David Sirota is taking on frantic right-wing efforts to revise interpretations and, in some instances, to falsify the record of economic history by claiming the New Deal prolonged, rather than attenuated and, finally, ended the Great Depression. Yeah, right!

Looking forward, Brad DeLong notes that Senator Mitch McConnell is having a hard time coming up with reputable right-wing economists to provide theoretical justification for his obstruction of the at quantitatively Keynesian Obama stimulus package. Right on!

Now, Josh Marshall wonders if the Obama package, as modified by Congress will really be effective spending "1 Trillion plus in a timely manner that invests in the national economy and (that does) not just temporarily stimulate it." He wonders, "how can we come to a national consensus on what to do and when." He demands "creditable and cogent suggestions to get down in the weeds and start talking specifics." That's my cue!

Being a "grass roots" Democrat as well as, a perpetually "in the weeds" economist, maybe I can help:

Though I am thoroughly undistinguished academically and bureaucratically, I actually have some experience with the sort of huge, federal outlays which started before WWII and, no contest here, ended the Great Depression but continued a pattern for the whole of the Great, World, and Cold Wars:

As a junior engineering clerk in the middle of a "black" program, NOUGAT, I probably squandered federal funds as fast my junior counterpart administering the TARP program today. (I brag. Actually, nobody can hold a candle to the TARP boys. No mint could even begin print money faster, though they might know where they shipped to the pallets to. TARP is worse than Baghdad when it comes to accounting!)

Duly chastened, I studied economics at Rice University in the hope of figuring out how not to spend other peoples' money unwisely or without regard to their interests.

I ended up in the GEMINI and APOLLO programs where other peoples' money were, indeed, spent copiously but effectively and popularly.

As it happens, industrial policies of the Great, World, and Cold Wars continue. So does begrudging but unwavering bi-partisan support for continuing what came to be known as "Military Keynesianism". As just the "Cold War", this reached its climax in the Reagan-era "military spend-up", including overt and covert defense outlays - I was there - that NeoCons claim broke the back of the Soviet Union.

No, an unlikely combination of G. H. W. Bush (cheap oil) and Charlie Wilson (Afghanistan) broke a Soviet Union that George F. Kennan pointed out need merely be contained to be collapse of its own accord. Actually, I credit the Pope and the Holy Spirit, not Ronald Reagan and legacies of Trotsky.

Curiously, President Reagan fired the NeoCons, but they were able to persuade George W. Bush that they were geniuses.

They were and are actually fools: That much is clear, so, here we are:

The NeoCons did succeed in reviving a sort of Cold War, only rendering us weaker and our enemies stronger. Oops.

They were not, however, responsible for the current economic catastrophe.

But, enough for the "Blame Game", back to the "weeds"!

First, the only "consensus" needs to be a popular majority of the electorate, not a Congressional claque clustered around the "black budget". It's over, we won! There is no need for a strategic "black budget" now as only tactical operational security matters. Unpatriotic, racist, right-wing extremists need to be utterly marginalized, "de-funded", and voted down. Their pet projects, earmarks, import licenses, and government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) plants, ... should be "zeroed out" - to use the terminology of Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, and so on. Here's a clue for the political "quants": correlate GOCO plants with wing-nuts and opposition to the auto industry bail-out.

Second, look at the New Deal as nationalizing and either scaling up or extending in scope some of the pre-New Deal initiatives of progressive states like the "agricultural research stations". Yes, we need pervasive improvements in power production, distribution, and, above all, consumption - many little improvements probably - that will come from a network of research and education facilities comparable to that established by the Land Grant colleges and effective a century ago, even in the segregated South. We have a template for all of that. The New Deal was, in fact, quite a good investment in public and private, including agricultural and industrial infrastructure. Yes, it was Keynes but, also, Hamilton and List, not to mention Clayton, Clay, and Galbraith. Scaling-up progressive states worked once and is still the way to go.

Third, "Military Keynesianism" needs ... militarists, not bond-lawyers. In this regard let me recommend America's Defense Meltdown. Why? Well, we need a capable military to defend the country, not a bloated defense budget. Also, even with strictly military Keynesianism, there is more job creation and technical progress from altering the mix and upgrading our ordnance sector than from ... building more and bigger but obsolete battleships.

Fourth, look again at the Texas Plan. This is phased and scalable technology that prioritizes job creation and energy conservation over concession-tending.

Yes, Josh, there are new and old templates for what to do qualitatively?

David Sirota is taking on frantic right-wing efforts to revise interpretations and, in some instances, to falsify the record of economic history by claiming the New Deal prolonged, rather than attenuated and, finally, ended the Great Depression. Yeah, right!

Looking forward, Brad DeLong notes that Senator Mitch McConnell is having a hard time coming up with reputable right-wing economists to provide theoretical justification for his obstruction of the at quantitatively Keynesian Obama stimulus package. Right on!

Now, Josh Marshall wonders if the Obama package, as modified by Congress will really be effective spending "1 Trillion plus in a timely manner that invests in the national economy and (that does) not just temporarily stimulate it." He wonders, "how can we come to a national consensus on what to do and when." He demands "creditable and cogent suggestions to get down in the weeds and start talking specifics." That's my cue!

Being a "grass roots" Democrat as well as, a perpetually "in the weeds" economist, maybe I can help:

Though I am thoroughly undistinguished academically and bureaucratically, I actually have some experience with the sort of huge, federal outlays which started before WWII and, no contest here, ended the Great Depression but continued a pattern for the whole of the Great, World, and Cold Wars:

As a junior engineering clerk in the middle of a "black" program, NOUGAT, I probably squandered federal funds as fast my junior counterpart administering the TARP program today. (I brag. Actually, nobody can hold a candle to the TARP boys. No mint could even begin print money faster, though they might know where they shipped to the pallets to. TARP is worse than Baghdad when it comes to accounting!)

Duly chastened, I studied economics at Rice University in the hope of figuring out how not to spend other peoples' money unwisely or without regard to their interests.

I ended up in the GEMINI and APOLLO programs where other peoples' money were, indeed, spent copiously but effectively and popularly.

As it happens, industrial policies of the Great, World, and Cold Wars continue. So does begrudging but unwavering bi-partisan support for continuing what came to be known as "Military Keynesianism". As just the "Cold War", this reached its climax in the Reagan-era "military spend-up", including overt and covert defense outlays - I was there - that NeoCons claim broke the back of the Soviet Union.

No, an unlikely combination of G. H. W. Bush (cheap oil) and Charlie Wilson (Afghanistan) broke a Soviet Union that George F. Kennan pointed out need merely be contained to be collapse of its own accord. Actually, I credit the Pope and the Holy Spirit, not Ronald Reagan and legacies of Trotsky.

Curiously, President Reagan fired the NeoCons, but they were able to persuade George W. Bush that they were geniuses.

They were and are actually fools: That much is clear, so, here we are:

The NeoCons did succeed in reviving a sort of Cold War, only rendering us weaker and our enemies stronger. Oops.

They were not, however, responsible for the current economic catastrophe.

But, enough for the "Blame Game", back to the "weeds"!

First, the only "consensus" needs to be a popular majority of the electorate, not a Congressional claque clustered around the "black budget". It's over, we won! There is no need for a strategic "black budget" now as only tactical operational security matters. Unpatriotic, racist, right-wing extremists need to be utterly marginalized, "de-funded", and voted down. Their pet projects, earmarks, import licenses, and government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) plants, ... should be "zeroed out" - to use the terminology of Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, and so on. Here's a clue for the political "quants": correlate GOCO plants with wing-nuts and opposition to the auto industry bail-out.

Second, look at the New Deal as nationalizing and either scaling up or extending in scope some of the pre-New Deal initiatives of progressive states like the "agricultural research stations". Yes, we need pervasive improvements in power production, distribution, and, above all, consumption - many little improvements probably - that will come from a network of research and education facilities comparable to that established by the Land Grant colleges and effective a century ago, even in the segregated South. We have a template for all of that. The New Deal was, in fact, quite a good investment in public and private, including agricultural and industrial infrastructure. Yes, it was Keynes but, also, Hamilton and List, not to mention Clayton, Clay, and Galbraith. Scaling-up progressive states worked once and is still the way to go.

Third, "Military Keynesianism" needs ... militarists, not bond-lawyers. In this regard let me recommend America's Defense Meltdown. Why? Well, we need a capable military to defend the country, not a bloated defense budget. Also, even with strictly military Keynesianism, there is more job creation and technical progress from altering the mix and upgrading our ordnance sector than from ... building more and bigger but obsolete battleships.

Fourth, look again at the Texas Plan. This is phased and scalable technology that prioritizes job creation and energy conservation over concession-tending.

Yes, Josh, there are new and old templates for what to do qualitatively?