No one reads Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post because they want nuance, but this is pretty ridiculous, even by his standards:

Nobody said it would be easy to spend so much money in so little time. Obama’s plan was criticized by some Democrats for including a heavy component of tax cuts; that’s the Republican prescription that helped get us into these desperate straits, and voters made clear in November that it’s time to try something else.

Doesn’t anybody remember Obama running ads pledging to cut taxes on 95 percent of American working families?

But Obama and his economic team found that there were only so many “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects to fund, and while straightforward government spending packs a bigger stimulative punch, tax cuts would help to some degree. So, from the beginning, the plan accommodated Republican ideology.
The House of Representatives loaded up the bill like a Christmas tree as powerful Democrats found room for their pet projects. This was a good thing, not an outrage.

So tax cuts are insufficiently stimulative, but Democrat pet projects are a good thing. Glad to know where you stand.

Hundreds of millions of dollars for contraceptives? To the extent that those condoms or birth-control pills are made in the United States and sold in U.S. drugstores, that spending would be stimulative in more ways than one.

If your column needs rim shots, it’s probably a sign the editor should have given it a second look.