There are two basic arguments you heard coming from the Collins-Nelson crew. The first was that the stimulus was too big. Asked last week to outline his thinking on the stimulus, Nelson said, "I think it will be below 800 [billion]. For me it's not symbolism, it's an economic matter. At some point it's just too big." That point, apparently, was $800 billion, as estimated by the well-known Nelson output theorem, which is not at all reliant on symbolism or a preference for achievable round numbers. Rather, it's reliant on old-fashioned Nebraska values. The second was that the particular programs weren't justifiable within the "stimulus" rubric. Susan Collins spoke of her "serious concerns with the House-passed bill, which now exceeds $900 billion and includes spending for some programs that would neither boost the economy nor create jobs." But the gang of job-cutters -- to steal Dean Baker's elegant formulation -- hasn't justified their cuts on grounds of either size or efficacy. Why is $900 billion a stimulus package they would have to oppose, but $800 billion is a stimulus package they can support? There's been no explanation for the superiority of $800 billion against $600 billion, or even against $1.2 trillion. Nelson has not argued that the likely output gap over the next two years has been overstated in CBO estimates -- and way overstated by Goldman-Sachs' estimates -- and thus the stimulus is too large for our purposes. Nor have they argued that the $40 billion in state aid and $20 billion in school construction will be less stimulative than the $70 billion Alternative Minimum Tax patch, of which exactly 0.5% goes towards the bottom 60 percent of the income distribution (which are, of course, the folks most in need of relief, and most likely to spend it quickly). In fact, they haven't really argued anything at all. Rather, it's been a dazzling display of the most analytically bankrupt strain of centrism: The belief that the right answer lies, by definition, somewhere between the answers that are already on the table. The Nelson-Collins bill hasn't been justified in terms of virtues so much as in terms of abstract numerical positioning. It's a neat trick, and widely applicable. If one party announced a bill mandating that all Americans must bathe themselves in mud and brambles, and the other party opposed the "Mud and Brambles Bathing Act of 2009," Collins and Nelson would be right there to explain that the American people are tired of dogma and interest group politics and they have brokered a compromise mandating that all Americans take a monthly mud and brambles shower instead. Update: A pithier take on "centrism."
