‘

As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President’s Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government – I don’t. Not because I’m not mindful of the massive debt we’ve inherited – I am. I called for action because the failure to do so would have cost more jobs and caused more hardships. In fact, a failure to act would have worsened our long-term deficit by assuring weak economic growth for years. That’s why I pushed for quick action.

Lowry may be right that this is politically shrewd rhetoric, since it allows the President “to redefine extensive government activism as simple pragmatism” and potentially redefine the national debate on the size and scope of government. But this is hardly a new argument, however.

Progressives have long couched their arguments for a larger government role as pragmatic responses to the weakness of private, individual action. They do not contend that we need bigger government as such, but instead maintain that since individual action is insufficient to achieve “socialy desirable” ends,  the only viable alternative is government action. Herbert Croly, for instance, argued a century ago that the unequal distribution of wealth was “the inevitable outcome of the chaotic individualism of our political and economic organization.” And since individualism has failed, the pragmatic alternative is for the federal government to “mak[e] itself responsible for a morally and socially desirable distribution of wealth.”

This is a wholly Progressive argument, reminiscent of Croly. Even if the states have to cede authority to the federal government, the argument goes, expanding the federal welfare state is both an absolute good and the logical next step for “modern” government. To reject this enlightened policy, then, even in the name of higher ideals like individual self-worth or protection of state prerogatives, is callous and, worse, backwards.

‘

The stimulus package is not only a political crucible for Obama and the congressional Democrats who pushed it through; it is also the ultimate test of government’s ability to deliver, from a vast array of federal agencies and departments down to state and local offices across the country.

It will be up to thousands of Cabinet undersecretaries, regional agency directors and local contracting officers to get the stimulus money out fast enough to boost the economy and to meet Obama’s broader policy goals. Obama has cast his election as a repudiation of an anti-government philosophy that has been in vogue for the past three decades. The stimulus spending offers the prospect of renewing confidence in the public sector just as many are losing faith in corporate America. If done poorly, though, it could undermine Obama’s longer-term vision of reaffirming the positive role of government in the lives of Americans.

Of course, it doesn’t much matter whether government actually delivers but rather whether it’s seen to deliver. The New Deal, for example, despite its repeated failures and cockamamie schemes, has nevertheless been judged a success by history.

If only it actually worked that way. All too often, the negotiators don’t split the difference during the House-Senate conference, particularly when it comes to spending. Instead, they pick the higher spending number, increase it, and call it a compromise.

Consider the funding earmarked for intercity rail in the economic “stimulus” bill. As passed, the House bill would spend $1.1 billion on Amtrak and high-speed rail, and the Senate version $3.1 billion. When negotiating the final version of the legislation, House and Senate negotiators came together and “compromised” on $9.3 billion–a figure three times higher than the largest amount in either bill.