That depends on your criterion for good stimulus.

If the only requirement is that the government write checks to people who are nominally employed, then building high-speed rail is great – but so is paying people to dig ditches and fill them up.

If the requirement is also that stimulus projects pass a standard cost-benefit test, then high-speed rail does not appear to measure up:

In the face of high energy prices and concerns about global warming, environmentalists and planners offer high-speed rail as an environmentally friendly alternative to driving and air travel. California, Florida, the Midwest, and other parts of the country are actively considering specific high-speed rail plans.

Close scrutiny of these plans reveals that they do not live up to the hype. As attractive as 110-to 220-mile-per-hour trains might sound, even the most optimistic forecasts predict they will take few cars off the road. At best, they will replace for profit private commuter airlines with heavily subsidized public rail systems that are likely to require continued subsidies far into the future.

Nor are high-speed rail lines particularly environmentally friendly. Planners have predicted that a proposed line in Florida would use more energy and emit more of some pollutants than all of the cars it would take off the road. California planners forecast that high-speed rail would reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions by a mere 0.7 to 1.5 percent—but only if ridership reached the high end of projected levels. Lower ridership would nullify energy savings and pollution reductions.

I have nothing against government infrastructure spending in principle.  But since interest groups like construction companies and unions have a strong incentive to oversell the benefits of these projects, while the green lobby has a religious hatred of cars, we should not be surprised if dispassionate analyses finds that the cost-benefit case for these projects is lacking.

The Obama administration moved vigorously on two fronts Friday to promote nuclear power, proposing to triple federal loan guarantees for new projects and appointing a high-level panel to study what to do with nuclear waste.

One more example of picking winners and losers among industries; hardly government’s strong suit.

Plus, the U.S. already subsidizes nuclear energy via the Price-Anderson Act of 1957, which limits the liability of the nuclear power industry in the case of accidents.

This subsidy means the true costs of nuclear power are much higher than they appear.  Although nuclear produces fewer greenhouse emissions than burning fossil fuel, it is probably not efficient even assuming a large negative effct from emissions.

Listen to a podcast of NPR’s David Kestenbaum interviewing yours truly for Planet Money.  Here’s the summary:

Fourteen states have adopted medical marijuana laws. We talk to Harvard economist, Jeffrey Miron, about what happens when drugs move from the black market to the open market. Do they get 100 times cheaper? Or instead, more expensive? Miron talks about the economics of prohibition, and reveals his drug of choice (which is legal) and one he would like to try (which is not).

Considerable discussion since Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts has suggested that Obama might follow Bill Clinton’s path: after governing from the left and being rebuked by the voters, he will moderate his message, reconnect with indpendents, and enjoy substantial two-term popularity.

After watching the SOTU address, I do not see that happening.  For whatever reasons, Obama seems more fundamentally tied to the left than Clinton.  He continues to push an agenda that independents do not share, and he castigates those who disagree with him as selfish, mean-spirited, or partisan.  This is not the way to win over moderates.

Obama’s presidency is headed for failure unless he abandons the far-left agenda.

1. Abandon Obamacare

2. Forget Cap and Trade

3. Reject the Card Check Bill

4. Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan

5. Legalize Drugs

6. Scrap the Tax Code and replace with a flat tax.

7. Expand free trade and immigration.

8. Stop the bailouts

9. Cut spending

10. Cut spending

President Barack Obama intends to propose a three-year freeze in spending that accounts for one-sixth of the federal budget—a move meant to quell rising voter concern over the deficit but whose practical impact will be muted.

To attack the $1.4 trillion deficit, the White House will propose a three-year freeze on discretionary spending unrelated to the military, veterans, homeland security and international affairs, according to senior administration officials. Also untouched are big entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

Is this proposal a step in the right direction?  Yes, as far as it goes.

But it’s a baby step: only $250 billion saved over the coming decade.  To make a real difference, cuts must focus on national defense, social security, and health care.  These three are the largest components of the budget, and health care in particular is growing rapidly.  Unless budget cuts tackle these items, they will have only minor impact.

In addition, most of the affected programs should actually be zeroed out, not just frozen at current levels; that would be a real start on fiscal responsibility.

Still, any restraint in spending is welcome.  We will see if President Obama wields his veto pen if (when) Congress does not play along.

Really:

Representative Barney Frank said Friday that the House Financial Services Committee, which he leads, would push to replace Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, seized by regulators almost 17 months ago, with a different model for mortgage financing.

“The committee will be recommending abolishing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in their current form and coming up with a whole new system of housing finance,” Mr. Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said at a hearing in Washington, according to Bloomberg News. “That’s the approach, rather than a piecemeal one.”

Of course, Frank has not explained his “whole new system of housing finance.”

Grab your wallet and head for the hills.

This story was written by a staff writer for the Washington Post who ended up on jury duty:

Last week I was a juror in the trial of a man accused of selling a $10 bag of heroin to an undercover police officer. At the end of the two days of testimony, I concluded that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I also concluded that he should be acquitted.

You can read the whole story here; the bottom line is that police fabricated evidence to make their case stronger, and the jury acquited.   The writer’s key insight:

I believe they had the right guy, too. But the willingness to cheat, I think, is a poisonous corruption of a system designed to protect the innocent at the risk of occasionally letting the guilty walk free. It’s a good system, fundamental to freedom. I think a police officer willing to cheat is more dangerous than a two-bit drug peddler.

Yes.

You might be suprised by that answer. To be clear, I think the Fed has erred tremendously during Ben’s first term, both by supporting the bailouts and by expanding the Fed’s actions beyond standard open market operations (e.g., buying up mortgage-backed securities).  In my utopia, the Fed would not exist at all.

But we do not live in that utopia (yet).  If Ben is not confirmed, we will stil have a Fed, and someone will be chairman.  So the following points argue in favor of confirmation:

1. Hindsight is easier than foresight.  The Fed had to act in real time. Many of Ben’s current critics supported the Fed’s actions as they occurred, even if they disagree now.  And macroeconomists as a group believe Ben has done a good job.

2. Ben took the actions he did because he was convinced they were right for the economy.  He may have been mistaken, but his intentions were always benevolent.

3. Most distinguished candidates to replace him will be horrified if he is not confirmed.  So, his successor may be far less talented.

4. Ben is being made a scapegoat (perhaps by politicos within the White House), to soothe populist rage.

5. Stability in policy is important, even if that policy is not perfect.  If Ben is not confirmed, uncertainty about monetary policy increases dramatically.

So I endorse Ben for a second term, without reservation.

Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.

The ruling was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech.

So, the Court’s view is that campaign finance regulation (at least the part addressed in yesterday’s decision) is not constitutional. I am not a lawyer, but that view sounds right to me.  Let’s put aside the constitutional issue, however, and ask whether campaign finance regulation would be good policy if it were constitutional?

The standard argument for such regulation rests on four claims:

1. that spending by politicians affects their likelihood of election;

2. that contributions to political campaigns affect the policies a politician supports;

3. that these influences on political outcomes are undesirable;

4. and that regulation successfully limits money’s influence on these outcomes.

Claims 1 and 2 are oft-overstated, but they probably have some validity.

Claim 3, however, is probably backwards. Money lines up on one side of an issue because a larger economic pie supports that side. Special interests do support bad policies, including corporate welfare, tariffs and quotas, agricultural subsidies, wasteful weapons programs, and pork pork-barrel spending, but money often causes better policies, not worse; free trade is an excellent example.

Claim 4 is even less convincing: politicians and special interests can circumvent most regulation.

So, campaign finance regulation’s main goal is not compelling, and the regulation does not achieve that goal anyway.  Instead, the regulation protects incumbents and rewards politicians who exploit loopholes in the law.  The Court’s decision is good economics, as well as good law.