Reading around about the proposed stimulus package, I keep coming to this assertion that the value of the package is in what it would do for us right now. As in, we need something that’s going to break our economic fall; and the thoughtful conservative position seems to be that while many of the items in the stimulus package may be worthwhile programs, the place for them is not in this package, but maybe debated separately, down the line.

I am just not so sure that there’s anything that’s going to break this economic fall. I think ultimately, we fall as far as we do. And the value of the legislation, then, is not what it does for us right this moment, but in the solid footing it provides once we have hit bottom, and begin to pick ourselves up.

Consider David Brooks’ assertion in the NYT:

In a fateful decision, Democratic leaders merged the temporary stimulus measure with their permanent domestic agenda — including big increases for Pell Grants, alternative energy subsidies and health and entitlement spending. The resulting package is part temporary and part permanent, part timely and part untimely, part targeted and part untargeted.

It’s easy to see why Democrats decided to do this. They could rush through permanent policies they believe in.

But why do they believe in this?

On Pell Grants - it is that a college education, the cost of which is ever-increasing, is absolutely vital in today’s economy. More Pell Grants allow more kids to afford college, period; that is not an economic policy that pays dividends right now, correct. It’s one that pays huge dividends down the road, however.

Same with the controversial birth control funding. No, it doesn’t “stimulate” anything but GOP twitters now; but down the road, it absolutely leads to less government outlays.

Ditto with alternative energy; it may not pay immediate dividends. The dividends it does pay down the road may be incalculable.

The difference is spending vs. investing. And the operative question at the heart of all this wrangling is this: Do you think any government action can arrest our rapid descent? Or are we fated to suffer the consequences of the profligacy/overconfidence/foolishness that has marked our recent economic past?

But if we are fated to suffer those consequences, what is the role of government? To just let whatever happens after that happen? Per Rush and other conservatives, to just cut taxes to the bone and let the market determine the best course for the country?

Or should government lay the groundwork for long-term, sustainable sustainable policies that can result in growth, lower governmental costs, less reliance on foreign oil, a greater emphasis on the environment and more, all without requiring another bubble or nore “irrational exuberance?”

Is it expensive? Absolutely, but the better question is, is it worth the cost? Is this recession just a minor bump in the road, as so many conservatives seem to think - or does it signify the end of an era? Are we ever going to go back to Halcyon days of, say, 2005 - where a financial bubble prompted Americans to take on more and more and more debt, sending the consumption-based economy to ever-greater heights?

Or do you think, as I do, that this crisis is something more: A clear demarcation line between what came before, and what must come now.