The administration, however, chose to ignore the advice of liberal economists like Krugman and Stiglitz that its unemployment forecast would prove too optimistic, that the long-term unemployed would begin to run out of jobless benefits, and that the stimulus was disproportionately tilted towards tax cuts and aid to states and municipalities at the expense of direct job creation.
^^^^^ CB: I'm still in possession of a letter signed by about 50 or 100 liberal and leftish economists recommending precisely large aid to states and municipalities. What is "direct" job creation ? WPA program ?
^^^^^
More to the point, they argued that the Obama administration would not likely have the opportunity to inject almost certain further stimulus because the Republicans would have stoked public fears of runaway spending and higher taxation, so that a margin of safety was consequently required. The critics were, in retrospect, right on all counts.
^^^^^ CB: The critics didn't take account of the fact that a large section of the Democrats are undercover Republicans , and a larger stimulus probably couldn't have won.
^^^^
The Obama administration crafted the legislation not for maximum economic impact but to attract Republican votes, in the naive belief it could persuade the Republicans to take ownership of a bipartisan bill and refrain from criticism.
^^^^ CB: And Blue Dog Democrat votes. The belief was not "naive"; it takes account of the political reality in Congress. It is your expectation that a more radical stimulus could have been won in this Congress that is naive. The effort at bipartisanism was merely an extension of the approach of the winning Presidential campaign, non-confrontational and appealing to Independents and Republican. Since it had worked in the campaign, there was good reason to continue in the same vein. It is the American public and media that did a flip based on the nutty demogogy of the Tea Party broadcast by the monopoly media
^^^^
The Republicans,, of course, voted virtually unanimously against the Recovery Act in both Houses - only the marginal northeastern senators Snowe, Collins, and Spector breaking ranks - and went on to make the "ineffective" stimulus the centrepiece of their triumphant campaign against the "dangerously freespending" Democrats.
^^^^ CB:Which would have been their same attack on your larger stimulus, which larger stimulus you cannot guarantee would have had enough impact on the economy before the election to have brought a different result. Your claim that if the Obama admin had just done a larger stimulus everything would have been fine for the Dems is not at all proven or certain. You should use a lot more "mights" and "maybe's" in your hindsight analysis.
^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^
Another case of the administration doing just enough to arouse the fierce opposition of the right in lieu of using its congressional majority to ram through legislation of more immediate value to Americans seeking jobs, affordable healthcare, mortgage relief, and tougher action against the banks.
^^^^^^^ CB: You keep ignoring the treacherous nature of the Blue Dog Democrats and the Senate's very undemocratic fillibuster rules which allow a minority to rule and block things like a "larger stimulus". Obama _had_ to try appeal to the rightwingers . Until you acknowledge this , your analysis is "naive".