During times of national crises, Congress has responded by directing federal resources and programs to help struggling Americans. While it is critical to respond rapidly to crises, it is also critical to ensure that federal programs and public resources are used as intended.
The GAO’s involvement during times of crisis is examined in today’s WatchBlog piece, which focuses on the federal response to the Great Depression, the Great Recession, and the coronavirus outbreak.
When the stock market crashed in 1929, precipitating the lengthy period of economic decline known as the Great Depression, GAO was still a relatively young organization.
In reaction to the Great Depression, Congress passed President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, which included $41.7 billion in funding for domestic initiatives such as unemployment compensation.
GAO’s workload grew as federal funds were poured into the 1930s’ recovery and relief efforts. GAO, which had around 1,700 employees at the time, quickly ran out of employees and needed to hire more to handle paperwork such as vouchers. Our staff had nearly tripled to 5,000 by 1939.
Our auditors began extending their involvement in overseeing federal programs at the same time. Fieldwork in Kentucky and numerous southern states began in the mid-1930s, and included examinations of government agriculture programs. This steady shift in goal from acting as federal accountants to serving as program and policy analysts would last until 2003, when the General Accounting Office was renamed the Government Accountability Office.
The Great Recession, which began in December 2007, was widely regarded as the country’s worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
As a result, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which contained $800 billion in stimulus funding to help the economy recover.
GAO was given a number of tasks under the Recovery Act to help enhance accountability and openness in the use of those funds. For example, we conducted bimonthly assessments of how monies were spent by various states and municipalities. In addition, we conducted specialized research in areas such as small company loans, education, and trade adjustment aid.
Despite the fact that the Great Recession ended in 2009, we are still investigating its effects on the soundness of our financial system and related government support. For example, in response to the 2008 housing crisis, the Treasury Department established three housing programs utilizing TARP funds to assist struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure and keep their homes. TARP programs were assessed every 60 days during the recession and subsequent years, and we proposed steps to improve Treasury’s management and use of funds. This effort continues today, with annual audits of TARP financial statements and updates on active TARP projects. In December 2020, we released our most current report.
We’re also keeping an eye on the health of the nation’s housing finance system, which includes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and either hold them or bundle them into mortgage-backed securities that can be sold.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the federal government in 2008, and the role has remained unchanged for the past 13 years, keeping taxpayers on the line for any possible losses sustained by the two corporations. We wrote about the dangers of this prolonged conservatorship and the need to overhaul the home finance system in January 2019.
Congress approved $4.7 trillion in emergency funding for people, businesses, the health-care system, and state and municipal governments in response to the pandemic. We’ve been following the federal response by, among other things, providing reports on the pandemic’s and response efforts’ effects on federal programs and operations on a regular basis.
Vaccine development and distribution, small business lending, unemployment payments, economic relief checks, tax refund delays, K-12 and higher education’s response to COVID-19, housing protections, and other topics have all been covered in our work.
On July 19, we released our most recent report on the federal response, as well as our recommendations for how this effort might be improved further. In October, we will publish our next report. Visit our Coronavirus Oversight page often because we’ll keep you updated on the federal reaction to COIVD-19 as the situation unfolds.
GAO has played a key role in overseeing federal expenditures and programs during times of crisis, and we continue to do so in more normal times. We produce hundreds of reports each year and testify before dozens of congressional committees and subcommittees on problems that affect our country. We saved taxpayers $77.6 billion in government spending in fiscal year 2020. For every dollar Congress invests in us, we get $114!
What was the government’s response to the Great Recession of 2008?
Congress passed the Struggling Asset Relief Scheme (TARP) to empower the US Treasury to implement a major rescue program for troubled banks. The goal was to avoid a national and global economic meltdown. To end the recession, ARRA and the Economic Stimulus Plan were passed in 2009.
How did the government contribute to the Great Recession?
Because it created the circumstances for a housing bubble that led to the economic downturn and because it did not do enough to avert it, the Federal Reserve was to blame for the Great Recession.
What was the government’s response to the financial crisis of 2008?
19 President Bush enacted a $168 billion program of federal spending and temporary tax rebates in February 2008 as the first significant federal reaction to the crisis.
20
The Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) of July 2008, which addressed the subprime mortgage crisis, was the second major reaction. It allows the Federal Housing Administration to guarantee up to $300 billion in new 30-year fixed-rate mortgages for subprime borrowers if commercial lenders write down principal loan balances to 90% of current home appraisal values. By strengthening controls and investing capital into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, HERA was meant to restore confidence in these organizations. States were given permission to use mortgage revenue bonds to refinance subprime loans. HERA also created a $6 billion Neighborhood Stabilization Fund to assist local governments in purchasing repossessed houses. However, more than $1 billion of these monies remained unspent as of July 2010, and the federal government may revoke them. Part of the difficulty was a lack of clarity about the laws, but a bigger issue was that towns couldn’t buy foreclosed properties as quickly as private corporations could. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) introduced a First Look program in September 2010, giving towns a 48-hour head start on purchasing foreclosed properties at a 1% discount. Banks, on the other hand, are unlikely to offer many of their foreclosed houses to the program.
21State housing finance agencies have long provided low-cost housing loans without the foreclosure issues that come with federally supported subprime loans. Fannie Mae has recently stepped in to assist in the funding of an Affordable Advantage effort based on state programs. Idaho, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are the only states that have signed on so far.
22The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) of October 2008 was the third major reaction. Because the US Treasury was unable to price toxic mortgage derivatives, it invested TARP funds in banks and other financial and non-financial firms, gaining equity in those firms that would allow them to gradually write off those assets against profits earned from the Federal Reserve’s zero interest rate policy. The federal government aims to recoup its funds and possibly make a profit by selling its stock shares over time. The federal government had regained the majority of the TARP monies, as well as interest income, by late 2010.
23However, these policies failed to halt the flood of recession and anti-Bush sentiment, propelling Obama to the White House. Many Americans viewed TARP as a rescue for Wall Street oligarchs that left the average American still in financial distress.
What steps did the government take in 2009 to combat the Great Recession?
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) was a key vehicle for fiscal stimulus, allowing spending on infrastructure, health care, and education, as well as increasing automatic stabilizers and reducing taxes.
In times of crisis, what role should the government play quizlet?
The federal government’s responsibility in the recovery should be to assist people when they are most in need.
How might the government have avoided the Great Recession in the first place?
The catastrophe could have been avoided if two things had happened. The first step would have been to regulate mortgage brokers who made the problematic loans, as well as hedge funds that used excessive leverage. The second would have been seen as a credibility issue early on. The government’s sole option was to buy problematic debts.
Who is responsible for the 2008 Great Recession?
The Lenders are the main perpetrators. The mortgage originators and lenders bear the brunt of the blame. That’s because they’re the ones who started the problems in the first place. After all, it was the lenders who made loans to persons with bad credit and a high chance of default. 7 This is why it happened.
How did we get back on our feet after the Great Recession?
The Great Recession lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, making it the longest downturn since World War II. The Great Recession was particularly painful in various ways, despite its short duration. From its peak in 2007Q4 to its bottom in 2009Q2, real gross domestic product (GDP) plummeted 4.3 percent, the greatest drop in the postwar era (based on data as of October 2013). The unemployment rate grew from 5% in December 2007 to 9.5 percent in June 2009, before peaking at 10% in October 2009.
The financial repercussions of the Great Recession were also disproportionate: home prices plummeted 30% on average from their peak in mid-2006 to mid-2009, while the S&P 500 index dropped 57% from its peak in October 2007 to its trough in March 2009. The net worth of US individuals and charity organizations dropped from around $69 trillion in 2007 to around $55 trillion in 2009.
As the financial crisis and recession worsened, worldwide policies aimed at reviving economic growth were enacted. Like many other countries, the United States enacted economic stimulus measures that included a variety of government expenditures and tax cuts. The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 were two of these projects.
The Federal Reserve’s response to the financial crisis varied over time and included a variety of unconventional approaches. Initially, the Federal Reserve used “conventional” policy actions by lowering the federal funds rate from 5.25 percent in September 2007 to a range of 0-0.25 percent in December 2008, with the majority of the drop taking place between January and March 2008 and September and December 2008. The significant drop in those periods represented a significant downgrading in the economic outlook, as well as increasing downside risks to output and inflation (including the risk of deflation).
By December 2008, the federal funds rate had reached its effective lower bound, and the FOMC had begun to utilize its policy statement to provide future guidance for the rate. The phrasing mentioned keeping the rate at historically low levels “for some time” and later “for an extended period” (Board of Governors 2008). (Board of Governors 2009a). The goal of this guidance was to provide monetary stimulus through lowering the term structure of interest rates, raising inflation expectations (or lowering the likelihood of deflation), and lowering real interest rates. With the sluggish and shaky recovery from the Great Recession, the forward guidance was tightened by adding more explicit conditionality on specific economic variables such as inflation “low rates of resource utilization, stable inflation expectations, and tame inflation trends” (Board of Governors 2009b). Following that, in August 2011, the explicit calendar guidance of “At least through mid-2013, the federal funds rate will remain at exceptionally low levels,” followed by economic-threshold-based guidance for raising the funds rate from its zero lower bound, with the thresholds based on the unemployment rate and inflationary conditions (Board of Governors 2012). This forward guidance is an extension of the Federal Reserve’s conventional approach of influencing the funds rate’s current and future direction.
The Fed pursued two more types of policy in addition to forward guidance “During the Great Recession, unorthodox” policy initiatives were taken. Credit easing programs, as discussed in more detail in “Federal Reserve Credit Programs During the Meltdown,” were one set of nontraditional policies that aimed to facilitate credit flows and lower credit costs.
The large scale asset purchase (LSAP) programs were another set of non-traditional policies. The asset purchases were done with the federal funds rate near zero to help lower longer-term public and private borrowing rates. The Federal Reserve said in November 2008 that it would buy US agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and debt issued by housing-related US government agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan banks). 1 The asset selection was made in part to lower the cost and increase the availability of finance for home purchases. These purchases aided the housing market, which was at the heart of the crisis and recession, as well as improving broader financial conditions. The Fed initially planned to acquire up to $500 billion in agency MBS and $100 billion in agency debt, with the program being expanded in March 2009 and finished in 2010. The FOMC also announced a $300 billion program to buy longer-term Treasury securities in March 2009, which was completed in October 2009, just after the Great Recession ended, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. The Federal Reserve purchased approximately $1.75 trillion of longer-term assets under these programs and their expansions (commonly known as QE1), with the size of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet increasing by slightly less because some securities on the balance sheet were maturing at the same time.
However, real GDP is only a little over 4.5 percent above its prior peak as of this writing in 2013, and the jobless rate remains at 7.3 percent. With the federal funds rate at zero and the current recovery slow and sluggish, the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy plan has evolved in an attempt to stimulate the economy and meet its statutory mandate. The Fed has continued to change its communication policies and implement more LSAP programs since the end of the Great Recession, including a $600 billion Treasuries-only purchase program in 2010-11 (often known as QE2) and an outcome-based purchase program that began in September 2012. (in addition, there was a maturity extension program in 2011-12 where the Fed sold shorter-maturity Treasury securities and purchased longer-term Treasuries). Furthermore, the increasing attention on financial stability and regulatory reform, the economic consequences of the European sovereign debt crisis, and the restricted prospects for global growth in 2013 and 2014 reflect how the Great Recession’s fallout is still being felt today.
How did the world react to the financial crisis?
The credit crisis and the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers resulted in a sharp drop in global real output and an even steeper drop in global trade volume. There were valid concerns that the world economy was on the verge of another depression akin to the Great Depression of the 1930s.
- Large-scale conventional/unconventional monetary easing, which includes large reduction in policy interest rates as well as quantitative easing
- For a while, there was a lot of fiscal stimulus especially in China and (to a lesser extent) in the United States.
- Backstop and bailout of the private sector (financial system, households, corporations) – including bailouts and nationalization of some banks (in the United Kingdom).