> So the central estimate is that the bill will increase employment by
> 1.6 million by the end of 2009. That's 1% of the labor force. It is not
> a bad bet, then, that unemployment will reach double digits despite
> the stimulus. If it does, how the hell will Obama &co. prevent the
> whole idea of stimulus from being discredited politically?
I have no idea what Obama plans, but this is a political process. I understand the urgency of these measures. Timing is essential. But I don't think Obama has only one shot at this. Setbacks can be turned into victories.
Same with the TARP money left over by Paulson -- and I believe that's what the "Geithner Plan" so far amounts to; it's not a once-and-for-all statement of how they will deal with the banks.
As blissfully ignorant as I am of the concrete legislative process in the U.S., I am sure that Obama and his people will have more opportunities to advance, should they want to -- and/or be forced to -- advance.
IMHO, the main role of the left here is not to stay at arms' length from this political process, waging our index fingers, predicting disaster, etc. but to reassure working people of the righteousness of their needs and interest, to persuade them that more drastic measures are necessary and must be demanded from the government, and to help them engage in said political process.
In case this needs to be said, this does not mean playing the role of Obama's cheerleaders. But neither does it mean viewing him as the main obstacle here.
Maybe my perception is all twisted, but I don't see people disengaged and apathetic. There's a lot of resentment against banks, Wall Street, social parasitism, politicians. Energy that can be channeled politically. And frankly I fail to see yet Obama as taking the role of defuser of the popular rage, let alone its suppressor.