I agree that those are hard facts but they really had no choice, considering how infrastructure projects work. To build lag time into the stimulus. The projects worked on in 2009 were planned and budgeted previously. You'll see more of an impact from the stimulus funds in 2010 then in 2009 but it's a big question, will it be enough?
It depends entirely on how they put the money to work. If they actually put the remaining funds INTO infrastructure projects, then it should provide a boost to employment.
The reasons why infrastructure projects work for the stimulus (as you are probably aware):
1) Every state has shovel ready projects that simply need funding
2) It increases labor demand at a time when other sectors are trying to get their feet under them.
3) If we were planning to spend 'x' dollars on infrastructure over the next ten years and we move all of 'x' into the next 3-5 years instead, then we are taking advantage of #2. As the labor market begins improving in other sectors of the market, these jobs will be winding down and thus we are less likely to get see inflationary pressures due to a tight labor market.
4) Infrastructure projects not only pay the employees building the bridges and roads, but also provide the stimulus to keep the companies that supply the necessary tools and products that go into those projects. So the steel, large equipment, cement etc... will also tend to see stabilization (and eventually growth as things ramp up).
Then the chain of stabilization continues. This is where I would have preferred to see the first chunk of the stimulus go because it has both short and long term benefits to the economy. (not to mention the fact that it makes our bridges/dams/levies/roads safer sooner)
