Brooks on Obama and the Stimulus Package

From today's column:

The Romers’ essay exemplifies the economic doctrine that reigned up until a few months ago: fiscal stimulus plans that try to time a recession are dangerous, unproven and unnecessary.

That doctrine has suddenly vanished. But not because we suddenly know how to create effective stimulus plans. Last year, the Congress passed a $165 billion plan that seems to have done almost nothing for the economy. The doctrine has vanished because this recession is deeper than the others and we’ve run out of other stuff to do.

Today there is wide support for fiscal stimulus. It’s just that there is no historical experience to tell us how to do it, and there is no agreement on how to make it work. The economists’ prescriptions are all over the map.

Obama is compelled to jump into unchartered territory, with no compass or guide.

That all seems both logical and unsettling, although it leads Brooks to a conclusion that's not 100 percent pessimistic.

This is daring and impressive stuff. Obama’s team has clearly thought through every piece of this plan. There’s no plank that’s obviously wasteful or that reeks of special-interest pleading. The tax cut is big and bipartisan. Obama is properly worried about runaway deficits, but he’s spending money on things one would want to do anyway.

[Break]

Maybe Obama can pull this off, but I have my worries. By this time next year, he’ll either be a great president or a broken one.

I think his final analysis, however, is overstated. In one year, I'd be willing to bet a large chunk of change that the conventional wisdom doesn't view Obama as great or broken. Presidential greatness has never been achieved in one year (or even one term, for that matter), and even if Obama blows the bailout, there will still be a large enough period of time and a deep enough reserve of support for him to bounce back.