Ace numbers-cruncher Nate Silver in his 538.com blog criticizes the study Veronique de Rugy conducted for George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, in which she showed that congressional districts represented by Democrats got about twice the funds ($692 per capita) from the 2009 stimulus package that Republican districts did ($362 per capita). Silver says that this is in large part because districts that contain all or parts of a state capital received a lot of money. De Rugy in a response concedes that she didn’t take this factor into account. She also reiterates her conclusion that there is no correlation between unemployment levels and stimulus spending. Silver has responded with a graciousness not always seen in his confreres on the left.

There was something of a Gotcha! tone to Silver’s initial post. He continues to express skepticism that Democrats designed the stimulus package to funnel money to Democratic districts. But he ignores another political implication of his correct finding that state capital congressional districts got so much from the stimulus package. Why did districts with state capitals rake in so much money? Because one-third of the stimulus dollars went to state and local governments. The obvious purpose was to shield public employee union members from the economic distress and uncertainty faced by so many Americans in the private sector—to pay off the unions (most of whose members are public employees) which contributed something like $400 million to Democrats in the 2008 cycle. I suppose this has some stimulative effect on the macroeconomy, though perhaps not as much as would have come to sending stimulus checks directly to Democratic donors. But it leaves Democrats vulnerable to the charge that they are favoring public sector employees (and public sector union leaders) over the far larger number of Americans who depend on the private sector.