With the unemployment rate north of 10 percent, and large portions of the population "underemployed" in part-time jobs, it is understandable that many conclude the $787 billion economic stimulus package approved in February has not worked. But as The New York Times recently reported, a broad range of economists agree that unemployment levels would be significantly higher and the economy weaker if not for the stimulus program.

Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com, told the Times that rather than growing by 3.5 percent as it did in the third quarter, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would still be declining if not for the stimulus. The Times pointed to three major economic forecasting companies that conclude unemployment would be significantly higher if not for the federal monetary injection.

Some Republicans in Congress have proposed rescinding unspent stimulus money. That would make absolutely no sense, and we suspect there may be some grandstanding involved. It is safe to propose something that has no chance of actually happening. Because three-quarters of the stimulus money remains to be spent, it could provide the necessary push over the next year to reverse the job losses, generate consumer spending and help produce a true recovery.

Closing the tap could, conversely, raise the prospect of a double-dip recession.

The package's greatest impact appears to be allowing states to move forward with major infrastructure projects, work that many would have been forced to abandon as unaffordable without the federal help. According to Moody's, every $1 in such federal aid to state governments produces $1.57 in economic activity.

Among the criticisms of the relief package is the fact that it appears to have saved many more jobs than it created. President Obama set expectations unrealistically high when he said the stimulus money would contribute to the jobless rate peaking at 8.1 percent. Throwing out such a specific target is never a good idea in politics, particularly when the topic is something as unpredictable as the economy. It was a mistake the president will frequently be reminded of as critics point to the miscalculation as evidence the stimulus program failed. In reality, the president's goal of saving or creating 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 remains on target, according to the economic assessments.

While trying to recall unspent stimulus aid would be a disastrous mistake - and is politically unrealistic - it is also not time to talk of another cash infusion by Congress. The better strategy is to wait and see if the money left unspent from the prior package sufficiently contributes to a recovery.

The immediate problem is the need for job growth, but the greater long-term issue is out-of-control deficit spending. An aging population and the nation's three big entitlement programs - Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security - threatened to bust the budget in future years even before tax revenues plunged because of the deep recession and the bailouts began. The Obama administration must establish fiscal credibility by producing a realistic deficit-reduction plan. Backing another jobs program, when the existing stimulus program may suffice, could spook, rather than placate the financial markets.

The best option is to stay the course. It appears that perhaps the worst is over. And while recovery may be slow, it is certainly better than no recovery at all.