The prevalence of the word — coupled with the Obama administration’s desire to make the legislation a bipartisan effort — has put the Democrats on defense, forced to explain how one provision or another fits under the “stimulus” umbrella.

Baker would probably argue that $50 million for the NEA and money for school cafaterias IS stimulus, and so would I. But Republicans appear to adhere to a more “technical” definition of the word that forces Obama and the Dems to explain why a particular provision is “stimulus.”

The politico article doesn’t explain why these items aren’t stimulus or why Republicans don’t think these items aren’t stimulus – it just suggests that Republicans are effectively arguing that they aren’t.

Democrats need to work harder to win this argument. It’s very frustrating.

Dean Baker has this to say on his blog today:

We go on the road to Ohio today, not because it is necessary to go to the Midwest to find economic reporting in need of correction, but rather because we have such a beautiful example.

The Columbus Dispatch tells readers, “the $300 billion targeted for social programs, many of them Democratic favorites, would not generate much immediate economic activity. Improving teacher quality, providing additional cash for Head Start and promoting wellness, for example, are standard government social-spending items that have little to do with stimulating instantaneous economic activity.”

In fact, this spending, unlike the highway spending of which the paper approves, will provide an immediate boost to the economy. Paying someone to teach kids or provide health care creates jobs as surely as paying them to pave a highway. The former is better stimulus because we can typically get a teacher on the job more quickly than we can get work for a new highway contracted out and underway.

The Dispatch goes to tell readers that:

“More fundamentally, government spending is a zero-sum game. The only way the government can spend a dollar to stimulate the private sector is by taking a dollar out of the private sector. That can be a good idea only if one believes that politicians and bureaucrats know better how to invest that money than do consumers, businesses and entrepreneurs.”

This is exactly wrong. The whole point is that the economy has a vast amount of idle labor and capital right now. If the government doesn’t spend the money no one will spend it. We will simply have higher unemployment. This is the thinking that Keynes and Roosevelt had to combat to get the economy out of the Great Depression.

I had been telling people that we need not fear a depression, but if views like those expressed by the Columbus Dispatch are common, then we might. The economy is in a free fall right now. If the government is not prepared to spend lots of money (ideally on useful projects) then we can see a very deep and long downturn.

There’s this from the Wall Street Journal:

“Another “stimulus” secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments — that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There’s $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don’t pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren’t job creators.”

It seems Republicans don’t just want tax cuts — they want specific cuts for the wealthy and cuts for businesses. I agree 100% that these tax cuts won’t be an effective stimulus and Democrats shouldn’t dilute the bill with this stuff. You may be right that this is the only change Dems could make to attract significant Republican votes — and if that’s the case, then a party-line vote is how it will be.

But I’m more interested in getting rid of some spending in favor of other spending — redirecting where the money is spent.

Either that, or Democrats have to start doing a better job selling the theory behind their plan — explaining to the public how this stimulus plan was put together. Because rightly or wrongly, the perception is that it’s a hodgepodge of Democratic ideas.

I also agree that if this is the best that can be done for now, better to pass it than not.  If Obama passes a health care reform package this year, that could be designed to have the effect of a stimulus.  After all, health care spending is a stimulus.

There are lots of other ways to spend money.  In a sense, W. did liberals a favor by taking the wind out of Republican anti-deficit arguments.  And by making Obama deficit spending seem relatively small.

Tax and spend, I say! 

I certainly don’t mean to suggest that the size of the bill should be reduced in any way. I tend to agree with the economists Lee mentions who say the bill runs the risk of being too small. But Michael Wolf also says the bill is “too wasteful and too ill-focused.” If most Americans think the bill is no good, it doesn’t matter why. People on the left aren’t going to devote themselves, as a matter of political survival, to the idea that the bill was a collossal failure — only people on the right will do that.

Lee writes, “Obama is never going to get any credit from Republicans, no matter what he does, no matter what they do.” That doesn’t change the fact that Republican claims that the stimulus bill is a sham won’t work nearly as well if a large portion of Republicans vote for the bill.

Lee writes, “Those who claim that spending on the “wrong kind” of projects is not stimulus simply don’t understand basic economics or are being disingenuous.” I sympathize with the point. But just because you and I agree with Dean Baker, that doesn’t mean the American public is believing it. All Republican arguments I’ve heard regarding this bill involve the idea that spending on the “wrong kind” of projects isn’t stimulus. These arguments come from editorial writers at the L.A. Times, the Wall Street Journal, etc. You can argue that these writers are being ignorant or disengenuous — but is that an argument you can win when you’re arguing with someone who just doesn’t know that much about economics? I’ve heard Martin Feldstein make that argument — is he ignorant?

Then substitute with more shot term stimulus like operating funds for transit authorities.

But I think the title is right even if for the wrong reason. If people think the economy is going to get better they will spend more and it will get better.

* “75% [of Americans] want Congress to pass some version of President Obama’s economic stimulus plan.”

*  ”Thirty-one percent of Americans are following news about the stimulus plan very closely, with another 46% saying they are following it somewhat closely. Those who are most closely following news about the plan differ little from the overall national average in terms of their attitudes about the plan.”
 
* 37% of Americans want the stimulus to pass with major changes.  But what are those changes?  I’m an American who wants the stimulus to pass with major changes–I want the stimulus to be bigger.

* 30% of Democrats want the plan to pass after major changes.  I think many of those Democrats may share my views about the nature of those changes.  Why do you assume that the changes Americans in general want are the changes the Republican minority wants? The poll does not indicate the content of the phrase “major changes.”

* Almost 80% of Americans are very or somewhat concerned that the stimulus plan is not going to stimulate the economy quickly enough.  Based on the quotes in my previous comment, I think this 80% is right to be concerned.  The answer to their legitimate skepticism is to increase the amount of spending in the package.