When the stimulus plan was being debated earlier this year it was all about money and speed as in: How much money can Washington spend how fast? Now we know the answer. Not much not very.

The Wall Street Journal reports this morning that at least some of those “shovel-ready” projects we heard so much about aren’t so ready for a shovel after all. The problems run the gamut from local opposition to specific projects to lengthy bidding and contracting processes required by law.

That should be no surprise to anyone who scratched the surface of the claims made by those who said the money could be spent fast or those who complained the bill didn’t spend money fast enough. Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan wrote in an OpEd in early February that, “The spending isn’t only poorly targeted but also neglects the urgency of our crisis. Only a small fraction of the money will be spent in 2009, and half of the outlays will be unspent at the start of 2011.”

While that’s not what the Congressional Budget Office found, it is true that hundreds of billions will not be in the hands of workers and taxpayers in the next few months. (According to the CBO about 1/3 of the direct spending will come in 2009 and roughly 3/4 will be pent by the end of 2010.)

On the other hand President Obama repeatedly made it seems as if the bill would work quite quickly. After a terrible jobs report released in early February while the Senate and House bickered over a compromise stimulus bill, he said, “these numbers demand action. It is inexcusable and irresponsible for any of us to get bogged down in distraction, delay and politics, while millions of Americans are being put out of work.”

The fact is to spend any more than was contemplated any faster would guarantee a boondoggle of fraud, corruption, and waste. Governments are not supposed to be able to spend money too quickly lest it vanish into the pockets of connected companies and campaign donors. There’s plenty of good reason for checks and balances that require open bidding and oversight — requirements that necessarily slow the spending of taxpayer money.

Last fall when searching for “shovel-ready” projects to highlight in New Jersey, I was directed to a school in Jersey City that was already slated for replacement (the official said the stimulus money would free up money that would go for that school to planning for other school projects — sure there are planning jobs but, c’mon!). Another official sent me to a huge roadway project also in Jersey City — a project well underway and fully-funded (this time the argument was the flood of stimulus dollars would speed the repairs along but it was hard to see how much more they could possibly do and keep the road open).

The fact is both sides are right (or wrong) depending on how you define “fast.” Democrats say the money will go into the economy quickly and create jobs. Republicans say much of the money will not be spent fast enough entering the economy a  year or more from now when (they predict) the recession will be over.

The lesson is (as it often is in politics): You can’t have it both ways. If Americans want their government to spend their money to restart the economy and they want it spent prudently, it can’t also be spent quickly. Unless by “quickly” you mean, in the next couple of years.