During the debate over the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, many people here and elsewhere criticized President Obama's stimulus as being too small.

I contended that (1) the White House had to know that the stim pack, by itself, would not make up for the loss of demand we're expecting in the economy, (2) a larger stimulus package would not have made it through the first time, and (3) there would likely be at least one more stimulus proposal, for at least as much as the first, coming this year.

Well, a consensus is developing that there will need to be another stimulus package.  Here's some particularly sobering stuff from the Washington Post article on the subject (emphases mine):

The stimulus package was designed to "save or create" 3.5 million jobs, according to the administration. But the nation has already lost 4.4 million jobs since the start of the recession.

That's simple math, underscored by the announcement of an 8.1% unemployment rate.  But even that number is probably understating the problem.  I consider underemployment to be a first cousin of unemployment, and you can't really begin to understand just how bad things are until you account for the millions of underemployed workers.

But even the current job-loss figures mask the degree of pain among American workers. A broader measure, which includes people who want a job and have given up looking and those working part time but who want full-time work, rose nearly one percentage point, to 14.8 percent.

So, let's put that in perspective.  Of every 40 adults you see, 3 are underemployed, and another 3 are completely unemployed. 

"It's premature to say we need another stimulus, but the economy is performing much worse than when [the law] was signed, and the odds are increasing that we'll need a bigger policy response," said Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com, who has advised Democratic lawmakers. "What we've learned is policy has been a step behind this whole downturn. It's important to get a step ahead."

I admit, I don't understand how another stimulus could be premature, given the subsequent statements Zandi makes.  But I am proceeding on the idea that at least one more stimulus package is needed.

This appears to be a non-partisan conclusion.  And Congress should be scared enough by the recent Department of Labor report that they should not need nearly as much prodding on a reasonable stimulus as they did earlier.

So, with that in mind, I want to start a discussion.  Please contribute your thoughts on these two questions:

1. How big should the next stimulus be?
2. What should it focus on?  (Include all major areas, percentages on each, etc.)

I think Zandi has it absolutely right.  I think the discussion in general was behind the curve on the last stimulus.  And I know TPM'ers don't like to be behind on anything. :-)