santa Clara County 231.5 $40,680,682
California - Alameda County 197.5 $130,269,994
California - Sacramento County 175.5 $28,323,210
California - Contra Costa County 172.8 $117,468,500
California - San Diego County, 161.2 $12,543,450
California - San Joaquin County 148.1 $397, 616
California - Riverside County 111.2 $14,367,310
California - San Francisco 103.9 $11,350,000
California - Ventura County 89.6 $13,690,140
California - Santa Barbara County 86.1 $2,397,846
California - Solano County, 65.2 $27,166,134
California - San Mateo County, 64.3 $14,834,526
Colorado - Denver County 85.1 $4,190,706
Connecticut - Hartford County 85.8 $12,289,420
Hawaii - Honolulu County 86.3 $181,802,941
Illinois - Cook County 364.5 $26,935,888
Illinois - Will County 115.9 $47,860,620
Illinois - Lake County 77.7 $1,500,500
Indiana - Marion County 85.4 $472,500
Kansas - Sedgwick County 81.8 N/A
Maryland - Baltimore City 151.8 $19,451,192
Maryland - Baltimore County 88 $13,248,059
Maryland - Montgomery County 61.4 $28,091,173
Massachusetts - Middlesex County 216 $12,961,118
Massachusetts - Suffolk County 111.9 $15,729,549
Massachusetts - Essex County 104.9 N/A
Massachusetts - Norfolk County 103 $5,071,620
Massachusetts - Worcester County 98.5 $19,453,900
Michigan - Genesee County 60 $12,952,004
Michigan - Macomb County 82 $15,372,658
Michigan - Oakland County 173 $27,906,882
Michigan - Wayne County 321 $40,035,776
Mississippi - Hinds County 66 $6,478,100
New Jersey - Bergen County 111 $41,246,165
New Jersey - Burlington County 68 $1,875,487
New Jersey - Essex County 111 $54,926,325
New Jersey - Middlesex County 79 $41,769,488
New Jersey - Ocean County 63 $197,426
New York - Bronx County 113 N/A
New York - Nassau County 73 $9,000,000
Ohio - Cuyahoga County 83 $10,113,030
Oklahoma - Oklahoma County 134 $16,596,176
Oklahoma - Texas County 67 $13,187,129
Oklahoma - Tulsa County 94 $9,121,675
Pennsylvania - Allegheny County 102 $27,307,118
Pennsylvania - Montgomery County 76 $31,202,831
Rhode Island - Providence County 117 $27,061,363
Tennessee - Shelby County 61 $5,295,753
Texas - Bexar County 67 N/A
Texas - Dallas County 372 $4,653,165
Texas - El Paso County 63 $2,221,722
Texas - Harris County 278 $82,185,770
Texas - Travis County 75 $8,382,258
Washington - King County 228 $37,334,000
Washington - Pierce County 68 $5,749,680
Washington - Spokane County 85 $8,392,743
Wisconsin - Wilmaukee County 101 $8,328,096
Wisconsin - Waukesha County 64 $228,238

Dispute over effectiveness, allocation of funds

Part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan came under scrutiny because of an apparently disproportionate allocation of highway repair funds. According to one news report from 2009, "Half of the nation's worst roads are in counties that will only get about 20% of the stimulus money allocated by state and federal officials for street repairs." This analysis by USA Today found that the problem was due in large part to the intention of the stimulus package to boost the economy as quickly as possible. The analysis found that there were often insufficient funds to repair the worst roads in the nation, frequently considered to be longer term projects. However, Federal Highway Administration spokeswoman Cathy St. Denis disputed the newspaper's analysis, saying, "Recovery Act dollars are going to the communities that need it the most to repair roads and bridges in need of help."[62]

In a 2014 article published by Reason magazine, senior editor Peter Suderman said it was practically impossible to determine how effective the stimulus had been. He noted that Democrats called the program a success while Republicans considered it a failure.[63]

Housing

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan opened a program with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) called the [Neighborhood Stabilization Program] (NSP) wherein funds are allotted to areas of the county hit hardest by the recession. Cities use the funds to buy foreclosed homes, fix them up and sell them to low income buyers. Most of the homes will be sold back to buyers with incomes at least 120 percent under the median income for the area, but 25 percent of the buyers must have an income of 50 percent of the median in the area. The plan (dead link) designates five eligible uses: establishment of financing mechanisms for purchase of foreclosed homes, purchase and rehabilitation of abandoned or foreclosed homes, land banking of foreclosed homes, demolition of blighted structures, and redevelopment of vacant or demolished property.

However, as of October 2009, a year after the funds were awarded, cities like Denver, Colorado had not spent their funds. Experts said one of the factors was an overload of bureaucracy from the city, state and federal levels.

Repayment

Ten of the big banks that received aid last fell under the Treasury Department's Troubled Assets Relief Program, known as TARP, repaid a total $68 billion in bailout funds in July 2009. They were: American Express Co., Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Bank of New York Mellon Corp., U.S. Bancorp, Northern Trust Corp., State Street Corp., BB&T Corp. and Capital One Financial Corp.[64]

Lobbying

See also: Taxpayer-funded lobbying

Money received through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, or the stimulus package, by private entities has been spent to lobby.[65][66] The eight large banks that first received bailout funds back in October spent more than $12.4 million in the first half of 2009,[67] and more than $20 million if including car companies.[68] Some examples include:

Bank of America Corp.: Received $45 billion, spent $800,000 in the April-June quarter on lobbying, (up from $660,000 in the first quarter).[64]

Citigroup Inc.: Got $45 billion in bailout funds, upped its lobbying spending to $1.7 million in the second quarter (from nearly $1.3 million in the January-March period).[64]

JPMorgan Chase: Repayed $25 billion it received. It spent nearly $1.8 million on lobbying in the latest quarter (up from $1.3 million in the first quarter).[64]

Goldman Sachs Group Inc.: Goldman pared back its lobbying outlays in the quarter to $630,000 (from $670,000 in the first quarter).[64]

Morgan Stanley: Lobbying expenditures jumped to $830,000 (from $540,000 in the first three months of the year).[64]

General Motors: Spent about $2.8 million on lobbying Congress and the federal government, about the same as in the first quarter.[64]

State transparency

State Posts stimulus allocations URL
Alabama
{{{1}}}
 Alabama Federal Stimulus Information Center
Alaska N
600px-Red x.png
Arizona
{{{1}}}
 State of Arizona Recovery and Reinvestment
Arkansas
{{{1}}}
 Arkansas Office of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act
California
{{{1}}}
 California Economic Recovery Portal
Idaho
{{{1}}}
 State of Idaho Federal Stimulus
Illinois
{{{1}}}
 Illinois Recovery
Indiana
{{{1}}}
 INvest.IN.gov Stimulus Funding (dead link)
Iowa
{{{1}}}
 Iowa's Economic Recovery
Kansas
{{{1}}}
 Kansas Recovery and Reinvestment
Kentucky
{{{1}}}
 Kentucky at Work
Louisiana
{{{1}}}
 Louisiana Federal Stimulus Tracking
Maine
{{{1}}}
 Maine Recovery and Reinvestment Transparency
Maryland
{{{1}}}
 One Maryland's Recovery and Reinvestment
Massachusetts
{{{1}}}
 Massachusetts Recovery
Michigan
{{{1}}}
 Michigan's Recovery and Reinvestment Plan
Minnesota
{{{1}}}
 Recovery.MN
Mississippi
{{{1}}}
 Mississippi Stimulus
Missouri
{{{1}}}
 Missouri Accountability Portal - Stimulus
Montana
{{{1}}}
 Montana Reinvestment act (dead link)
Nebraska
{{{1}}}
 Recovery.Nebraska.gov
Nevada
{{{1}}}
 Nevada Recovery (dead link)
New Hampshire
{{{1}}}
 New Hampshire’s Office of Economic Stimulus
New Jersey
{{{1}}}
 New Jersey Recovery and Reinvestment
New Mexico
{{{1}}}
 New Mexico Office of Recovery and Reinvestment
New York
{{{1}}}
 New York Works
North Carolina
{{{1}}}
 NC Recovery
North Dakota
{{{1}}}
 North Dakota Economic Enhancement Program
Ohio
{{{1}}}
 State of Ohio American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Oklahoma
{{{1}}}
 Oklahoma Recovery and Reinvestment
Oregon
{{{1}}}
 Oregon Recovery and Reinvestment (dead link)
Pennsylvania
{{{1}}}
 Pennsylvania Recovery
Rhode Island
{{{1}}}
 Rhode Island Office of Economic Recovery and Reinvestment
South Carolina
{{{1}}}
 S.C. Stimulus Tracking
South Dakota
{{{1}}}
 South Dakota Recovery
Tennessee
{{{1}}}
 Tennessee Recovery
Texas
{{{1}}}
 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - Texas
Utah
{{{1}}}
 Recovery.Utah.Gov
Vermont
{{{1}}}
 Vermont Economic Stimulus and Recovery Portal
Virginia
{{{1}}}
 Stimulus.Virginia.Gov
Washington
{{{1}}}
 Washington Stimulus
West Virginia
{{{1}}}
 West Virginia Stimulus
Wisconsin
{{{1}}}
 Wisconsin Office of Recovery and Reinvestment
Wyoming
{{{1}}}
 Wyoming's Reinvestment and Recovery

Nationwide transparency

Stimulus Watch 2.0 launched, improving the original Stimulus Watch website, which featured proposed stimulus projects taken from the U.S. Conference of Mayors survey. The new version included actual stimulus spending in users' neighborhoods, the data for which came from the official recipient reports from Recovery.gov. Users were able search for contracts and grants awards by state and city, by awarding agency or by recipient.[69]

Accountability issues

In hundreds of cases, recipients of stimulus funds ignored the law the would require them to report how they spent it.

“Government owes it to its citizens to share how tax dollars are spent. When it is left to journalists, grant recipients and ordinary citizens to report the truth – but not government — transparency suffers. And that is what has happened with this “stimulus” program. The burden of reporting has fallen on those receiving the money – not those giving it out,” said Michael Barnhart, president of Sunshine Review.

The Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity's investigation in November 2009, found that recipients of millions in tax dollars filled out forms incorrectly – often using incorrect zip codes or congressional districts. This meant false information was shared with the public.

Federal government documents indicate that for the first quarter of 2010, there were nearly 700 instances where “prime” recipients failed to provide their stimulus funding reports by an April 2010 deadline.[70]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan
  2. ↑ West Virginia Watchdog, WatchBlog: Government Employment Increases, Private Sector Tanks, July 6, 2010
  3. ↑ "47 homes retrofitted, $3.7M spent in Texas through Dec. under program to improve low-income homes" - Texas Watchdog, Feb. 1, 2010
  4. ↑ "Shoddy workmanship found in $22 million federal stimulus contract to improve the homes of the poor" - Texas Watchdog, May 13, 2010
  5. ↑ $6.4 Billion Stimulus goes to Phantom Districts, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  6. ↑ Stimulus Creates Jobs in Non-Existent Congressional Districts, Watchdog.org, November 16, 2009
  7. ↑ Recovery.gov Phantom Districts Are No More, Watchdog.org, November 18, 2009
  8. ↑ Alabama, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  9. ↑ Alaska, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  10. ↑ American Samoa, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  11. ↑ Arizona, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  12. ↑ Arkansas, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  13. ↑ California, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  14. ↑ Colorado, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  15. ↑ Connecticut, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  16. ↑ Delaware, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  17. ↑ Florida, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  18. ↑ Georgia, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  19. ↑ Guam, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  20. ↑ Four Hawaii Phantom Districts Receive $45,639,408 Million in Stimulus Funds for 3.4 Jobs, Hawaii Reporter, November 17, 2009 (dead link)
  21. ↑ Idaho, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  22. ↑ Illinois, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  23. ↑ Indiana, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  24. ↑ Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  25. ↑ Fed Stimulus Creating Congressional Districts, Kansas Watchdog, November 16, 2009
  26. ↑ Kentucky, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  27. ↑ Louisiana, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  28. ↑ Maine, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  29. ↑ Federal stimulus site gives Maryland 15 new congressional districts, Maryland Reporter, November 17, 2009
  30. ↑ Massachusetts, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  31. ↑ Michigan stimulus dollars
  32. ↑ Stimulus and Jobs, Freedom Foundation of Minnesota, November 16, 2009
  33. ↑ Mississippi, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  34. ↑ Missouri, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  35. ↑ Stimulus Adds 13 Congressional Districts to Montana, Watchdog.org, November 16, 2009
  36. ↑ Nebraska, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  37. ↑ Nevada, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  38. ↑ New Hampshire, Watchdog.org, November 16, 2009
  39. ↑ New Jersey, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  40. ↑ Stimulus Creates Jobs in Non-Existent Congressional Districts, Watchdog.org, November 16, 2009
  41. ↑ New York, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  42. ↑ North Carolina, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  43. ↑ North Dakota, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  44. ↑ Northern Mariana Islands, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  45. ↑ Stimulus Brings New Jobs and Congressional Districts to Ohio, Ohio Watchdog, November 16, 2009
  46. ↑ Oklahoma, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  47. ↑ Oregon, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  48. ↑ Pennsylvania, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  49. ↑ Rhode Island, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  50. ↑ South Carolina, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  51. ↑ South Dakota, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  52. ↑ Tennessee, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  53. ↑ Texas, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  54. ↑ Utah, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  55. ↑ Vermont, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  56. ↑ Washington, ‘’Evergreen Freedom Foundation’’, November 17, 2009
  57. ↑ Washington, DC Stimulus Funds 99th Congressional Districts, La Raza, AARP, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  58. ↑ Obama Recovery Act Increases W.Va. Congressional Districts by Eight!, West Virginia Watchdog.org, November 16, 2009
  59. ↑ Stimulus Spending Record Keeping is a Joke, MacIver Institute, November 2009 (dead link)
  60. ↑ Wyoming, Watchdog.org, November 17, 2009
  61. ↑ News - Nation, Stimulus funding for road repairs.]
  62. ↑ News - Nation, Stimulus funding for road repairs
  63. ↑ Reason, "Why It’s So Hard to Figure Out What the Stimulus Did," February 18, 2014
  64. ↑ 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.3 64.4 64.5 64.6 "Some bailout firms up lobbying spending in 2Q," Associated Press, July 21, 2009
  65. ↑ America Blog, "Your tax dollars at work," July 21, 2009
  66. ↑ Cato@Liberty, "Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying," July 23, 2009
  67. ↑ "Bailed-out Companies Spend Millions to Lobby Congress," ProPublica, July 22, 2009
  68. ↑ Truthout, "Autos, Banks Spend $20 Million Lobbying," July 21, 2009
  69. ↑ Stimulus Watch 2.0 website
  70. ↑ "Accountability law ignored by recipients of stimulus money," Watchdog.org, July 2010
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act&oldid=8571306"