Why did it work? Because the government could immediately send billions of dollars to contractors who were already in place for a project that had well-established plans.

The problem with most of the projects was that the Obama administration and Congress had defined “shovel ready” too broadly. The original plan called for putting “shovels in the ground” within 90 days. But when the rules were written, states ended up with 120 days to have their road projects “approved.” It often took six more months to a year before most of the projects were under construction.

Weatherization, for example, was billed as the low-hanging fruit of the clean-energy movement. But states are still sitting on roughly a billion dollars in unused grant money because of a tortured bureaucracy, in which the federal government paid the states, which paid local nonprofits, which then hired the contractors.

Neither states nor nonprofit groups were prepared to handle 20 to 30 times more money than usual. And federal officials brought ready projects to a standstill in the first year by applying new rules regarding prevailing wages.

As a result, the stimulus didn’t provide enough oomph in the first year to overcome the effects of the European debt crisis and rising gas prices in 2010.

The stimulus effort should have contained more programs like Cash for Clunkers , which pulled car sales forward, emptied dealership lots and prompted auto plants to bring back thousands of employees.

Photo

“We’re trying to figure out, ‘Man, how did that thing just blow up the way it did?’ ” President Obama later said. “Essentially, all the auto companies did the marketing. They did the advertising in a way the government just can’t do it and, frankly, even if we did it, people wouldn’t listen.”

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

The stimulus also could have been more powerful if the administration had pursued a temporary jobs program similar to the Works Progress Administration , which directly employed eight million people during the Depression.

As it was, states could create temporary jobs programs through a $5 billion emergency welfare fund. Not enough states took advantage of it, but those that did saw real results. Fresno County, Calif., where unemployment was 18 percent, found jobs for 2,000 people who were out of work or underemployed.

Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters.

It also helps to avoid losing jobs in the first place. The promise of $50 billion in state fiscal relief prompted school districts to forgo layoffs. By early 2010, the stimulus money had saved the equivalent of nearly 300,000 full-time teachers and support staff.

Even $50 billion, though, wasn’t enough to plug the budget gaps. The administration should have shifted more money there, and it could have tried to prime a similar effort in the private sector.

Germany ’s “work-sharing” program — in which companies reduce hours rather than lay people off, with the government providing partial unemployment benefits to make up for lost wages — has helped keep its unemployment rate below 8 percent since 2008. It also will let companies ramp up quickly when the economy recovers.

NO matter who wins in November, the appetite for a big fiscal stimulus package won’t be there. So what can be done about the 5.5 million Americans who’ve been unemployed for six months or more — a group that includes older workers whom Rutgers labor experts have called “the involuntarily retired”?

A temporary jobs program similar to the one tried in the stimulus, but aimed at the long-term unemployed, could help these people get the skills they need to return to work.

Shovel-ready isn’t as important as it was in early 2009 because we’re not scrambling to stanch economic bleeding. But the lingering malaise gives us an opportunity to make smart decisions about our infrastructure.

The American Society of Civil Engineers has given the nation’s infrastructure an overall grade of D. Fixing deficient bridges, tunnels, dams and sewage-treatment plants, not to mention expanding high-speed Internet and modernizing the electricity grid, should be clear priorities.

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

Typically, the government spreads money like peanut butter, so that no one can do anything significant and every program is starved. Separate agencies oversee highways, aviation, transit and railroads. The 2009 stimulus introduced a better model: a competitive, $1.5 billion grant program for transportation, called Tiger, that forced local leaders to think regionally about strategies that combined multiple modes of transportation. The money untangled freight rail lines in Chicago , financed streetcars in Dallas and rapid buses in the Washington area, and helped Philadelphia build a 128-mile network of bike and walking trails. It should be a model for future transportation grant programs.

Investments in solar and wind energy , electric cars and high-speed rail make sense, but to have an impact there must be certainty around them. The fluctuations in America’s energy policy, the absence of a trust fund for high-speed rail as there is for highways and aviation, and the clear lack of a plan to tackle the deficit hinder the recovery instead of helping it.

In short, there are areas where the government should get out of the away, by clearing bureaucratic hurdles. But it’s equally important for politics to get out of the way of smart government policies that can help the private sector create jobs.