Some economists object, saying people don’t change their spending habits on the basis of a one-time cash influx. Other economists say, “So what?” — banks will invest their savings, and that, too, will help the economy. Still others insist the bill will just “move money around.”

I’m no economist, so I’ll trust my government: For the good of the country, I will use my stimulus windfall for purchases I wouldn’t otherwise make. I’ve decided to spend $600 on video games. I’m a public-spirited guy.

In the spirit of patriotism, I figure I’ll need to grab the terrorist-killing Call of Duty 4, and that should take care of all my free money for the year.

I’ll have served my country well.

Congress' Joint Economic Committee recently created an Employment Recession Probability Index that uses changes in jobless claims and the unemployment rate. It has predicted every recession since World War II. What's it show today? Believe it or not, the likelihood the U.S. was in recession in January was 6% -- down from 35.5% in December.

So, yes, we've hit a slow patch. But no, despite the bleatings of a media establishment eager for "change" in Washington, we're not in a recession yet.

The outline of a stimulus plan has emerged from talks between the White House and Congress. Not to damn it with faint praise, but it could've been a lot worse. It also could have been a lot better.We have to credit President Bush. It appears that he did a bang-up job negotiating with Democratic leaders in Congress — though the plan has things he probably didn't want.

But the package leans heavily toward rebates, which will only create a short-term spending binge, not real, long-term stimulus.

Handing out a wad of cash may not hurt, but it's no lasting cure to the economy's woes. Some principled Republicans in Congress have joined the stimulus debate with measures that go beyond feel-good fixes. The White House and congressional Republicans are clashing with the Democrats who control Congress over how to boost the economy. Along with rebate checks of $1,600 for most families proposed by the Bush administration as part of a $145 billion stimulus, Democratic leaders want food stamp relief, extended jobless benefits and social welfare spending.

Just as how and where money gets spent was of no concern to Keynes, it seems just as irrelevant in the minds of today's Democrats. The economic history of recent decades should teach us all that the private sector does not operate with such mindlessness.

Perhaps the easiest "stimulus" package Washington could to enact would be to drop money from planes into the hands of voters/consumers. However, the economic evidence from the 2001 experience suggests this is an ineffective tool. University of Michigan economists found that most rebates were saved, not spent. While this result may be a disappointment to those of us who thought this approach would be effective, Congress must be willing to learn from past legislative experience. Popular versus effective is sometimes the difference between politics and economics.