If an economic stimulus package is supposed to jump- start the economy by spurring more consumer spending, then the best way to stimulate our economy is to: 
A. Permanently roll back corporate taxes. 
B. Cut the capital gains tax. 
C. Put more money into the hands of the lowest-income Americans. 
If you believe the antidote to a recession can be found in answers A and B, then you should enjoy watching as Congress considers the economic stimulus proposal developed by the Bush administration and fine-tuned by Republican conservatives. 
If, however, you believe as many economists do (and as common sense would dictate) that the folks most likely to run out and spend any cash windfall are families living on meager unemployment compensation benefits, then you should cheer for the efforts of the handful of progressives in Congress. 
The Republican proposal includes a litany of tax cuts for the rich and for American corporations. The package includes a retroactive refund of the corporate alternative minimum tax all the way back to 1986--to be paid regardless of whether the companies are planning any additional investments--and an accelerated tax cut for the highest-earning Americans. 
''This is a long-desired [Republican] agenda, wrapped up in the flag,'' said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). 
''The thing you have to admire about the Republicans is that whatever the question, the answer is tax cuts for the rich,'' she said. ''If the question is a budget surplus, the answer is tax cuts for the rich. If it's an economic downturn, the answer is tax cuts for the rich. If it's war, the answer still is tax cuts for the rich'' 
But progressives like Schakowsky aren't the only ones who say tax cuts for the rich is the wrong answer this time. Consider this, from economists at the respected Brookings Institution. An effective stimulus package needs to do two things: maximize the extent to which it directly stimulates new economic activity in the short term; and minimize the extent to which it drives up interest rates, according to economists William Gale and Peter Orszag. That requires a policy that provides incentives for new corporate investment and maximizes new spending by individuals. 
How does the Republican plan stack up? Not very well. 
''With the exception of the household tax rebate aimed at lower- and moderate-income workers, the administration's proposed tax stimulus package is flawed,'' the economists wrote in an evaluation of the Bush proposal. 
''It includes permanent changes that are less effective at stimulating the economy in the short run. And its acceleration of tax cuts for higher-income taxpayers is poorly targeted. . . . A more effective stimulus package would combine the household rebate aimed at lower- and moderate-income workers with a temporary incentive for business investment,'' they wrote. 
Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee are drafting the language for an economic stimulus package that would more narrowly target the government benefits to groups most likely to go out and spend. 
In particular, it includes bonus payments to people currently collecting unemployment compensation benefits. The plan would offer supplemental unemployment payments of $65 or more per week to people already collecting state jobless benefits. Now, if you happen to be unemployed and supporting a family on $300 a week in unemployment compensation, aren't you more likely to go out and spend that additional cash than, say, some still-employed guy who makes enough to qualify for the 28 percent tax bracket? 
Surprisingly, progressives are hopeful that this time Congress will see the economic light and vote for a stimulus package that will get the cash to people who need it most. 
''This depends on the moderate Republicans and the conservative Democrats voting for increasing unemployment insurance [payments] in light of the recession,'' a congressional source said. ''I think [the vote] is going to be close.''