Mitt is (probably) wrong [Bryan]

Apparently, Mitt Romney has been in the news again lately talking about the alleged benefits of tax cuts as economic stimulus. Normally, I would ignore this, but I know a lot of people who seem to respect his opinion. Well, here is a reading list for Mitt:

1. Steven Pearlstein (Washington Post business columnist) explaining the rationale for spending as stimulus in clear, concise, and accessible language.

2. The much-discussed congressional testimony of Mark Zandi (pdf) of economy.com -- see particularly page five for a comparison of the types of stimulus. Most tax cuts, he concludes, are ineffective as stimulus.

3. Analysis from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. Doubts about most forms of tax cuts as stimulus are expressed here. Their helpful chart of the stimulative effect of the tax cut and spending provisions in the House and Senate plans are here -- complete with A-F grades.

4. Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman on the myths of the stimulus debate. See Kurgman also here and here. Krugman is a partisan, to be sure, and you can find Nobel Laureates disagreeing about these things, but Krugman seems to have been right about a lot of issues from the beginning.

5. Criticism from the Economic Policy Institute relating to the regrettable Senate "compromise" bill that increases largely ineffective tax cuts and reduces much needed spending in things like schools, research, state aid, etc.

6. On the nearly unanimous public support for new infrastructure spending.

The verdict? Mitt's analysis seems to go against what most economists are saying about stimulus. We need spending for stimulus, nearly everyone agrees that we need new infrastructure to stay competitive, so why not just do it?