Here is a portion from Nate at 538.com:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/obamas-price-is-right-negotiating.html

"Now consider what Obama told CNBC the other day:

Obama also confirmed that he plans to lay out a roughly $775 billion economic stimulus plan on Thursday but indicated that the amount could grow once it gets taken up by Congress.

"We've seen ranges from $800 (billion) to $1.3 trillion," he said. "And our attitude was that given the legislative process, if we start towards the low end of that, we'll see how it develops."

Obama isn't picking these numbers out on accident. This range -- $800 billion to $1.3 trillion -- is most likely the range of outcomes that his administration considers acceptable. He says that "given the legislative process", he's deliberately chosen a number on the lower end of that range.

What does this mean? It means he wants the Senate Democrats to do his dirty work for him. All of the sudden, the administration, which is about to spend at least $800 billion, gets to play the role of the fiscally prudent tightwads, negotiating against the Senate Democrats. This has at least two benefits. One, it requires less of the administration's political capital to sell the package. And two, it completely co-opts the conservative opposition. Unless you're Paul Krugman or Greg Mankiw, you probably don't really have any idea whether $300 billion or $800 billion or $1.2 trillion is the right amount to spend; the numbers are too large, the scope of the stimulus too unprecedented, to provide for any absolute frame of reference. So the frame of reference is relative rather than absolute. If you're Mitch McConnell or Mary Landireu or Bob Corker and you see that John Kerry thinks that $800 billion is too little -- well then, 'gal darn it, this Obama fella must be doing something right..."

As democrats and progressive pundits begin to nitpick the Obama stimulus plan, invariably by criticizing the size of the tax cuts including the middle classs tax cuts, hopefully they will keep in mind that the entire economic downturn is an issue of TRUST.  3 month T-bills offering next to zero % interest are the equivalent of the proverbial cash in the mattress = no trust in the financial system whatsovever.

If the public at large trusts the new Administration and the Congress to make things better with its economic plan, things will get better much much quicker.  If they don't trust that the plan will make things better, it won't matter what form it takes (see Bush tax cut 2008).

However, when a Presidential candidate makes middle class tax cuts the centerpiece of his plan, and doesn't deliver [no matter how ineffective a Senator or pundit may think a tax cut is] the public loses TRUST in that candidate.

Right now, more than anytime since the Great Depression, we need to trust that the government, especially the new President, will get it right.

This doesn't mean that Congress shouldn't do its job.  But some of the criticism needs to be done in house and not to make headlines ("I'm standing up to Barack Obama".)  Let the Republicans do that.

The John Judis piece linked to by Josh seems to be of this vein (Barack is wrong) and has the headline "Not Enough". It then goes on to say we need a national rail system and a new Bretton Woods Agreement.

Whie both of those ideas may have great merit, I really don't think either idea has anything to do solving the immediate crisis.  But it's a good headline disagreeing with Obama and making one trust him less.  Academically, OK; politically, not so good.

A big freaking spending plan ($800-900 billion+) passed with all deliberate speed will be more important to the recovery than whether every pundit and every Congressperson has publicly had a chance to state their "two cents".   

WASHINGTON - President-elect Barack Obama said Thursday the recession could "linger for years" unless Congress pumps unprecedented sums from Washington into the economy.

"I don't believe it's too late to change course, but it will be if we don't take dramatic action as soon as possible," Obama said in a speech set to be delivered at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., outside Washington.

 

"But Mr. President Elect, Governor Blago is corrupt and we can't possibly seat all of the Democratic Senate Caucus until we've fully discussed how many angels can sit on the head of a pin.  Besides, we haven't finished with the self-flagellation and our obsession with ensuring that the Republican Agenda comes first.  After all, we don't want Rush Limbaugh to accuse us of being soft on terrorism.  And are you sure the Republicans will go along?  I mean, are there enough corporate giveaways to satisfy Mitch McConnell?  I'd hate to take any kind of rash action if it means the opposition might criticize us.  Criticism is so painful.  And what exactly is the rush again?  Can't we think about this for another 3-6 months.  I mean maybe things will get better.  Have we given last year's Bush tax cuts enough time to fix things?  Do the Wall Street Banks need any more bailouts first?  I sure hope those guys got their year end bonuses on time. I hear the yacht market is really suffering.  I don't know Mr. President-Elect, I think you are asking for an awful lot.  And I'm worried about Ted Stevens.  He's a war hero and he knew a lot about this pork stuff.  Can't we get some advice from him before we pass this? ..."  Your BFF- Harry   

Could these idiots be any more transparently gutless?  I wrote back on December 30th that Reid should just take the gifthorse  Blago delivered and move on.  Then the high horse crowd came out and harrumphed and pooh poohed and claimed they were "shocked shocked to find gambling going on".

Now Reid is saying that the real reason he wasn't seated was the lack of the Illnois SOS counter-signature, is beyond laughable. 

The good news is we will have our 58th member of the caucus.  The bad news is once again Democrats look foolish by their idiotic posturing.

I love the fact that apparently Senators Feinstein and Rockefeller are upset with President elect Obama's choice of Leon Panetta as CIA chief.  You can read the various news headlines and see that they are trying to trash him with reporters who again are too naive to catch the drift here.

Feinstein and Rockefeller obviously wanted someone friendly over at CIA ["an experienced hand", the "agency is just getting back on its feet", "no time for a rookie"] for one simple reason and one reason only:  they are terrified of being exposed for the torture enablers they truly are.

I hope and pray that all the Democrats that clicked their heels and shouted "Heil Bush" every time they were "consulted" on the latest intelligence gleaned from "enhanced interrogation techniques" are exposed for the war criminals they truly are.

Their dismay at Leon Panetta's appointment means they fear he will not play ball with them in the coverup of their dastardly acts. 

It might just be that the best thing for the voters of Minnesota, would be to see just how low Norm Coleman will go.  A protracted legal battle which he will inevitably lose, may ensure that Minnesota voters see him finally for the phony he truly is.

On the other hand, if he walks away graciously this week, gives a tearjerking speech about how he will step aside in the best interests of Minnesota, he could be the next governor from that state. 

to wake up in the morning and see another piece of good news each day, like, I don't know, maybe all of the following:

Obama reverse Bush on stem cell/Congress fully finds NIH; 

EFCA passes and is signed into law;

Ledbetter Law passes and is signed by Obama;

Guantanamo closes; 

President Obama signs bill banning torture by all US Agencies;

US Troops begin leaving Iraq; 

Obama keeps his promise--all combat troops out of Iraq; 

Justice Department indicts Bush war criminals;

Economy Recovers Sharply as Unemployment Rate shrinks;

Obama signs Universal Health Care;

Justice Department indicts dozens more Wall Street Crooks;

(your headline suggestion here)