According to the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus who graded the candidates on their economic stimulus plans...
Barack Obama: A-minus. I criticized his previous tax plan, but Obama is at the head of the class with an intelligently designed, $120 billion stimulus plan. He would speed a $250 tax credit to most workers, followed by another $250, triggered automatically, if the economy continues on its sour path. Obama would direct a similar rebate to low- and middle-income seniors, who are also apt to spend and could get checks quickly. One demerit: Obama omits any increase in food stamp benefits, which Moody's estimates would have the greatest bang for the buck, $1.73 for every dollar spent.
John Edwards: B-minus. Edwards gets points for handing in his paper early -- in December, he issued a $25 billion stimulus proposal (plus $75 billion more if needed), including important help to states to avoid cutting Medicaid rolls. But like Hillary Clinton (see below), he would spend too much money on programs -- investing in "green collar" jobs, for instance -- with too long a lag time to make them an effective stimulus. Edwards's grade goes down because he also hasn't explained how the $75 billion would be spent.
Hillary Clinton: C-plus. Clinton, too, raised the issue early, then turned in a faulty first draft with a $70 billion stimulus plan that didn't provide much immediate stimulation. It included a $25 billion increase in the program to help low-income Americans with heating costs -- an excessive amount (the current program is under $3 billion) that probably wouldn't kick in until next winter. Even worse was her housing plan, including a five-year freeze on subprime mortgage rates that could produce higher interest rates and reduce liquidity.
Four days later, Clinton said she would immediately implement a $40 billion tax rebate plan she had put in reserve in her first draft. Fine, but overall, the Obama plan devotes a far greater percentage to spending that is more likely to jump-start the economy.
John McCain: D-plus. The senator should have his plan sent back with "Did you read this assignment?" scrawled in red ink. There's a respectable argument that stimulus isn't needed, wouldn't be effective and could be counterproductive. But the normally straight-talking McCain doesn't make it. Instead, he proposes permanent tax cuts -- cutting corporate rates, increasing investment breaks, eliminating the alternative minimum tax -- masquerading as a stimulus plan.
Mitt Romney: D. Romney's plan is way too big ($233 billion) and badly constructed (most of the stimulus goes to business breaks, his individual tax credits don't go to those who need them most, and his huge, long-term tax cuts would harm growth if not paid for). You don't have to be a Harvard Business School grad to understand that encouraging savings is not stimulative.
Mike Huckabee: D-minus. Huckabee understands economic anxiety better than economic principles. The only way his sketchy proposal could stimulate the economy is by scaring Americans into consuming now, before his Fair Tax takes effect.
Rudy Giuliani: Incomplete. His position is too internally contradictory to grade. The former New York mayor told ABC's George Stephanopolous that "permanent reductions have a bigger impact in stimulating an economy," then said of the Bush plan, which has no permanent cuts, "If it stays where it is, it's a good idea."
WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE
It is becoming increasingly clear that the louder Mrs. Clinton and Bill rant accusatorily against Barack Obama, the clearer it becomes that he has far-reaching programs that are much superior to her stale, old-school methods.