Polosi's contradiction?

Happened to be watching "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" this morning (one of the Sunday morning talking head shows) which featured House Majority Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) talking about Obama's stimulus plan.

George S. asked the Madame Speaker about the merit of some of the spending choices (such as family planning services) reflected in the bill. Pelosi's response included a bit about the tax cuts in the bill.

"What the economists have told us, from right to left, there is more 'bang for the buck,' that's a term they used, by investing in food stamps and unemployment insurance than in any tax cuts. Nonetheless, we are committed to the tax cuts because they do have a positive impact on the economy, even though not as big as the investments."

This begs the question: If our country is in such dire straits at this moment that Congress needs to move quickly to approve $800+ billion of additional "stimulus" or "investment," wouldn't it be prudent to put all of that money in the place that will yield the biggest return? Why not spend the whole kit'n'kaboodle on food stamps and unemployment insurance?

I won't speculate as to why Congress is throwing a lower-yielding component into the bill (at least not here), but I offer the question as food for thought.