“Failed” Recovery Act Created Millions Of Jobs, Boosted GDP, And Cut Taxes

Recovery Act “Succeeded In…Protecting The Economy During The Worst Of The Recession.” From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: “A new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimates that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) increased the number of people employed by between 200,000 and 1.5 million jobs in March. In other words, between 200,000 and 1.5 million people employed in March owed their jobs to the Recovery Act. […] ARRA succeeded in its primary goal of protecting the economy during the worst of the recession. The CBO report finds that ARRA’s impact on jobs peaked in the third quarter of 2010, when up to 3.6 million people owed their jobs to the Recovery Act. Since then, the Act’s job impact has gradually declined as the economy recovers and certain provisions expire.” [CBPP.org, 5/29/12]

At Its Peak, Recovery Act Was Responsible For Up To 3.6 Million Jobs. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office:

CBO estimates that ARRAs [sic] policies had the following effects in the third quarter of calendar year 2010:

• They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product by between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent,
• Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.8 percentage points and 2.0 percentage points,
• Increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.6 million, and
• Increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 2.0 million to 5.2 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers). [CBO.gov, 11/24/10]

Recovery Act Included $288 Billion In Tax Cuts. From PolitiFact: “Nearly a third of the cost of the stimulus, $288 billion, comes via tax breaks to individuals and businesses. The tax cuts include a refundable credit of up to $400 per individual and $800 for married couples; a temporary increase of the earned income tax credit for disadvantaged families; and an extension of a program that allows businesses to recover the costs of capital expenditures faster than usual. The tax cuts aren’t so much spending as money the government won’t get — so it can stay in the economy.” [PolitiFact.com, 2/17/10]

Solyndra Was Part Of A Larger Loan Program That Planned For Defaults

In 2006, Under The Bush Administration, Solyndra And 15 Other Applicants Were Selected To Submit Full Applications. From testimony of Jonathan Silver, executive director of the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office, before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations: “The 2006 solicitation resulted in 143 submissions. The loan program staff and others at the department reviewed those for eligibility, which is a thinner review than the full due diligence, and recommended 16 applications to file a full application. A dozen did so. Solyndra was one of those. And the department conducted due diligence on all of those 11.” [Jonathan Silver Testimony via Nexis, 9/14/11]

Under The Obama Administration, The Loan Proceeded Along The Same Timeline Laid Out Under The Bush Administration. From testimony of Jonathan Silver, executive director of the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office, before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations: “After the Obama Administration took office, the loan programs’ staff, and their advisors, continued their comprehensive review of the transaction and, in March 2009, on the exact timeline that had been developed during the Bush Administration, the program issued Solyndra a conditional commitment for a $535 million loan guarantee. Subsequently, in September 2009, following several more months of rigorous and comprehensive due diligence and documentation by the loan programs’ staff and external advisors, and the raising of almost $200 million of additional private investment by the company, the transaction reached financial close and DOE formally issued its loan guarantee.” [Jonathan Silver testimony, 9/14/11]

The Program That Backed The Solyndra Loan Is Functioning Like It’s Supposed To

The Loan Guarantee Program Was Structured To Withstand – Even Expect – Some Defaults. From a blog post by Michael Mendelsohn, a Senior Financial Analyst at the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory: “Importantly, the DOE Loan Guarantee program was never expected to be risk-free, but rather was designed to support a portfolio of promising energy technologies that, when combined, represent a manageable level of risk. Chadbourne’s Hansen argues that, ‘if the Loan Guarantee program has no defaults, it’s simply not taking on the risk it was designed to.  The overall risk of the portfolio is the critical metric, and for that, given the DOE’s conservative assessment of the projects, the credit subsidy costs provided under ARRA should provide the taxpayer plenty of insurance.’” [Financere.NREL.gov, 12/28/11]

Solyndra Was “Barely 1%” Of DOE’s Clean Energy Portfolio. From Time’s Swampland blog: “Nobody’s going to care that all successful loan programs have failures, that the Solyndra venture was barely 1% of the Energy Department’s $40 billion clean-energy portfolio, that there will still be over $2 billion in reserves for busted loans no matter how Solyndra shakes out.” [Time’s Swampland, 9/14/11]

Congress Set Aside $10 Billion For Losses. From Businessweek: “Congress set aside $10 billion in the clean-energy and auto loan programs for possible losses, and the Energy Department had initially anticipated as much as $5 billion in losses, [White House Spokesman Eric] Schultz said in an e-mail.” [Businessweek, 2/13/12]

Gill Has Long Advocated A Single-Payer Health Care System That Would Provide Better Care For Seniors

AAN cites only “David Gill for Congress 2004 website” for its claim that “Gill would eliminate Medicare.”

Gill’s 2004 Website Says “Medicare Is A Wonderful Program, But It Is Not Perfect” Because Seniors Still Have To Worry About Out-Of-Pocket Expenses. From an archived version of David Gill’s 2004 campaign website: “The Bush administration held a press conference to announce a 17.5% rise in premiums for Medicare beneficiaries by 2005. This reflects the largest premium increase in 15 years and will cause individual’s monthly payments to climb from $66 to $78.20 with little to no benefit from their elevated insurance premiums. The increase comes as no surprise to Dr. Gill who is running on a National Health Care Plan for All Americans. In response to the increase, Gill issued the following statement. ‘Until we finally adopt a comprehensive single-payer universal coverage national health care plan for all Americans, we will continue to see one disappointment after another with American health care. We remain the only developed country in the world without a health care system which provides for the needs of its citizens from birth to death; senior citizens in no other developed nation need worry about being able to afford their health care and their prescriptions. […] Health care is a right, not a privilege, and elderly Americans are among those most in need of help with this problem. Medicare is a wonderful program, but it is not perfect; any system which requires our seniors to worry about their out-of-pocket expenses is less than ideal. […] For us to put seniors in a position in which they risk their very lives because of concern over health care bills is shameful , and the failure of our government to fix this problem is nothing less than a moral failure.’” [DavidGillForCongress.com via Archive.org, captured 11/1/04]

Gill’s 2012 Website Advocates “Protecting Medicare.” From the “Protecting Medicare” section of David Gill’s 2012 campaign website: “As an ER physician and family practice doctor, David Gill has seen firsthand how critical Medicare is to ensuring a healthy, secure retirement for America’s seniors. He’s been impressed by the program’s ability to provide high-quality, patient-focused care at affordable prices.  He will work to protect Medicare from the Congressional Republicans’ budget axe.  He also supports an expanded and improved ‘Medicare for All’ program that extends coverage to all Americans, cuts costs and put patients first —not health insurance profits. […] Dr. Gill will also work to make sure the expansion of the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit to cover the ‘donut hole’–the gap in coverage that was costing seniors thousands of dollars ever year—stays in place. In these lean times, David knows the last thing seniors can afford is paying hundreds or thousands of dollars more every year for the medicines they need.” [Gill2012.org, accessed 9/14/12]

Gill’s Tax Would Replace All Current Health Care Fees

Gill Supported A Two Percent Tax In Lieu Of Any Individual Health Care Costs. From an editorial in the Bloomington, Illinois Pantagraph: “Gill supports, in concept, a national plan put forth by Physicians for National Health Care. It would require a 2 percent individual income tax and a 7 percent business payroll tax to provide health care to everyone at a cost of about $1.7 trillion a year. Gill emphasized that he is not married to the exact percentages. It would replace the need for Medicare, employer/employee health insurance premiums and the private health insurance industry.” [The Pantagraph Editorial via Nexis, 10/20/04]

Gill: 2 Percent Tax “Would Replace All Other Health Care Bills.” From a 2003 editorial piece David Gill wrote in the Bloomington, Illinois Pantagraph: “Washington stands idly by while 43 million Americans struggle with no insurance coverage. Workers who have insurance pay an ever-larger percentage of the premium. Americans of all ages struggle to pay for prescriptions. Thirty percent of health care dollars spent in the United States are wasted on administrative costs and profiteering. A national health insurance plan would be simple and affordable – we would save $150 billion annually by instituting such a plan. Small businesses would pay 7 percent of payroll to cover their employees. The average wage earner would pay a tax of 2 percent of his income, roughly $730 per year. These payments would replace all other health care bills. There would be no bills from hospitals, doctors or insurance companies.” [David Gill Opinion in The Pantagraph via Nexis, 8/21/03]

2009 Estimate: 2 Percent Tax Would Cost Families About $1,000 Per Year. From the Bloomington, Illinois Pantagraph: “In a series of public appearances in Central Illinois Wednesday, Gill said issues he intends to address ahead of the 2010 election include a universal health care plan. The emergency room doctor supports a 2 percent health care tax for individuals that would cost the average family about $1,000 per year.” [The Pantagraph via Nexis, 10/15/09]

Family Health Care Costs Have Risen From Over $9,000 In 2002 To Over $20,000 For 2012. From CNNMoney: “The cost to cover the typical family of four under an employer plan is expected to top $20,000 on health care this year, up more than 7% from last year, according to early projections by independent actuarial and health care consulting firm Milliman Inc. In 2002, the cost was just $9,235, the firm said.” [Money.CNN.com, 3/29/12]