(Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)

Inauguration Day is still 13 days away, but President-elect Barack Obama has arrived in Washington, and the 111th Congress has begun work. Let the games begin.

Mr. Obama’s first order of business this week was meeting with congressional leaders about passing a major economic stimulus package that he could sign into law soon after he takes the oath of office as president on Jan. 20.

Mr. Obama framed the discussion in terms of an economy in deep crisis. Doing nothing or doing too little, he said, is not an option. He argued that preventing a recession from rapidly growing worse requires dramatic and immediate government intervention.

All of that passes for conventional wisdom these days. The debate will be over specifics: What will the package look like and will it work? Mr. Obama uttered the two words that are music to Republican ears: tax cuts.

The president-elect said he would consider including up to $300 billion in tax cuts and credits in a two-year stimulus package that may reach $800 billion or more. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., endorsed that idea, but he made it clear that other forms of spending, especially public works projects, would face close scrutiny and possible opposition by Republican senators.

Cutting taxes vs. increasing spending is an eternal Washington argument when economic conditions are good. In a time of economic crisis, however, settling it should be easy: What approaches probably would have the greatest positive impact on the economy in the shortest amount of time and spare the most people from the most financial pain?

The theory behind the economic recovery initiative is simple enough: The federal government seeks to infuse the economy with a public investment large enough and long enough to keep people working and spending money and to create an optimism that begets more economic activity.

There are two ways to prime the pump: One is to buy or build things such as roads or bridges, which would create jobs in construction, engineering and materials and spin-off jobs in goods and services. The second way is to transfer money to people through tax cuts or through public benefits to jobless workers and low-income families and assistance to state and local governments.

The ideal stimulus package would meet a Three-T test: Spending would be “timely, targeted and temporary.” Examples are increasing unemployment compensation, food stamp payments and grants to governments that are struggling to provide their residents with essential local services.

This sort of spending can be accounted for relatively easily. The funds are spent virtually the moment they are received and can be controlled like water moving through a spigot.

Tax cuts, on the other hand, might not be nearly as effective. Last year’s $150 billion stimulus package, for example, which took the form of tax rebates, was a bust for American society as a whole. Why? Because most people banked the money or used it to pay outstanding bills. And, the Bush administration’s proposal to make permanent the 2001-2002 tax cuts makes no sense as an economic stimulus.

Public works and infrastructure projects also can be risky. Their value in stimulating the economy depends on how well they are planned and executed. Smart selection of projects, as well as good planning and execution, is not compatible with a rushed, highly politicized process — as we saw with last fall’s $700 billion bailout package for the financial industry.

Mr. McConnell and his Republican colleagues should exercise their newly found interest in fiscal responsibility to their hearts’ content. And, as Republicans examine public works proposals, their Democratic counterparts can weigh the stimulus value of proposed tax cuts.

Meanwhile, the most likely way to succeed in stabilizing the economy is to funnel stimulus money — and lots of it — toward the unemployed, the working poor and state and local governments caught in their own budget crises.