"But waiting to get that done right is no excuse for failing to pass an emergency stimulus now. "

Robert Kuttner makes a good point:

"So first, there should be immediate relief for state and local governments, to the tune of at least $100 billion. The value of that approach is that it doesn't require complex strategies of new job creation; it simply prevents avoidable job loss. If Washington sends a check to cities, towns, states, and counties, not a single pending public project need be deferred and not a single public worker need be laid off.

Second, unemployment insurance should be increased and extended. And third, Congress can pick up the state portion of Medicaid, so that states can expand rather than reduce health coverage. Congress could also provide funds for energy audits and retrofits, so that existing programs can be expanded and homeowners can save on energy bills. This will also provide jobs for construction workers in a homebuilding industry facing a depression."

I don't consider these actions as part of a stimulus. These are part of our social safety net which we are increasing in an economic downturn. If you call it a stimulus, it gets lumped in with infrastructure spending, targeted tax cuts, and anything else you do specifically to increase spending in the economy to attack the downturn.

They should be judged separately, and so the social safety net spending should be passed now.