Since it was passed in 2009, Republicans have derided the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which passed without a single House Republican vote. House Republicans called the stimulus a “sham“, nothing more a “a massive spending binge by the Democrat-controlled Congress.” Just this week, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) — who authored the radical House Republican budget — penned an op-ed, saying the Democrats’ response to the recession has been “woefully inadequate,” with the Recovery Act just one more example of the foolish belief that “government spending and greater government control over the economy can jump-start a recovery better than the private sector can.”

But a report released yesterday by the Department of Housing and Urban Development proves strategic government investments during an economic downturn have been anything but wasteful. According to the report, the Homelessness Prevention Rapid Re-housing Program (HPRP) — an initiative directly funded by the Recovery Act — helped 94 percent of program participants who were either homeless or on the verge of homelessness find a permanent housing destination:

Of persons exiting an HPRP program and whose destination at exit was known, 94 percent of HPRP program participants exited to a permanent housing situation, which is considered a successful housing outcome. Nearly 93 percent either rented or owned their own housing unit at exit. This is notable considering the very low income of persons assisted at both entry and exit—nearly 30 percent of participants entered with no monthly cash income and more than half entered with $750 a month or less— and the relatively brief term of assistance.

The HPRP was specifically designed for low-income families who have been taken the hardest blows from the recession, and since its implementation in 2009 it has helped a total of 284,000 families escape homelessness. Its relatively low investment costs ($1.3 billion over 3 years – equal to eleven days of Bush tax cuts), coupled with its high success rate led the report to conclude that the program was an overwhelming success, a crucial factor in “mitigating the impact of the economic recession and allowing families to remain housed or regain housing”.

If the Republicans had their way, highly successful government initiatives such as the Homelessness Prevention Rapid Re-housing Program would never have happened. The Recovery Act has also kept a total of 6 million Americans out of poverty and created 3.3 million jobs.

– Jen Kalaidis

ThinkProgress filed this report from the Netroots Nation convention in Minneapolis, MN.

The United States is less than seven weeks away from defaulting on our debt and sending the country into an economic crisis worse than the Great Recession. Brushing off the impending consequences, Republicans are continuing to hold the debt ceiling vote hostage to their various demands, including a balanced budget amendment, Social Security cuts, and a 44-percent reduction to every government program.

One of the leading voices urging Republicans not to raise the debt ceiling has been leading presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty. On multiple occasions, Pawlenty advised the GOP to stand firm and not allow a debt ceiling increase, regardless of the economic consequences, even saying at one point that failing to raise the debt ceiling would be good for the economy. “If the Congress moves in that direction at present,” said Pawlenty, “they better get something really good for it — it better be permanent, and it better be structural.”

ThinkProgress ran into Pawlenty in the Minneapolis airport today and asked whether as president he could imagine asking Congress to raise the debt ceiling. The former Minnesota governor was evasive. He reiterated his opposition to raising the current debt limit, but despite being asked three times whether he would ever request an increase as president, Pawlenty was unwilling to rule it out:

KEYES: You’ve obviously made a big deal out of telling Congress not to raise the debt ceiling, to stay firm on this. Can you envision a scenario where you’re president that you would ask Congress to raise the debt ceiling?

PAWLENTY: I don’t think they should raise the debt ceiling. And if they even consider it, they should make sure that they get real, permanent, meaningful structural reform in spending, including things like a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, or specific long-term reforms and changes in the structural spending of the federal budget. It’s out of control and it’s reckless.

KEYES: But if you were president, do you think you would ask Congress ever to be raising it?

PAWLENTY: I don’t think we should raise the debt ceiling, but if they feel that they have to because it’s mathematically impossible not to, then I think you have to make sure that you get real, permanent structural reforms. The thing I would shoot for is a constitutional amendment to balance the budget

KEYES: But not willing to write it off?

PAWLENTY: That’s good. Thanks.

Watch it:

The TV show The West Wing wisely characterized debt ceiling negotiations as an opportunity for the opposition party to grandstand “about how awful it is that we maxed out the national credit card.” For example, despite his current opposition to raising the debt ceiling, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) supported an increase in 2002 because, “I truly believe if you owe debts, you pay debts.”

Indeed, Pawlenty’s refusal to rule out future increases in the debt ceiling if he’s elected president demonstrates that his current opposition to raising the debt limit is likely no more than an exercise in demagoguery.

The economic plan unveiled last week by 2012 GOP presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty included $7.8 trillion in tax cuts, on top of the $2.5 trillion cost of continuing to extend the Bush tax cuts for the next ten years. His tax plan would mean a 41 percent tax cut for millionaires, even as it caused the deficit and debt to explode.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the plan would be really great for the richest one tenth of one percent of Americans, delivering them a tax cut four times as large as the Bush tax cuts:

Specifically, in 2013 the Pawlenty plan would give people in the top one-tenth of 1 percent on the income scale (i.e., people with incomes above $2.7 million) an average annual tax cut of $1.8 million — which is more than four times what they got last year from the Bush tax cuts.

Pawlenty’s economic plan shows that he is willing to more than double-down on the failed economic policies of the Bush administration. Of course, since Pawlenty believes wholeheartedly in the tax fairy, he probably thinks this tax cut will actually boost federal revenue, rather then blow yet another hole in the federal budget.

In response to a widespread foreclosure crisis, Philadelphia instituted what’s known as a mortgage mediation program. Under the program, banks are required to meet face-to-face with a borrower before foreclosing, to attempt to come to an agreement that would keep the borrower out of foreclosure. There is no requirement that the two sides come to an agreement, only that they meet.

Mediation programs have proven successful all across the country in keeping borrowers from losing their homes, and Philadelphia’s is no exception. According to a report from Ira Goldstein of The Reinvestment Fund, nearly 70 percent of borrowers eligible for meeting with their banks participate and about 85 percent of those who strike a deal with their lender are still in their homes 18 months later:

In 2007, the year before the program began, 27 percent of homeowners in foreclosure lost their homes. That fell to 14.5 percent in the six months after the program began, then to 5.7 percent thereafter, Goldstein found. In the first year of the program, 5,000 homeowners took advantage of it, according to data released in June 2009. Of agreements reached through June 2009, 733, or 84.6 percent of 866 homeowners, remained in their homes 18 months later.

“The success is we set the table. And we require the guests to come to the table,” said Judge Annette Rizzo, who set up the program. “Once you get that one-on-one, where the case’s facts come to light, that’s when individual deals come.”

Programs like this one, as we’ve noted before, could be key to combating the housing crisis, which has continued unabated for years. New data shows that housing prices have suffered a larger plunge in the last few years than they did during the Great Depression, while federal anti-foreclosure programs have fallen flat due to bank intransigence.

Several Republicans, as the August 2 deadline for raising the nation’s debt ceiling has crept closer and closer, have said that having the U.S. default on some of its obligations for a few days or weeks would not necessarily be a bad thing for the economy. Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), for instance, said, “I don’t think it’s going to have an adverse impact on the economy for the days or weeks or perhaps even months that this would continue.” House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) added that, “If a bondholder misses a payment for a day or two or three or four — what is more important is you are putting the government in a materially better position to better pay its bills going forward.”

In a speech yesterday, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threw cold water on the idea of a short-term default, saying that it would mean cuts to vital programs like Social Security and would shake confidence in the U.S.’s creditworthiness:

Some have suggested that payments by the Treasury could be prioritized to meet principal and interest payments on debt outstanding, thus avoiding a technical default on federal debt. However, even if that were the case, given the current size of the deficit and the uneven time pattern of government receipts and payments, the Treasury would soon find it necessary to prioritize among and withhold critical disbursements, such as Social Security and Medicare payments and funds for the military. Moreover, while debt-related payments might be met in this scenario, the fact that many other government payments would be delayed could still create serious concerns about the safety of Treasury securities among financial market participants. The Hippocratic oath holds that, first, we should do no harm. In debating critical fiscal issues, we should avoid unnecessary actions or threats that risk shaking the confidence of investors in the ability and willingness of the U.S. government to pay its bills.

As CAP’s Michael Ettlinger and Michael Linden found, failing to raise the debt ceiling for even a limited amount of time can have significant negative consequences for the nation’s GDP. A U.S. default could also do severe harm to the already fragile housing market, even as prices plunge further than they did during the Great Depression.