In New Deal terms, the job guarantee was handled by the Harry Hopkins's Works Progress Administration.  It was for labor intensive projects (painting murals, say, or maintaining parks) to keep the unemployed gainfully employed. Capital intensive infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, dams) was handled by the Harold Ickes's Public Works Administration.

The PWA isn't really necessary, the state DOTs and Army Corps of Engineers can handle all the money Congress throws at them in infrastructure spending (which obviously should be a lot more).
A new WPA would be a very good idea, the trouble is creating a new agency in this day and age would be a bear.  Probably the only way it could happen is if Congress agreed to fund state-created WPAs.

A payroll tax holiday would kick out almost $900 billion a year divided equally between employee employer.  Its really the best stimulus proposal out there (to his credit, McCain had the right idea last winter when he suggested cutting FICA by 50%).  The bigger questions are actually, how long do you let the tax holiday run and how do you scale it back as the economy picks up?  What I'd do is tie FICA holiday to the unemployment rate. Say, by multiplying U3 rate by 10.  Reduce FICA by that percentage and adjust it monthly when DOL drops the latest employment data.

You don't buy a new home when your job security expectations are low. You don't hire people when you don't know what your taxes will be and what your employee benefits will cost. You don't rush out and buy stocks when you expect them to fall.

Democrats, for their part, are also running scared, proposing to keep all the tax cuts except those affecting the very rich. But they were opposed to these tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. If they were a bad idea when budget deficits were small, why are tax cuts a good idea when deficits are around $1.3 trillion?

The idea that the average American is overtaxed is a nice piece of populist pandering. In fact, federal taxes as a percentage of the economy are at their lowest level since the Truman administration. Chuck Marr and Gillian Brunet of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities have calculated that a family of four at the exact middle of the income spectrum will pay only 4.6 percent of its income in taxes. Remember, almost half of the country pays no income taxes at all. The top 2 percent of Americans contribute almost 50 percent of federal income taxes.

The simple facts are these: All of the Bush tax cuts were unaffordable. They were an irresponsible act of hubris enacted during an economic boom. Conservatives thought they would force us to shrink the government. But with Republicans controlling the White House and both houses of Congress, did reduced taxes cause reduced spending? No. They led to ever-increasing borrowing and a ballooning deficit.

We have one of the smallest governments among all the world's rich countries. Yet we refuse to pay for it. (Yes, health-care spending is the big exception and, yes, we will have to get those costs under control.) I understand the fear that this is not a good time to raise taxes. But the impact of marginal shifts in tax rates on growth is pretty unclear. Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and ushered in a period of extraordinarily robust growth. George W. Bush cut taxes massively in 2001 and got meager growth in return. Three tax cuts enacted since the financial crisis have done little to spur growth. In any event, if timing is the issue, Congress could extend all the tax cuts for a year but then let them expire. Better yet, spend money on far more efficient ways to spur job creation, such as tax credits for jobs, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates would create four to six times as many jobs as would tax cuts.

I don't like our current tax system. It's unwieldy, it taxes the wrong things (income instead of consumption) and its loopholes are legalized corruption. But we are not going to create the perfect tax code today. In front of us is a simple, easy way to bring America's fiscal house in order, reduce our dependence on foreign borrowing, restore U.S. credibility and power, and provide a stable revenue base from which to make key investments for future growth. All we need is for Congress to do what it does so well: nothing.

Meanwhile, in my blue neck of the woods, I've got some good Dems to vote for -- Boxer, Brown and Woolsey.  I will show up for those 3 not only for what they stand for, but for what their GOP opponents represent in corporate dominance and trying to buy elections with little or no governmental experience.

As to your itemized list of objections in your middle eight, again I largely sing the same tune.  But as to your question

So, what - other than his pure self-interest - would lead you to think that he wants or needs to do anything bigger, better, bolder, to get the economy going again?

If you don't care if they are re-elected--due to your disappointment in Obama not being progressive enough, that sounds quite self-defeating imo.

Few seem willing to accept the idea that Obama, and the Ds -- who are, after all, thoroughly professional pols -- are doing exactly what they want to do.