The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act promises $787 billion in new spending and tax cuts to lift our economy from the doldrums. There is every reason to hope that works, while at the same time worrying for the debt passed to future generations.

We note recent developments in our region:

* In Plattsburg, city leaders exercised foresight last fall, paid for engineering studies with money on hand and got in line early for a “shovel ready” project to expand their water plant. Now, $1 million of help is on the way, provided the city borrows $4.3 million to make this dream a reality.

* In Atchison County, the Wholesale Water Commission worked four years to put its project together to serve multiple communities with new water wells and a water treatment plant. Residents of Fairfax, Rock Port and Tarkio, as well as customers of Public Water Supply District No. 1, all stand to benefit from a $10 million federal grant, a $12 million federal loan and $12 million from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.

* In St. Joseph, a school district in need of some good budget news learned it will receive targeted funds that will help in selected areas over the next two years. The district will receive $1.9 million for its six Title I elementary schools — those schools in the city’s most economically distressed neighborhoods — and also $3 million for special education programs.

Water projects, schools, health care, roads and bridges, Medicaid — all have received a boost from “stimulus” spending.

The pattern here is unmistakable: Worthy projects and programs, sometimes years in the making, receive funding this year when our economy needs a bump. It’s not because government suddenly had more money to spend, it’s because it needed to spend more money. And that money has to come from somewhere.

Shortly before the stimulus program passed Congress on Feb. 13, the Congressional Budget Office projected the plan would increase economic output and employment in the short run, but within the next decade, the nearly trillion-dollar new debt would become a drag on the nation’s gross national product.

Advocates figured the short-term gain is so critical that the long-term problem either can wait, or will take care of itself as the economy grows over time.

Opponents — or perhaps they prefer the term “realists” — cared little for that gamble, in part because they care a lot for future generations. Many would have supported a smaller package, and thus a smaller future debt payment. Others saw wisdom in allocating more of the package to tax cuts, which have direct impact on individuals and business.

This becomes a more sobering discussion when you recognize no one gains by making the wrong choice. Both sides in this debate wanted the same things, but only one prevailed. We see evidence of the stimulus spending these days in Northwest Missouri, and know someday the bill will come due.