There's a lot of empirical evidence and a lot of very knowledgeable people who believe the Obama Stimulus Plan (the general outlines of which are coming into focus) is simply not big enough -- not only in overall dollar size but also in the kinds of spending included in it. Paul Krugman has been posting on the issue at his blog, particularly in this post. And this article in the Times covers it more broadly.

The debate about spending priorities essentially comes down to how much bang for your buck you get in economic stimulus terms for tax cuts or rebates (even for middle or low income people most inclined to spend it) versus government spending, especially in the context of a dramatic economic downturn. And from what I can tell there's a lot of empirical evidence that the latter wins out by a substantial margin.

And yet the desire to get a substantial number of Republicans to vote for the bill appears to be having a big impact on the proposal's size and shape. Quite likely, leaving it too small and too tilted toward tax cuts to get the job done.

Late Update: Nate Silver has an interesting and at least partly persuasive political interpretation (thanks to TPM Reader EW for flagging it for me) of what's going on here: namely, that Obama is trying to start low and let the bidding run higher, leaving it mainly to the Senate Dems to do the heavy lifting of bidding the thing up. Remember, Obama himself did seem to hint at such a strategy earlier last week.

If we assume for the sake of the conversation that this or something like it is Obama's strategy, my reaction is two-fold.

First, the legislative process is always messy. But this is a case where you want it to be as little messy as possible. We're spending a staggering amount of money here -- and for both political and policy reasons, you want it to be focused, efficient (in terms of delivering stimulus) and focused on spending projects that will not only employee people in the medium term but spur efficiencies, economic growth and other good things for the long term. If you get deep into a lot of bidding and horse-trading you get more parochial interests in the mix which cuts against those goals. I don't say that makes it a bad idea necessarily. But it's a real concern.

Second, when I write stuff critical of Obama, either on the policy or political fronts, there's always a rush of emails saying, 'Give him a chance!' 'Leave Obama alone!' 'He's probably got a plan you don't know about!' and so on. He may. I hope he does. But all of these debates are dynamic. You never assume anything. If Nate's right about what Obama's plan is, having people pushing for something better from the outside is part of it. So under either scenario, holding your tongue makes no sense, in addition to being unethical.

Final Saturday Night Update: Here's a piece from the Post about concerns about the make-up of the bill.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has been published for 146 years. But it seems likely it will cease publication in 60 days. Hearst owns the paper and announced to the newsroom late Friday evening that it is putting the paper up for sale. If a buyer is not found in 60 days the PI will either become a web only publication or cease publication entirely.

It's an extremely poor climate to sell any newspaper. And as the PI's article on its own apparent demise notes, the paper has lost money every year since 2000 and lost $14 million in 2008.

Late Update: As I noted last month, the Rocky Mountain News is in a similar, though perhaps not quite as dire situation. In early December, the paper's owner Scripps, announced that it was putting the paper up for sale might sell it if it didn't find a buyer in 4 to 6 weeks -- in other words, by about now. Not surprisingly, this carnage is starting to hit first in mid-sized two paper towns (like Denver and Seattle) in which both papers have been for some time operating under Joint Operating Agreements, in which many non-editorial functions are consolidated. Here's a blog (iwantmyrocky.com) run, I think, by employees of the Rocky trying to save the paper.

Even Later Update: Here's a post from The Slog, the blog of Seattle's alt weekly, The Stranger, on how it went down Friday night.

The most popular question on change.gov, the Obama transition website, is one from Democrats.com's Bob Fertik: "Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor -- ideally Patrick Fitzgerald -- to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping?"

George Stephanopoulos put the question to Obama in his interview, which is running tomorrow morning, and Obama apparently answered. So far they're just teasing it. Not completely clear if Obama addressed the question in a meaty or meaningful way or just sort of brushed it off. But I guess we'll know tomorrow.

John Bresnahan reports that Roland Burris is going to show up in Washington again next week and demand to be seated. And he's got a pretty solid argument at this point.

When Reid and Durbin spoke on this issue last week they hung almost everything on the fact that Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White had not co-signed the certificate of appointment from the governor. They said that without that signature, their hands were tied. They'd wait to hear from the state court deciding whether the signature was needed. And they strongly implied, if they didn't come right out and say, that if the signature issue were resolved they'd seat Burris as senator.

Well, now the state court has signed off, saying the signature doesn't matter. And now the Secretary of State himself has sorta kinda provided a signature. And Sen. Durbin himself (who remember is not only the second-ranking senate Dem but also Illinois's senior senator) now says that White's signature may be enough to settle the matter and get Burris seated.

And then there's one other issue to keep in mind. The senate Dems now have very little leg to stand on to deny Burris. Just yesterday Durbin was saying no way. And he's already shifted. But the clock is also ticking on Burris. The Illinois House just impeached Blagojevich yesterday. So he could be out of office by early February, if not sooner. And as soon as that happens, the new governor could appoint someone else who the senate would probably readily seat, making Burris's appointment a dead letter. So Burris needs to press the matter now or risk having Reid and Durbin roll over on the ball and run out the clock.

A new report from the Obama transition team claims their proposed stimulus package will save or create 3-4 million jobs -- but meanwhile, some economists think it still might not be a big enough plan. That and other political news in today's Election Central Saturday Roundup.

I speculated below that Senate Dems would use today's Illinois Supreme Court ruling as cover to go ahead and seat Roland Burris. But maybe not. Sen. Durbin is still saying they won't seat Burris without the secretary of state's signature certifying the governor's appointment, the very thing the court deemed unnecessary to make the appointment valid.

The one-man trainwreck that is Rod Blagojevich held another memorable presser today, quoting Tennyson and demonstrating again that no one holds him in as high a regard as he himself does:

Late Update: TPM Reader SS, ever the matchmaker:

After that presser, I'm persuaded Blago should elope with Sarah Palin. Match made in heaven (at least Jon Stewart's!).

Feds drop all criminal charges against former Reagan budget director David Stockman.

Okay, fine, Blagojevich is clearly insane. I'm sitting here at my desk, listening to him chatter on in the background about the impeachment vote. And he's going on about how his policies let someone get a liver transplant, and should he really be impeached for that? It's like some bizarre performance art. Now he's quoting Tennyson.

Here's his list of good deeds that makes impeaching outrageous.

A bill was introduced in the House Tuesday to create a Bush-era Truth Commission, the National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties.

We've been trying to get some answer from the House leadership -- Pelosi and Hoyer -- about whether they're inclined to support the bill or bottle it up. And so far we haven't been able to get an answer from either.

We'll keep pushing for an answer. But we thought you'd like to know.

CNBC reporting that former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin's announcement of his resignation from the Citigroup board is imminent.

Illinois Supreme Court rules that secretary of state's certification of Roland Burris not necessary to make Blago's appointment valid.

That kicks this whole mess back the Senate, where it looks likely that the Democratic leadership will point to this ruling (.pdf) as tying their hands and go ahead and seat Burris.

NBC's CBS' Chip Reid asked Obama this morning specifically about the size of the stimulus plan and about criticism from those like Paul Krugman that the package is too small and tilted too heavily toward tax cuts:

A reader writes in with a point that had occurred to me too after reading this morning's article in the Post about Geithner's rejiggering of the TARP program -- namely, separate from the 'Stimulus Bill' proper, there's now a move afoot to reprogram the second half of TARP into something that looks a lot more like stuff you'd expect to find in a Stimulus Bill, rather than anything like what the program originally envisaged ...

I agree that the stimulus package, as currently detailed, is insufficiently aggressive or imaginative. But most reports have been underestimating its size by $350 billion.

That's because the second half of the TARP funds remain to be spent. The Washington Post reported this morning that the Obama team is planning to reprogram most of those funds. The new package will include spending a large amount of money spent on a foreclosure relief program, and a more tightly-focused approach to consumer credit markets.

No, it's not technically a stimulus package. And yes, half the money has already been wasted. But there's nothing in the stimulus package that has the potential to do as much as simply stemming the tide of foreclosures and stabilizing the real estate market. So it may well turn out that the most significant part of any turnaround comes not from passing new programs, but from spending the TARP funds in a way that will actually make a difference.

Late Update: As a side note (although it's pretty fundamental), I was more than a little chagrined to see that not only has the term "war on terror" not been retired by the new Administration, but we're going to "win" it.

From TPM Reader LG ...

One of the most insightful things I ever read from you was this, about the Iraq War/GWOT:

"For its prime promoters and cheerleaders and now-dwindling body of defenders, the war and all its ideological and literary trappings have always been an exercise in moral-historical dress-up for a crew of folks whose times aren't grand enough to live up to their own self-regard and whose imaginations are great enough to make up the difference."

I wonder if something of the same phenomenon isn't in evidence now in reactions to the economic situation. No one believes this isn 't a very serious mess, but "Great Depression II !!!" seems extreme, to say nothing of historically uninformed. I can't help but think that some of that same narcissism you identified earlier might be at work here as well.

I think we're in a genuine crisis. One that is immediate and an overlapping one that is going to stretch far into the future. But we all, and I don't exclude myself, must be ever wary of the way our own egos and excessive regard for our own short moment in history (which is an extension of our egos) can become a distorting lens.

Daschle open to allowing filibusters of health care reform.

David just linked this article below. But I'm going to do so myself because I think the piece from John Judis as well because I think it's so important. The scale and types of spending on infrastructure make me think Obama's economic planners are not getting the severity of the crisis we face. Definitely read this article. It's short, clear, will take you just a few minutes.