Just what is an economic stimulus program, anyway?

On Monday, we reported that Maine – through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the stimulus – will receive an additional $5 million for food stamps, the largest single-year increase in program funding in perhaps two decades.

This funding has been billed, in part, as an economic stimulus. Except, well, it isn’t.

Grocers have few plans for hiring new employees because of this stimulus, they said, and furthermore, the purpose of food stamps is inherently opposite to that of a stimulus. Food stamps, like all public assistance programs, is a valuable safety net when jobs are lost.

This is the exact reason additional millions were allocated to the program. The recession is causing hardships to thousands of families, who may need food stamps to get by. That’s the purpose of the program and why it should exist. Job creation is not its uppermost priority.

Which is fine. Food stamps are more than justified, without being cloaked in the frumpy smock of economic development. The problem comes when every expense is defensed as stimulus, because it makes identifying what should, and shouldn’t, be spent difficult.

For example: The city of Auburn, on Monday, discussed getting $2.3 million in stimulus money for a sewer project near Pettingill Park. If the federal government pays for the work, it could save Auburn about $1.6 million, according to city administration.

This sounds good, but where’s the stimulus?

Storm-water projects are important, but not to economic development strategy. At best, it is a short-term employment project. The greater potential for stimulus, we’d argue, is what the city does with the $1.6 million it wouldn’t spend for this project. A tax rebate, perhaps? We won’t hold our breath for that.

The point is that real stimulus comes from creating sustainable jobs or building projects with clear economic benefits, or putting more money into the hands of consumers. Installing a storm-water system is a fine, laudable project, but the only stimulation it provides is to water, so it will flow in a different, desired direction.

President Barack Obama has vowed to hold the wasters of stimulus money accountable, to ensure every dollar of the $787 billion legislation is spent in important, transparent endeavors.

Last week, according to The New York Times, the president told a group of state legislators about his three-part balancing test: “Whenever a project comes up for review, we’re going to ask a simple question. Does it advance the core mission of the Recovery Act? Does it jump-start job creation? Does it lay the foundation for lasting prosperity?”

All good questions deserving answers. But when everything under the sun is seemingly included or justified as stimulus, how can anybody, even the president, possibly tell?