Now that roughly one-quarter of the money allocated in President Obama's stimulus plan has flown out the door, a consensus among economists about the effectiveness of the package is emerging. The New York Times' reports:

The legislation, a variety of economists say, is helping an economy in free fall a year ago to grow again and shed fewer jobs than it otherwise would. Mr. Obama’s promise to “save or create” about 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 is roughly on track, though far more jobs are being saved than created, especially among states and cities using their money to avoid cutting teachers, police officers and other workers.

“It was worth doing — it’s made a difference,” said Nigel Gault, chief economist at IHS Global Insight, a financial forecasting and analysis group based in Lexington, Mass.

The Republicans, however, are regularly castigating the stimulus as an economic boondoggle that hasn't helped stave off growing unemployment. Public opinion poll show that more and more Americans believe the same.  That's partly the fault of the Obama administration itself, whose economic assumptions during Congressional negotiations now appear to have been a bit too optimistic. It also hasn't helped that there were "significant" errors on the recovery.gov website, attributing job totals to congressional districts that do not even exist.

Yet the subtle -- and crucial -- benefits of this increased government investment cannot be denied. Many economists estimate that between 700,000 and 1.5 million jobs have been saved or created so far, but in "thousands of little ways," as the Times' David Leonhardt wrote last week. Aid to state governments, which has helped plug budget gaps in virtually every department, preventing layoffs and providing funding to existing social and infrastructure programs, is a great example of this dynamic at work. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) explains:

In the case of financial relief for states or hard-pressed households, it is not meaningful to try to trace a link between specific measures and specific jobs created or saved. Money that is spent by food stamp or unemployment insurance recipients, by state employees who keep their jobs because of state fiscal relief, or by employees of firms doing business with the state who keep their jobs for the same reason similarly creates additional demand for a wide variety of goods and services that preserves and creates jobs broadly through the economy. None of these jobs will be reflected, however, in surveys of recipients of government funds. The need to rely on statistical techniques to estimate the jobs impact of these measures does not mean they are any less effective at job creation than measures that are more amenable to direct measurement. What matters is how effective a measure is at stimulating new demand for goods and services that encourages employers to hire more workers or retain workers whom they would otherwise let go.

If Congress is serious about keeping the national unemployment rate from exploding, more investments like these are going to be necessary -- at least until tax receipts begin to grow again. In the meantime, the Democrats need to figure out a better way to sell their initial $787 billion package.