Until the other shoe drops.

Actually, cutting payroll tax contributions alone (I'm thinking of a payoll tax holiday, targetted, that wouldn't affect me at all) on those making less than 50k per year would generate some serious spending. It wouldn't be necessarily autos and airplanes, but washers and dryers, clothing, televisions, and the like... sounds pretty good to me. Might do some job creation, even if it's just temporary.

Maybe target Jan. 1 2011, or Dec. 1 2010, so that the usual Christmas layoffs might not be as severe, and temporary hires might last for a quarter or more.

That's just off the top of my head, but a proposal worth examining.

Here's a statement from wiki on the Mises institute

The Institute's economic theories depict any government intervention as destructive, whether through welfare, inflation, taxation, regulation, or war.

Completely libertarian in approach, Mises Institute fellows, Austrian economics, and anarcho-capitalism have been criticized by such divergent economists as Friedman, Krugman, and Samuelson, to name three nobel laureates with divergent views among them, and by methodologists, philosophers of schience, and statisticians as well.

Straight from wiki again,

Austrian School principles advocate strict adherence to methodological individualism - analyzing human action exclusively from the perspective of an individual agent.[9] Austrian economists also argue that mathematical models and statistics are an unreliable means of analyzing and testing economic theory, and advocate deriving economic theory logically from basic principles of human action, a method called praxeology. Additionally, whereas experimental research and natural experiments are often used in mainstream economics, Austrian economists contend that testability in economics is virtually impossible since it relies on human actors who cannot be placed in a lab setting without altering their would-be actions. Mainstream economists are generally critical of methodologies used by modern Austrian economists;[10] in particular, a primary Austrian School method of deriving theories has been criticized by mainstream economists as a priori "non-empirical" analysis[5] and differing from the practices of scientific theorizing, as widely conducted in economics.[11][12][10]

Austrian School economists generally hold that the complexity of human behavior makes mathematical modeling of an evolving market extremely difficult (or undecidable) and advocate a laissez faire approach to the economy. They advocate the strict enforcement of voluntary contractual agreements between economic agents, and hold that commercial transactions should be subject to the smallest possible imposition of coercive forces. In particular, they argue for an extremely limited role for government and the smallest possible amount of government intervention in the economy, especially in the area of money production (advocating instead a commodity money system).

Plenty more to be read and said about such columnist, and his phiosophical underpinnings.

considering that Mises-based business cycle theory says consumption increases during downturns. Say what? As a percentage of spending, perhaps, because of declines in other areas. But net consumption falls during downturns, and stimulating consumption is the quickest way to get the other sectors of an economy chugging along.

Didn't I take on Austrian economics here a year or two ago? It hasn't changed. It now has a Brietbartian, Randian, Libertarian economic 'school,' for lack of a better term.

The folks who trot out such economists, like Breitbart,  are simply this generation of Jonathan Swift's flappers of Laputa (a link to Chapter 18 of

Gulliver's Travels)

The Laputans supposedly had great advancements in knowledge, mathematics, physics, et cetera, but didn't apply science or mathematics to, oh, architecture or engineering inter alia, thinking it vulgar. Sounds like Austrian School economics to me.