Megan is flabbergasted that people are saying the burden of proof should be on the stimulus skeptics: seems to me that the burden of proof ought naturally to be on the stimulus proponents to satisfy the public that their highly theoretical models are basically sound, especially for the parts of the bill that aren't tax cuts or transfer payments.  Let's recall that the evidence for this kind of stimulus working in this kind of situation basically rests on a single instance (World War II)--the other two times it was tried (Japan in the 1990s and America in the 1930s) the economy basically rolled along in the doldrums for the rest of the decade.

In 2002, we were told, and many of us rolled over, that we had no choice but to invade Iraq. And that time was of the essence. And that inaction was far more dangerous than action. And look what happened. A little skepticism can go a long way. And it should. This is almost a trillion dollars, people. That's almost half what Bush's war cost us.