Senator Collins -- who is a not so much a moderate as a negotiator for the extreme conservative faction of American politics -- says that money spent to stop a global pandemic flu doesn't belong in the stimulus bill.That crystallizes the critical question for Congress as it goes into conference to decide the shape and size of the legislation that will determine, in all likelihood, the fate of the country for the next two or three years.

I agree that "stimulus" is not a well-chosen word for the critical legislation that Congress simply must pass. The critical bill at issue now is all about the long neglected investment in the public goods needed by our country now and in the future.

We need, as a society and an economy, at last to provide for the taxpayers of the future -- who will pay for the debt we are incurring on their behalf. If we are going to borrow money our children will have to pay back, we should give them something to benefit from -- including protection from flu pandemics -- instead of just spending their money on unnecessary condos or more gas guzzling SUVs. At last, it's time for a change in our priorities. That's what Americans just voted for and by no small margin, including in Maine.

We need to make a massive investment in the creation of public goods, including medical advances, transportation, clean energy, broadband, education, and many other specific components of a safe, healthy, and productive society. These goods will benefit our children for years to come. They will be provided by the private sector: the government may control banks, to its shock and horror, but the public goods that the legislation will create for the most part will be provided by private parties. They will, however, be available to most Americans and for decades to come -- if Congress makes the right decisions next week.

The future should pay for the future.That's what the President's legislation proposes. We are going to incur debt in order to invest in the creation of public goods that will benefit all Americans for decades to come. The price is extraordinarily low because the debt costs so remarkably little and the benefits will accrue for decades to come -- if the right law is passed. This isn't, or should not be, about stimulating a consumer economy to a splurge of Valentine's Day presents or condo purchases. It is about building an America we will be proud to pass on to the next generation.

Under the last two Presidential terms (to sum up the prevailing approach of Senator Collins and her party), we have spent for the present, and ignored the future. We have told our children that we will leave them less than we inherited from our parents. Our government has encouraged home loans for SUVs and holidays, and "stimulated" the construction of condos that are too expensive for the vast majority of Americans (and especially Mainers, Senator Collins!). We have spent about the same amount in Iraq that is in the President's currently legislative proposal. It was a war that did not need to be fought and that has effectively impoverished our country. These choices are what the current President was elected to reject. These are the decisions that the present legislation -- as written in the people's House -- proposes to reverse.

As it happens, we can at last mobilize support for the long overdue investments in what's good for all Americans. We can get votes from Congressional figures who normally worry more about balancing the budget than spending what is needed to rebuild America. We can get these votes now because these powerful figures agree that we must also encourage consumption from an economy that is producing only about 75% of the output that our capacity permits -- in general, our machines of production are operating at about 75% of capacity and that is falling. This shortfall between capacity and output -- applicable to the coffee machines at Starbucks and the wind turbine manufacturing facilities in Ohio and the unused time of real estate agents and on and on -- is what leads to lay-offs and recession. It produces corporate decisions not to invest: why create capacity when the old capacity is under-utilized? We can ask banks to loan until we are hoarse, but if there's no new capacity to create, then to what will they loan? The case is so clear that at last we can persuade most of Congress to spend the money on public goods that in turn will create the work for people who in turn will consume more of the goods and services that our economy is capable of producing.

Unfortunately, the Republicans insist that the Senate must amass 60 votes to pass anything. They have, just barely, enough votes to keep 60 from coming behind the President's legislation. To help their negotiation, Senator Coleman has engaged in a futile, groundless litigation against Al Franken, who by all rights should be in the Senate able to vote for investment in public goods. Nevertheless, the Republicans know that they can't run the risks of precipitating an even more radical downturn in the economy. So they send Senator Collins to negotiate cuts in flu research and vaccination on behalf of the extreme right-wing that would eagerly vote to reduce taxes on the very well-off instead of paying for children to be healthy, safe, well-fed and well-educated. This isn't moderate politics: it is just negotiation for the purpose of reducing investment in public goods. They want to take money from long term investments and spend it on short-term tax breaks accruing more to a few than to the many.

The House's approach, and the President's is -- and this is its critical, essential genius -- is to hit two targets: first, we create the public goods that we have so long gone without and, second, in doing so we increase demand for private goods that our idle factories should be making.

It is simply crucial to repudiate the thinking that supports massive, annual federal deficits (such as Senator Collins and her party has supported for the last two Presidential terms) yet rejects investment in America's health, wealth and safety. What has Senator Collins and her party blessed instead for eight long years? Money for military spending in other countries; tax cuts for the very wealthy so that they can invest in residential real estate, luxury goods, and, sadly, ersatz financial products that are now of much reduced value; and for eight long years no meaningful spending on public goods available to all Americans.

One does not need to argue that tax cuts don't belong in the pending legislation. But it's absolutely obvious to non-Washington Americans that our country needs investment in the basic, public goods available to all Americans, as opposed to depending solely on tax cuts that surely will principally benefit the stalwart supporters of the Republican Party. The purpose of tax cuts -- other than those that go directly, without intermediation, to most middle class and lower income class individuals (which are not the ones the Republican Party favors) -- is to create more consumption of existing goods and also incentives for private investment of any and all kinds. We need both that consumption and that investment, because our economy is falling so quickly. But we particularly need investment, preferably by both government and private investors, in the creation of public goods -- that is, goods like energy, communications, transportation, education, health, and safety which are generally and widely available on a non-exclusive basis to everyone.

Let me repeat for emphasis: a public good, such as clean energy or communications, can be provided by private parties and usually is in our mixed economy. That's good! But we have for years grossly under-invested in such public goods. Instead, we have concentrated far too much investment and consumption in the upper income classes and in non-productive goods and services, like real estate and luxury goods and military spending and fanciful financial products.

For far too long, under the rule of Senator Collins' party, we have been a country of concentrated private wealth and widespread public poverty. It's time for change. That's what the Congress is actually debating, and Senator Collins is on the wrong side of the wishes of the majority of Americans. She was just re-elected but it can't be that the people of her state actually support her miserly attitude toward America's public -- meaning, generally available -- sphere. It's time for people to speak up, to speak out, as Congress goes into its critical conference.