I guess Rightists can only hold two alternatives in their heads at a time, thus you frame the issue as simply favoring, or not favoring, a tax cut for the wealthy. But there's far more to the question of economic stimulus.

At the top of the decision tree is do-something versus do-nothing.

Do-nothing is on the table. A handful of economists (wildly optimistic ones, in my estimation) argue that the economy is already on the mend (despite weekly news of more layoffs) and that there's no point in the government trying to stimulate the economy.

Down the do-something branch, the first major decision is whether to stimulate the demand side or the supply side. It's at this point that I've been asking my questions about Bush's plan.

Once a target is chosen, there are a myriad of ways to try and stimulate the target side.

Supply side stimulus historically has included tax breaks for the wealthy, subsidies and price supports of particular industries, government direct and guaranteed loans, outright grants and bailouts, R&D contracts, etc.

On the demand side, historical techniques have included tax cuts targeted at the middle to lower income classes, tax credits targeted to encourage demand for particular goods (e.g., solar energy equipment), business tax breaks to encourage capital purchases (e.g. Section 179 accelerated depreciation), tax breaks for employers to encourage employment, government purchasing, income maintenance programs such as unemployment and welfare, and government employment programs.

The issues are nowhere as simplistic as you portray them. I understand how the case for a tax cut for the wealthy looks compelling if you can convince people that there are no other options, but there are a lot of other options we should be considering.

--Robert