EJ Dionne claims to see non-existent things; will his psych treatments be covered under ObamaCare?

An excerpt from E.J. Dionne's syndicated column:

If governments around the world, including our own, had not acted aggressively — and had not spent piles of money — a very bad economic situation would have become a cataclysm.

But because the cataclysm was avoided, this is an invisible achievement. Many whose bacon was saved, particularly in the banking and corporate sectors, do not want to admit how important the actions of government were. Anti-government ideologues try to pretend that no serious intervention was required.

But his assertion is based on the equally-invisible. How does he know that "a very bad economic situation would have become a cataclysm"?

How does he know that the monies were generally well-spent-- or should have been more (a la Krugman) or less?

Even if he's (accidentally) correct, Mr. Dionne apparently needs to become acquainted with false-cause fallacy and basic economic theory.

After 20 months of Bush/Obama/Dem Congress bailouts-- and a far longer recession than normal-- maybe the burden of "proof" belongs on those who claim that govt activism has helped rather than hindered the recovery?