AT THEIR summit in Washington, DC, last weekend, the leaders of the G20—the world's biggest rich and emerging economies—promised “rapid” fiscal stimulus to prop up their economies. Sadly, America already seems to be failing to keep that promise, paralysed by the politics of transition.

As The Economist went to press, a Democrat-backed plan for a $100 billion fiscal boost, which included a modest rise in infrastructure spending and some aid to the states as well as a misguided bail-out for Detroit's carmakers, seemed doomed in the Senate. The lame-duck Congress looks set to deliver nothing more than an extension of unemployment benefits. Serious debate about a broader stimulus has been put off until the new president and legislature take over in January.

That may not seem long. But given the deterioration of America's economy in recent weeks, the delay is dangerous. From tumbling retail sales to soaring unemployment claims, the latest statistics suggest that the economy has grown increasingly grim (see article). Private demand is plunging as consumers are battered by tight credit, falling wealth and rising unemployment, while fearful firms hunker down. Americans' collective and sudden rediscovery of thrift is pushing the economy into its worst recession since at least 1982. And unlike the early 1980s, there is little prospect of a quick turnaround.

Shovel it out to the states

Normally spending splurges are to be distrusted, but the scale of this downturn argues for bold budgetary action. Large sums will be needed: at least $300 billion, or more than 2% of GDP. And with so swift a decline, speed is of the essence, not least because America has far fewer “automatic stabilisers” than other rich countries with which to cushion a recession.

Thanks to the changing nature of America's workforce, unemployment insurance offers less of a prop to demand than it used to. The proportion of part-time workers, for instance, is higher than it was a generation ago, but in nearly two-thirds of states part-time workers are ineligible for unemployment benefits. The states' fiscal rules, which require most of them to balance their budgets, also make a federal stimulus more urgent. With revenues vanishing, the states collectively face a $70 billion budget gap this year. Half have already started cancelling infrastructure projects, cutting health-care benefits or laying off workers.

The federal government can counter this. A bill to modernise unemployment insurance has already passed the House of Representatives, though it languishes in the Senate. Washington can shovel money to the states quickly and easily, for instance by increasing its share of jointly financed spending, such as Medicaid, which pays for poor people's health care. The Senate Democrats' stimulus plan would have done this, if too timidly. Republican opposition, based on a misguided aversion to government spending and political sour grapes, is short-sighted in the extreme.

Nor, though, are the Democrats blameless. Looking ahead to bigger majorities in January, congressional Democrats have been less than eager to seek compromise. More worrying, too many on the left are keener on the grand rhetoric of redefining government's role than on the practicalities of designing effective stimulus. Washington is full of talk of a new New Deal (see article) to put many thousands to work building a greener America. But details are scant, even as many states have scores of “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects set to be axed.

Cushioning America's downturn will demand fiscal boldness, but that does not mean eschewing simple, speedy solutions. Quick and plentiful aid to the states is one of the best.