You don't need a degree in economics to know where Congress should send rebates to stave off a recession: to people who will spend the money faster than Paris Hilton in a shoe store.

The economy is faltering on several fronts. Home sales, the credit industry, the stock market and consumer confidence all are sagging. Inflation is rising, spurred by steep hikes in fuel and food prices. Unemployment, though relatively low, has increased sharply. Some analysts believe the country is already in a recession.

Congress and President Bush, who see eye to eye on almost nothing, agree that they need to jump-start the economy. They're discussing a rescue package of about $150 billion, targeted mainly at consumers.

But which consumers? On that point, the wizards in Washington differ philosophically.

President Bush thinks the rebates, in amounts of perhaps $800 for individuals and $1,600 for couples, should go only to people who pay federal income tax. That would leave out, partially or completely, about 44 million households on the lower end of the income scale, including many seniors.

Congressional Democrats have a more sensible approach. They want to include rebates for working families who don't earn enough to pay federal income taxes. Democrats point out that all workers pay some federal payroll taxes. And lower-income families living paycheck-to-paycheck are most likely to spend a rebate quickly.

That's the whole purpose of an economic stimulus package — to get the money back into the economy rapidly. Injecting money quickly into retail businesses helps those firms to avoid layoffs, and might generate a positive ripple effect with manufacturers.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified to Congress last week that the greatest economic effect of the stimulus "would come from people with lower incomes." Families of four with income below $41,000 are the ones who most need the money, in Bush's words, "to help meet their monthly utility bills, cover higher costs at the gas pump, or pay for other basic necessities."

Not so a family with income of $200,000, who might just save the rebate or use it to pay down a credit card. That's not to say that higher-income families shouldn't receive a rebate; but the immediate impact on the economy from their rebates isn't likely to be as great.

For the same reason, a relief package should include a temporary increase in unemployment insurance benefits beyond the normal 26 weeks. This is not incentive for the unemployed to remain so; rather, it will put money in the hands of people most likely to spend it right away. Increasing the funding for food stamps would have much the same effect.

Congress and the president need to settle these ideological differences quickly — yesterday wouldn't have been too soon.

If the relief is to do any good, it must come quickly. Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, has offered to deliver a package by March 1. That's a reasonable deadline.