This provocative blog from Harvard economist Edward Glaeser will be the most interesting thing you read all day. A taste:
[S]kepticism about vast public works does not necessarily lead towards Alf Landon-like antipathy towards stimulus, or towards tax cuts for big businesses and the wealthy. A quite plausible alternative, which is partially present in the president-elect's proposal, is for the fiscal stimulus to primarily take the form of payroll tax cuts for poor and middle-income Americans. Those are, after all, the people who are most likely to spend the money quickly. Targeted tax aid for poorer Americans would be far more egalitarian than most kinds of infrastructure spending, like broadband technology. Sensible infrastructure projects wouldn't disproportionately employ the least-skilled Americans. Forgoing the payroll tax for households earning less than $75,000 a year is surer progressivism than bridge-building.
A payroll tax cut would be, in effect, an instant raise for millions of Americans. And since the cut would not be a one-time rebate - let's hope it would be permanent - it is more likely to change behavior and encourage folks to spend and thus increase demand. What's not to like? (A tip of the hat to Ross Douthat.)