Congress traditionally avoids controversial issues in the weeks between a presidential election and the Christmas holidays. This year may be different.

Spooked by the economy's slow response to the $700 billion Wall Street rescue package passed in September and the erratic reaction of the stock markets, lawmakers may return to Washington after the Nov. 4 election to consider a separate economic stimulus package.

This one could cost as much as $300 billion and would come atop the $168 billion stimulus package passed in February. A new stimulus package would add to the national budget deficit, but it might be the last chance to deflect recessionary forces that could cost millions of jobs.

The $700 billion rescue, enacted three weeks ago, was designed to get banks lending again. At this point, it looks as though it could succeed and that the Treasury even might recoup its investment eventually.

But the credit crunch, along with the stubborn housing mess, continues to drag down the rest of the economy. Consumers and businesses are cutting back, both because they're frightened and because they can't get loans. The result has been layoffs, which cuts consumer spending, which leads to more layoffs. That could lead bankers to sit on their new bailout money, rather than lend it.

A well-designed stimulus plan could break that cycle by injecting money directly into the economy. That could get shoppers buying and businesses growing, which would let banks feel confident about lending to them.

Such a plan also could short-circuit the cycle of mortgage foreclosures and falling home prices that lies at the root of this mess. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke this week suggested that a stimulus package could be "potentially helpful and worthwhile.''

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois is on record as favoring another stimulus package, although he has not put a price tag on it. Republican nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona has not ruled out voting for such a plan but said it must be "consistent with long-term fiscal discipline.''

The surest way to boost the economy is to send money to people who will spend it right away. In that sense, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is on target in suggesting extending unemployment benefits and increasing food stamps: Low-income Americans and unemployed people can't afford to stash money away; they spend it.

Obama and Pelosi also suggest sending money to the states, so that state-level budget cuts don't put teachers and health care workers on the unemployment lines.

On the other hand, there's economic danger lurking among the business lobbyists and doctrinaire conservative politicians who believe that tax cuts are the ultimate — and only — elixir. The truth is that tax cuts inevitably help the wealthy more than any other segment of society, and the wealthy are more likely to save the money than spend it. Businesses won't expand until they see more demand for their products, no matter how much we cut their taxes.

Data indicate that much of the money from the stimulus package enacted in February was saved, not spent, muffling the impact of the program. This time, congressional leaders are suggesting a $150 billion stimulus package, although several economists suggest that the economy needs a jolt twice that large.

Whatever the final amount, its costs will accrue to the national debt, but a deep recession would cost America even more. The point is that it's important that the money be directed in ways that produce genuine, rapid economic stimulus. Our economy is on a tightrope, and we need a net under it.

REPRINTED FROM THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.