The Free Exchange blog at The Economist posted yesterday about "the stimulus that should have been."  The complaint -- too little infrastructure spending:

It's even more frustrating that this is so when one considers that substantial infrastructure investments will be necessary in any case, as stimulus or not. And it's outright maddening when you recall that massive economic slack and falling resource prices, thanks to the recession, would allow a given dollar of infrastructure spending to go a long way indeed.

But there was felt to be a limit to which money could be allocated to the infrastructure cause, based on shovel-readiness; if too few projects could take advantage of the available funding while the economy was still weak, then that funding would make for poor stimulus and could be better used elsewhere.

There is no use crying about it now.  After all, it's not like anyone proposed serious alternatives to firing money out of a cannon while blindfolded (a.k.a. timely, targeted, and temporary) as a way to stimulate economic activity.  Two years ago, where were the people proposing a better way to deal with downturns or a budget that plans for the future by taking such a long-term view of infrastructure investment?

So what should our elected officials do about it today? 

Over at FT.com, my friend Clive Crook has a well written piece on the fiscal stimulus and the debate over it success and failure.

The key to the post is its focus toward the end on the aftermath of the stimulus -- the deficits and debt that will be left when the economy has recovered.

This is not a new topic, of course. Congressional Republicans have been raising it for months as a reason not to like what the Obama administration proposed and Congress adopted.

But Clive's post is not a recital of the GOP talking points on the stimulus. The fact that he devotes about 40 percent of his thinking and writing to the next rather than the current issue is significant.  Clive is an intellectual leader and this is the kind of subtle revision in the public debate that often indicates the situation has changed and its time for the discussion to move on.

CAUTION: You might not be able to stop yourself from singing the same song to yourself all day after reading my column from today's Roll Call.

More Stimulus and Less Deficit: Together Again

July 14, 2009
By Stan Collender
Roll Call Contributing Writer   

For those of you who aren’t old enough to remember, and for everyone who hasn’t seen the smash Broadway musical “Jersey Boys,” Frankie Valli used to be the lead singer of a group called the Four Seasons. When the three other members of the group stopped performing, Valli hired new singers to fill out what was called Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons. One of that group’s national tours was called “Together Again” even though they had never really been together before.

Do we need a second stimulus?  Bruce Bartlett says not yet.  Paul Krugman says yes.  Donald Marron reminds us how to count to three.  For my two cents (before multipliers, that is), the word stimulus is completely unhelpful -- it has come to mean spending money we don't have on stuff we don't need, just for the sake of spending it "quickly."  From December of last year:

If I had my druthers, the word "stimulus" would be expunged from public discussion, along with "bailout" and "rescue."  These words convey the idea that, because we have so mismanaged our economic and financial affairs, we are somehow able or entitled to conjure up additional funds out of thin air to fix our problems.

I expect Congress to send President Bush a $150 b. second stimulus bill before Thanksgiving and to send the next president a third stimulus bill next spring.  Why?  Because the economy is suddenly in a sharp downturn as the financial crisis has spilled over into the real economy.  Last month's 6.2% unemployment rate will jump on November 2 and could easily reach 8% early next year.  We will end this year having lost just over 1 million jobs from the 146.2 million we started this year with.  See page 11 of the President's Council of Economic Advisers Economic Indicators.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has been calling for more stimulus of at least $100 b.

Here's my "Fiscal Fitness" column published today in Roll Call.

As the Election Nears,
A Second Stimulus Is Less Than Certain

July 22, 2008
By Stan Collender
Roll Call Contributing Writer

We’ve been hearing about the possibility of a second economic stimulus bill since the first one was enacted in February. Much of that original talk was to reassure those who didn’t get their preferred provisions in that quickly adopted bill that they would get another chance later in the year.

Given the still-growing concern about the economy and the perceived limited positive impact of the first stimulus, it’s hardly a surprise that talk about a second is picking up again. With daily headlines about some real or perceived economic malady, still falling consumer confidence, proposed help for big financial institutions and an election that is only 15 weeks away, it would be far more surprising if an additional economic legislative effort for individuals wasn’t being discussed on Capitol Hill.

The Associated Press is reporting this morning what everyone already knows: the Congressional Budget Office will project that the deficit will increase from fiscal 2007 to 2008. Including the not-yet-but-absolutely-certain-to-be-proposed-and enacted supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, the 2008 deficit will reach about $250 billion, a $90 billion or so increase from the $162 billion deficit in 2007.

It looks like House Banking Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) and House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) are going to be the designated leaders for a stimulus bill in the House.  Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) may play the same role in the Senate.

Note who has not been designated: House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D-SC) and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND).

At least for now, Brad DeLong agrees with Alex Tabarrok that a fiscal stimulus package is not the right way to go.

Then again, neither Brad nor Alex are running for reelection.