I'd like to rename the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 the Law of Unintended Consequences.

That came to mind the other day when I read a reader's question. He and his wife received at least $3,000 in Social Security benefits last year, enough to qualify them for an economic stimulus rebate. But, he wanted to know, if they made more than $150,000 in tax-free bond interest in 2007, would that disqualify them?

The answer, shockingly, is no. They can get the rebate.

The law says you have to have at least $3,000 in earned income and/or certain benefits like Social Security to qualify for the basic rebate. When a couple's earned income reaches $150,000, the basic rebate begins to shrink, and at $174,000 in adjusted gross income, the rebate phases out completely. So many upper-middle class people, by Congress's definition, get left out.

However, tax-free bond interest isn't considered earned income. It's not figured into adjusted gross income, either. So, no matter how high that tax-free income is, it doesn't disqualify someone from getting the rebate. Further questioning determined that my reader and his wife had other income besides Social Security last year, so they could be eligible for a rebate of up to $1,200.

Contrast that with a query I got today from another reader, a single mother of two whose only income is child support. She's not eligible for the basic rebate of up to $600 for single filers and heads of household because child support is not considered earned income. And because she can't get the basic rebate, she also is ineligible for the $300-per-child rebate that's provided for by the law.

The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 was billed as an aid to the working middle class. The solons who crafted it were criticized for leaving out the very poorest people, who didn't make enough earned income to qualify. With this twist, we learn that not only were the poorest left out, but some very rich people still can benefit. Is this really what Congress had in mind?

--Tobie Stanger