The stimulus trap

If you'll recall, the only reason Congress managed to pass the $789-billion stimulus legislation in 2009 was because the package had been sharply trimmed from the amount that supporters said was required to boost the economy. From the NYT account:

Many Democrats would have preferred a larger bill, but agreed to pare back, including cuts to favored education and health programs, to win three crucial Republican votes in the Senate. "Legislation is the art of compromise, consensus building, and that's what we did," the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said in announcing the accord.

Turns out that the $789 billion was indeed inadequate, But stimulus opponents have successfully re-framed the debate. Inadequate is now being pegged unsuccessful. NYT columnist Paul Krugman explains:

You do something in the right direction that's inadequate, and then people say, well, that didn't work, and instead of increasing the dosage and proving it right, you give the thing up altogether.

Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein says "it's a bit like taking too few antibiotics, noticing that you're still sick, and swearing off antibiotics altogether." But even that assumes everyone was willing to buy into the program when in fact most Republicans actively tried to discredit it. When the results came back wanting, it was easy for them to question the very idea of federal dollars being used to infuse the economy. Now there's no chance of another stimulus, even though many economists say it could help boost the recovery.