Krugman’s got his figures half-way done, and the numbers already show that the stimulus package Congress has before it is too small to do the job.
Obama had the right view: Yes, there is a lot of spending, that’s what a stimulus package is all about.
But the Republicans refused to budge. ‘Can’t use the ring-buoy to save the drowning nation — the rope might get wet. If we pulled it in, we’d have to pull it into the boat, and the boat would get wet. Why not leave it in the water a while longer — we can recover the body with a dredge, it will look pretty much like it looks now. What’s the problem?’
At his blog at the New York Times site, Krugman lays it out concisely:
I’m still working on the numbers, but I’ve gotten a fair number of requests for comment on the Senate version of the stimulus.
The short answer: to appease the centrists, a plan that was already too small and too focused on ineffective tax cuts has been made significantly smaller, and even more focused on tax cuts.
According to the CBO’s estimates, we’re facing an output shortfall of almost 14% of GDP over the next two years, or around $2 trillion. Others, such as Goldman Sachs, are even more pessimistic. So the original $800 billion plan was too small, especially because a substantial share consisted of tax cuts that probably would have added little to demand. The plan should have been at least 50% larger.
Now the centrists have shaved off $86 billion in spending — much of it among the most effective and most needed parts of the plan. In particular, aid to state governments, which are in desperate straits, is both fast — because it prevents spending cuts rather than having to start up new projects — and effective, because it would in fact be spent; plus state and local governments are cutting back on essentials, so the social value of this spending would be high. But in the name of mighty centrism, $40 billion of that aid has been cut out.
My first cut says that the changes to the Senate bill will ensure that we have at least 600,000 fewer Americans employed over the next two years.
The real question now is whether Obama will be able to come back for more once it’s clear that the plan is way inadequate. My guess is no. This is really, really bad.
Is there any economist who thinks the situation is not so dire, or that this legislation spends enough money?
Politics triumphs over economics, common sense and national welfare, once again.
Call your Congressional representatives, let ’em know your thoughts.
Update: I regret I didn’t make the connection earlier — go read “The Pony Chokers” at Edge of the West. Don’t let stiff-necked Congressional representatives choke your pony.
Posted by Ed Darrell 
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 