The $787 billion stimulus bill has quickly slipped to the background, with the public's attention now focused on details of the stabilization for banks, mortgage relief and the second taxpayer cash infusion to struggling Detroit automakers.

The passage of the stimulus bill revealed some evidence that could come back to haunt the Obama administration, when viewed through the prism of his pre-election promises of hope and change. Granted, most of the business-as-usual and pork-spending problems with the bill came from Congress, not the White House, but Obama appeared complicit. The new president could have, and should have, used some of his political capital and taken a stand on making sure the bill was a stimulus bill, as advertised. Most Americans now know that the bill he signed into law is not.

Washington Post economics columnist Robert Samuelson wrote recently that "you'd expect the stimulus package to focus almost exclusively on reviving the economy. It doesn't."

While few economists disagree with the idea of government spending being used to try to ease the deepening recession, the dramatic rush to put together a $787 billion spending bill surely invited abuse and waste, and spending that will not create jobs anytime soon.

One sensible idea, ignored by Congress and Obama, was promoted by Alice Rivlin, an economist and head of the Office of Management and Budget under President Clinton. Rivlin's suggestion was to split the stimulus bill into two parts — one part for immediate stimulus and job creation, the second part for longer-term spending on infrastructure and green technologies. The first part would be passed quickly; the second part would be given more careful study and review.

Unfortunately, Democrats in Congress seemed quite happy to insert just about any and all spending programs they could think of into the gigantic spending package.

Samuelson notes that $8 billion for high-speed rail will take many years to produce jobs. He also notes that $20.8 billion for health care technology probably is a good idea, but it won't produce jobs quickly.

The so-called patch to the Alternative Minimum Tax will help some taxpayers, but its $85 billion price tag should not have been part of a stimulus bill. Again, that's more billions that will do nothing to create jobs and get the economy moving.

The more the media and the public looked at details of the stimulus bill, the more they found to question or criticize. Some of the most egregious pork projects were removed, but more remained. And speeding the bill through Congress was the best way to deny critics the opportunity to really open up the bill and examine what was inside.

So Democrats pushed for quick passage. And Obama, the candidate of hope and inspiration, chose to use fear instead when he warned that the nation risked "catastrophe" and an irreversible economic decline if the pending stimulus bill were not passed immediately.

Aided by Obama's warnings, the compromise stimulus bill was quickly passed on a Friday afternoon. The rushed schedule meant that members of Congress only had a few hours to review the content of the 1,100-page spending bill before voting. This seemed a clear violation of Obama's promise that Congress always should allow 48 hours for members to read a bill before a vote.

Another curious aspect was that the rush to pass the measure on Friday was followed by four days of inaction, with Obama waiting until Tuesday afternoon to sign the bill into law at a campaign-style stop in Colorado.

If the nation really was on the brink of catastrophe, why didn't Obama sign the bill minutes or hours after it was passed by Congress?

Public support for the stimulus bill was slipping as more details were revealed, and quick passage suited the political objectives of the bill's backers, meaning most Demo-crats in Congress and Obama.

By rushing the bill through Congress, analysis and debate were cut off. Still, there should be careful public scrutiny of the bill's spending — where the money is going and how effective it is at creating jobs.

Samuelson notes that "by using the stimulus for unrelated policy goals, spending will be delayed and diluted. There's another downside: 'Temporary' spending increases for specific programs, as opposed to block grants, will be harder to undo, worsening the long-term budget outlook."

It seems clear now that the first major political accomplishment of the Obama White House was tainted by Democrats in Congress who did not share the new president's commitment to change.

With the passage of this stimulus bill, Americans saw fear tactics and politics as usual. Obama should not allow congressional Democrats to turn his campaign promise of change into just another campaign promise.