Donald Lambro

WASHINGTON -- Most of Barack Obama's economic-stimulus plan is beginning to look like the public-works jobs programs that Franklin D. Roosevelt tried 75 years ago in the Great Depression.

In fact, a number of economists are comparing Obama's job-creation plan to the spending spree FDR launched in 1933. What isn't mentioned, and doesn't get reported, is that those federal public-works jobs programs -- while providing some temporary jobs and income -- failed to effectively reduce unemployment in the private sector or to jump-start the economy for most of that decade.

Of course, raising taxes didn't help either, and Obama until now has been proposing to repeat FDR's mistake on that, too -- a course of action that economists have told him would be the worst thing he could do in a recession. But this week, he seemed to be shifting away from that idea -- abandoning another one of his major campaign pledges.

David Axelrod, Obama's political strategist, said on "This Week" Sunday that the president-elect was warming to the idea of letting the Bush tax cuts for the top two tax brackets expire in Dec. 31, 2010 -- nearly two years into his administration. Notably, he will retain all of the other Bush tax cuts.

Last month's jobless rate was 6.5 percent and will likely shoot up this month and next to nearly 7 percent or more. But a cursory examination of Obama's proposals to create government-financed jobs suggests that he isn't going to be any more successful than FDR was in his attempt to spend his way into prosperity.

Last weekend, Obama said he asked his economic advisers to come up with a plan to "create" 2.5 million jobs, which his advisers later said was really a plan to "create and preserve" 2.5 million jobs. That's more than a difference in semantics; it's a difference in expectations.

Democrats are now talking about $500 billion, or possibly $700 billion, in new spending to move a massive $14 trillion economy out of recession.

Obama's plan calls for giving the states hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild crumbling roads and bridges and run-down schools and other infrastructure projects. Some of the money would be poured into long-term environmental projects such as solar-power industries, wind farms and other biofuels technologies, plus funding to design more fuel-efficient cars.

But it will take many months, at best, before these public-works projects are up and running and in some cases years before the clean technology is economically viable to stand on its own and create many jobs. When the funds run out, what happens to those jobs? They stop.

Donald Lambro

Donald Lambro is chief political correspondent for The Washington Times.