Problem is, and was, the 'rebate' was not a tax cut. So it could not compete with serious proposals for a permanent tax cut.
Initially resistent, the Bushoids eventually glommed onto the rebate idea as a way to sell their evil proposals. The 'rebate' would give them an excuse to send a lot of people a little bit of money immediately, complete with an IRS- funded letter reminding them it was all due to G. Bush.
For Democrats, the 'rebate' was a way to avoid actually supporting a real tax cut, since for them paying down public debt is more important than anything else. My hunch is that people see through this. They didn't trust Democrats to give them a tax cut. And they shouldn't.
I disagree w/Platt (and my boss) on the value of the original 'dividend' idea. It was/is the right temporary remedy for the slowing economy, but it was not a worthy competitor to permanent tax cuts.
Fortunately, because the new law is long in phasing in, so idiotic in design, and so unfair in distribution of benefits, there is ample opportunity to revise it.
As before, the debate will be dominated by debt-obsessed Democrats demanding the law be cut back (i.e., taxes increased) to fund more and faster debt reduction. So far, I know of nobody other than yours truly who will be proposing progressive tax cuts to replace the new law.
mbs
Maybe you can explain to them how the idea of a rebate actually came about. You heard it hear, first, complements of Max Sawicky, below. In addition you can read how the Democrats screwed it up (Some of) the People's Tax Cut: How the Democrats Blew it on the Tax Rebate Leah Platt http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/webfeatures/2001/06/platt-l-06-21.htm l