Three things are clear: 1) Job losses in this recession are already much worse than the Obama administration anticipated; 2) The stimulus designed to slow the pace of job losses has either proven too weak or too slow in its effectiveness; 3) The idea of passing a second stimulus, once a baby of the liberal blogosphere, has grown up to occupy the attention of major figures like George Stephanopoulos on ABC. Still, I would put my money on a second stimulus not happening, for the following three reasons:
Obama administration would be going back to the Congress with some
humbling data. The White House predicted that the stimulus spending
would dampen unemployment, and they provided a clear graph to show just
how crucial stimulus spending would be to save jobs. But the last few
months have seen unemployment sky-rocket almost a full percentage point
higher than the administration envisioned without a stimulus
at all. This graph below could act as a kind of negative political
capital, discouraging conservative Democrats from throwing more money
at the recession.
Second, it's not a given that the money from a second stimulus would be spent any quicker than the first. Take a look at this graph of stimulus spending, which is provided by the Obama administration at their site recovery.gov. It seems that every week, the administration makes "available" about $6 billion and spends about $3 billion.
As of late June, we had only paid out about one-third of the available funds, and about 15 percent of all spending allocated in the recovery bill. To be sure, Obama has promised that the pace of spending would increase this summer. But if we can't spend all of the stimulus even by November 2010, as the administration admits, how much faster would another couple hundred billion be spent? That's a question I expect the Obama administration will have to answer if they get their second stimulus.