Obama stim impact: Zero?

Interesting op-ed in the WSJ today, granted, by advocates of lower taxes: ["The Obama Stimulus Impact? Zero"].
The chart, however, goes to something I have assumed before: The federal stim spending circumvented local and state spending. It was just a money shift. If it were an addition instead of a shift, maybe it would have had more impact. But maybe not.
What's worse, is that the shift went from local and state debt to federal debt. Which is better? If state and local governments need more money, those officials should make the hard choices on spending or raise taxes (and deal with the revolt). But when the expense is shifted to the federal debt, it hurts the national economy and lines the pockets of rich people and the Chinese, since they are the only ones grabbing all the debt bonds. This perpetuates more problems.