Introduction
The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) is a significant policy passed by the United States government in March 2021. The primary purpose of this law is to provide relief and support to individuals, families, businesses, and state and local governments affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The ARPA offers a range of benefits, including stimulus checks, extended unemployment benefits, increased funding for vaccination efforts, and aid to small businesses. While the ARPA has been praised for its immediate relief measures, it has also drawn criticism for its lack of long-term solutions and its potential to exacerbate social inequalities.
Overview of the American Rescue Plan Act
The United States Congress approved a sweeping aid plan in March 2021 called the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). The primary goal of this legislation is to aid victims of the COVID-19 epidemic at the individual, family, business, and governmental levels (Crews). The ARPA is a $1.9 trillion assistance plan that offers various services to help lessen the economic blow of the epidemic (Crews).
Direct payments to individuals and families are one of the most critical aspects of the ARPA (Congress.gov). Individuals with annual incomes up to $75,000 are eligible for direct payments of $1,400, while those with annual incomes up to $80,000 are eligible for reduced prices (Crews). These funds are meant to help individuals who have suffered the most from the pandemic right away and to jumpstart the economy.
The ARPA’s extension of unemployment benefits is another significant advantage. In addition to state compensation, the law provides an additional $300 per week for unemployed individuals until September 2021 (Crews). This extension aims to prevent a worsening of economic conditions and to continue assisting people who have lost their jobs due to the pandemic.
Local and state governments will also receive $350 billion from the ARPA (Crews). With this money, governments and municipalities can pay for vaccine distribution and COVID-19 testing that are directly relevant to the pandemic. In addition, schools will receive $130 billion from the measure (Crews).
With this money, schools may reopen without endangering students’ health and even help those falling behind due to the epidemic catch-up (Congress.gov). The ARPA allocates $30 billion annually for housing and utility subsidies (Crews). Renters and property owners having trouble making ends meet due to the pandemic would benefit from these funds.
Simply put, the ARPA is an all-encompassing relief package meant to lessen the financial toll of the pandemic on those who have suffered the most. Direct payments, increased unemployment benefits, money for schools, grants to local governments, and help with rent and utilities are only some of the provisions of the new law. These payments are meant to cushion the pandemic effects on people, families, and communities already struggling to get by.
Critiques of the American Rescue Plan Act
The American Rescue Plan Act has been criticized for two main reasons: it does not provide any long-term answers and may worsen social inequities. A common complaint about the ARPA is that it doesn’t do enough to address economic inequality and poverty long-term (Hedgeye Risk Management). While increased direct payments and longer durations of unemployment benefits are welcome relief, they are only short-term solutions.
Concerns have been raised that those individuals struggling before the outbreak will be further marginalized once they no longer exist. Many believe the ARPA should put more resources toward long-term solutions, including affordable housing, healthcare, and job training. These funds could help give long-term assistance to people in need and reduce disparities within the system.
The ARPA has also been criticized for having the ability to amplify existing social divisions. Those who were already struggling financially before the epidemic may receive less aid than those who were not, because the law assists individuals and families according to income. People who lost their employment because of the epidemic might, for instance, have had lower payments, meaning that they would have received less ARPA aid anyhow (Hedgeye Risk Management). Further inequalities between regions and communities may result from the possible unequal distribution of assistance to state and municipal administrations. Some have argued that the ARPA should give more money to the poor rather than the wealthy.
Others claim the ARPA doesn’t do enough to address systemic problems, including unequal access to healthcare and education. Health and education spending is earmarked under the law, but it’s unclear if the money will go far enough to fix the underlying problems (Hedgeye Risk Management). Higher incidences of COVID-19 infections and deaths have been observed in communities of color and low-income areas, highlighting inequities in healthcare access brought to light by the epidemic. Some have argued that the ARPA should put more money into healthcare and education to help reduce these inequalities.
Recommendations for Reform
Expanding Direct Payments and Unemployment Benefits
Even though direct payments and prolonged unemployment benefits are short-term solutions, they are made available immediately due to the ARPA. Those who continue to have financial difficulties should have long-term relief; thus, it is crucial to think about ways of continued help. One possible approach is implementing a universal basic income that guarantees all citizens a set amount of money each month. Increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which gives tax breaks to people with low and moderate incomes, is another option (Stokes and Sarah 417). Expanding such programs would provide individuals and families with consistent aid in making ends meet and strengthening their financial footing.
Investing in Long-term Solutions to Address Structural Inequalities
While the ARPA is helpful in the short term, it does nothing to address the pre-pandemic structural inequities that were ignored. Governments are considering long-term investments in healthcare, education, and infrastructure as possible answers. For instance, providing more funding for low-cost housing and healthcare can help level access to these essentials (Stokes and Sarah 418). Similarly, spending more money on education can help close the difference in performance between pupils from low- and high-income backgrounds.
Implementing Mechanisms to Ensure Equitable Distribution of Aid
The ARPA funds grants for state and local governments to use in their pandemic preparedness activities. However, this aid runs the risk of being misallocated, exacerbating existing imbalances across areas and groups (Davis 128). Policymakers should consider instituting procedures to guarantee equitable help distribution to avoid this. Methods for ensuring that help is being distributed relatively include the establishment of oversight committees and adopting needs-based criteria for allocating funding.
Conclusion
The ARPA is a significant policy that helps those affected by the recent COVID-19 outbreak. Critics have pointed to the law’s potential to deepen socioeconomic inequities and its lack of long-term solutions, despite widespread approval for its temporary relief measures. Consideration should be given to instituting permanent support measures, investing in long-term solutions to address structural disparities, and guaranteeing equitable distribution of aid to communities to maximize the law’s positive effects on society.
Works Cited
“Hedgeye Risk Management | Politics, Policy, and Power | Pros & Cons for the American Rescue Plan Act.” Hedgeye, Web.
Congress.gov. H.R.1319 – American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Congress. Gov, 2021, Web.
Crews, Clyde Wayne, Jr. “The Best American Rescue Plan Is an ‘Abuse-Of-Crisis Prevention Act.’” Forbes, Web.
Davis, F. James. “Toward a theory of law in society.” Sociological Focus, vol. 11, no. 2, 1978, pp. 127-141.
Stokes, Jeffrey R., and Sarah E. Patterson. “Intergenerational Relationships, Family Caregiving Policy, and COVID-19 in the United States.” Journal of Aging & Social Policy, vol. 32, no. 4–5, 2020, pp. 416–24.