The contention was that there was never a "big expansion in government spending." There was a $600 billion increase in government spending for this one program.

The contention was that there was never a "big expansion in government spending." There was a $600 billion increase in government spending for this one program. The article's reasoning that %40 of the spending does not count because it was tax cuts is nonsensical. The tax cuts were meant to stimulate the private sector. Why was the bill signed if %40 of it was being misappropriated? The article's reasoning that the payments to states and local governments should not be counted is also flawed. At the time the bill was passed people like Krugman were praising the payments to the states as the fastest way the money could be put into circulation and start "stimulating". If the money was mis-used by the state and local governments well whose fault is that but the federal government for lack of oversite. If he wants to state that the stimulus had little effect or was too small to be worthwhile fine. The statement that there was no big expansion of government spending is false. The fact that nothing was done with the money doesn't erase the fact that the money was spent and an unnamed future generation now has a $600 billion bill to pay. So sadly yes, the man is a shrill who long ago lost his objectivity and value as a commentator.