I don't think I've ever seen as blatant an example of selective hearing and spin as the New York Times editorial today regarding IMF criticism of the US budget deficit. According to the Times:

...it was nice to see staff members of the fund's Western Hemisphere department hold a press conference last week to publicize one nation's worrisome trends, which threaten foreign investors and the global economy. Who was in for the scolding? Haiti? Argentina? Mexico? Not exactly. It's the United States the fund is worried about.

There is a certain poignancy now in having the I.M.F. preach the so-called "Washington consensus" to Washington.

The fund's report warns that America's profligacy and its voracious appetite for credit will drive up interest rates around the world, threatening the global economic recovery and American productivity growth.

Now, let's read what was actually said at the IMF press conference (transcript here) regarding our current deficit spending:

The federal fiscal balance has swung from a surplus of 2½ percent of GDP in fiscal year 2000 to a deficit just under 4 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2003. This will provide extremely valuable short-term support to the U.S. economy, cushioning the extent of the downturn, after the unprecedented collapse of the asset price bubble and the September 11th attacks. It has also put the economy on a path for what now looks to be a robust expansion. This fiscal support has been especially timely since the global economy has generally lacked other sources of growth.

Summing up, the recent expansionary stance of the U.S. fiscal policy has certainly been beneficial, supporting the global economy at a difficult juncture.

Just becuase the shot in the arm hurts and may cause an immediate adverse reaction does not mean that it doesn't prevent an illness that would be many times worse.