I read this in The Economist:
ECONOMIC policymakers across the rich world face two delicate balancing acts over the new few years. The first, involving monetary policy, is being widely discussed and carefully planned by teams of technocrats. Central bankers must keep their balance-sheets big and interest rates low for long enough to prevent deflation setting in, but they also have to be prepared to change things quickly to prevent inflation taking off. The second balancing act, involving fiscal policy, depends on politicians rather than specialists—and has, so far, been shamefully ill-planned.
A couple of paragraphs later we get the meat (emphasis mine)…
To be fair to the politicians, this fiscal balancing act is far harder than the central bankers’ task, for two reasons. First, politicians must not only get the timing of fiscal tightening right, but must also decide on the best ways to cut spending and increase taxes, and the right mix between the two. These decisions involve more goals, more tools and more politics than stabilising prices. Second, politicians lack the credibility that central bankers have built up after two decades of low inflation. The first of these differences is inevitable: decisions about the size of government and its priorities are profoundly political and politicians must answer to voters for their choices. But politicians could go a long way towards building credibility for their fiscal decisions by copying more of the tricks of modern monetary policy.
If we leave the stimulus money out there too long, it will lead to inflation (too many dollars chasing too few goods). If we pull it out too soon, we could go back into decline (not enough dollars to spur growth).
The article states that these decisions should be made by an independent group and NOT by politicians. I agree. Politicians pander because they want to get re-elected. Politicians (all politicians) don’t want to make the tough decisions.