That’s hardly surprising since the last time the government went down this road, the results were decidedly mixed. In 2001, about two-thirds of U.S. households received checks of up to $600. Over the next nine months, consumers spent between 20 and 40 percent of the cash, squirreling the rest away to pay credit card debt or set aside for emergencies.

Today’s climate is even worse than in 2001. Since the rebate checks were announced, gas prices have risen more than 70 cents a gallon and recent flooding that has damaged crops promises to drive up food prices. Most people will be using their rebate checks just to absorb those increases.

Indeed, better than anticipated retail sales in May are likely a reflection of this. Although total retail sales grew by one percent, much of it may be attributed to the higher cost of items. It’s also worth noting that May’s increase was led by a 2.6-percent rise in sales at gasoline stations, an increase driven more by price instead of increased consumption.

Meanwhile, any bump provided by the rebate checks will be short-lived and is unlikely to produce a turnaround in the nation’s economy.

So why are some in Congress and the president speculating about a second round of economic stimulus checks? The answer is politics, of course. Few things are more popular than putting money back in the hands of taxpayers, even if it doesn’t address the real problems affecting our economy. Moreover, forking out money to consumers with advice to spend, spend, spend is likely to prolong a mindset that causes Americans to mount up debt and create situations like the current housing crisis.

Instead of cutting checks to taxpayers, the government should be investing those billions in programs that would create jobs and strengthen the country economically. There’s no shortage of areas where dollars could be directed. We could invest billions in fixing our country’s crumbling infrastructure or building new schools in our communities. Or we could fund research into developing alternative energy sources, increasing fuel efficiency and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. All of these would be investments that would not only shore up our economy now but also provide long-lasting benefit to the nation.

For evidence, consider how much our local communities benefited under President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs. The Work Projects Administration and Civilian Conservation Corps created thousands of jobs for people in this region during the Great Depression and provided real, long-term benefits, like schools, water and sewer, and roads to communities around the region. The Orr School and the city’s water system were just two of the benefits of those programs and examples of investments that have lasted for decades.

Sure, it’s nice to find a check in the mail, but it can’t match having a steady, good income provided by a job and a country willing to invest in improving our common wealth for the future instead of adding a few dollars to individual pockets today.