This morning, the Business Cycle Dating Committee at the National Bureau of Economic Research — a nonprofit organization that, among other things, officially determines when recessions start and end — announced that “[a]lthough most indicators have turned up,” it has not yet decided to declare the recession through.

The report does not signal that the economy is necessarily still undergoing contraction rather than expansion — just that “indicators are quite preliminary” and “[t]he committee acts only on the basis of actual indicators and does not rely on forecasts.” (It describes how it determines peaks and troughs here.)

Harvard economist Jeffrey Frankel, a member of the Business Cycle Dating Committee, declared “[t]he recession is over” on his blog just last month, citing improvements in employment and real income. Most academic and governmental economists agree. But though gross domestic product starting rising more than half a year ago, the job market remains brutal, and several other indicators sluggish.

Martin Feldstein, the president of the committee and a Harvard professor, recently warned that there is “significant risk the economy could run out of steam sometime in 2010″ because economic stimulus “delivered much less” than it should have. A double-dip recession remains possible if not probable, hence the committee’s reticence.

Martin Feldstein, the conservative Harvard economist and chief economic adviser to former President Ronald Reagan, said last night that, despite his support 16 months ago for the idea of stimulus spending (though not the ultimate bill), the time for such a government intervention has passed.

“At this time I think a stimulus spending bill would probably do more harm than good by further undermining confidence in the fiscal situation,” Feldstein, president emeritus of the National Bureau of Economic Research, wrote in an email.

It’s the best news Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) has had in a week.

Scientists agree that CO2 emissions around the world could lead to rising temperatures with serious long-term environmental consequences. But that is not a reason to enact a U.S. cap-and-trade system until there is a global agreement on CO2 reduction.

Citing a report from the Congressional Budget Office, Feldstein says that every 15 percent cut in the nation’s emissions would hike the typical family’s household expenses by $1,600 a year. (The Democrats’ strategy  aims to reduce U.S. emissions 83 percent by 2050.) “Americans should ask themselves,” Feldstein says, “whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2.”

Though the argument is far advanced from that of climate-change deniers, it’s curious nonetheless. The United States, particularly this decade, isn’t exactly known for idling around in wait of international consensus before confronting a problem. Why, if climate change will have “serious long-term environmental consequences” would Congress sit on its hands instead of taking action? The question is particularly relevant because the United States, though it constitutes only about 5 percent of the world’s population, accounts for more than 20 percent of its carbon emissions. Are we to believe that reducing that enormous contribution by 83 percent would result in a “very small … decline in global CO2?” And if climate change, as scientists say, both is exacerbated by these emissions and threatens the well-being of billions of folks around the globe, don’t we have a responsibility to curtail our contribution, regardless of what Beijing and New Delhi are up to?

Whatever happened to the ostensibly conservative notion of leading by example?

There is a significant danger that the Obama 2-year tax cut would fail to raise spending, just as the rebate did. If it is made permanent, that is a major long-run increase in the national debt.

Feldstein, formerly the chief economic advisor to Ronald Reagan, said that “some direct government spending would be more cost effective.” And he’s puzzled why increased defense spending hasn’t gained more mention in the stimulus debate. (Not a new topic for him.)

I am disturbed that the Obama transition has not asked the military service chiefs for their suggestions for quick-spend programs that can strengthen the military.

Don’t worry. There’s plenty of time for the Pentagon — like everyone else — to come begging for a piece of this pie.