What if it doesn't work?

This isn't bemoaning the current state of affairs. It's no longer a mere bill, but an act signed into law by our President.

This isn't an attempt to uncoil and pounce with a litany of "I'm telling you now, so I can say I told you so later" and the like, a la Limbaugh et al.

It's not even criticism. No news is good news thus far, and the money isn't even on the streets yet.

But I'm just asking the question, because it's been bugging me, and might generate some thoughtful discourse: What if this $787 bill American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 — The Stimulus —does the unthinkable and fails?

I really don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I've been scratching my head on it for far too long, hence the bald spots and claw marks. What do we do if this life-vest that we're creating for our livelihood's sake turns out to be a mere floatie?

I've heard grumblings from UFWAW (that's my Unfamous First Words Agent in Washington, a trustworthy chap who works for a high-ranking Senator and feeds me tips, leads, and eavesdropping in the halls, for those of you who don't know) that another stimulus might be brewing, and the New York Times didn't rule it out in Denver.

The thought is that the spending on the stimulus might not be enough for the added deficit we're currently building, which is now reportedly going to be about $1.75 trillion, according to forecasts, and that the $787 billion wasn't designed to cover that. Never mind all of the pork that was thrown in there, despite an Obama campaign promise to the contrary. That's beside the point. The point is that there might be even more billions of dollars to dig ourselves out if the economy should still be sour after a few years.

But would this be the answer? If not this, then what else?

Are we talking about a complete about face if the stimulus doesn't work? Of course not, because then it'd be the GOP talking about de-deregulation and tax cuts, two things the stimulus and the Democratic party have been weeding out since January 20th.

Are we going to cut programs? That seems contrary to the diversified recipients of these stimulus dollars. Like $200,000 for a tattoo removal violence outreach program to help gang members or others shed visible signs of their past, $650,000 for beaver management in North Carolina and Mississippi, $819,000 for catfish genetics research in Alabama and $1 million for "Mormon cricket control in Utah."

Not to speak of frivolity, but how much research can be done on catfish that hasn't been accomplished by a mechanic named Ty baiting a fart and catching a catfish with it? And concerning these crickets, well, I don't see what a little Mormonism could do to hurt a cricket.

No beaver jokes, kids. This isn't the Arkansas Project (HI KINKADE!)

We're willing to toss all of this money at these programs but what happens if the country is really in a pinch? Which are the first to go, and are we really going to limit the discussion for the delegates from North Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, and Utah when they will likely object?

So I'm asking. Where do we go from here if 'here' ends up being the gutter? Not that it will, but is there any sort of a back-up plan?

Colleague, mentor, and BFF John Brummett has columnized, blogged, and will surely tweet that America runs on a capitalist economy with a socialist safety net. He doesn't sweat the label socialist, but for all of you who do, I assure you he means it in the nicest way possible. It seems apparent to Newsweek and to Conservative pundits everywhere that we have, although I'm not convinced.

But if this is in fact our safety net, what is to happen to us if the net has too much slack?

Seriously. I'm just asking.