If the bottom receives paychecks, that's more money they can spend/save. The more money in their pockets, or in their banks, the more products they can spend on. This essentially raises aggregate demand, and increases in production and sales in the long run (this is the part where it benefits the "top"; after the "bottom" has gotten their benefit). Therefore it's bottom-to-top.
Dear Leader is telling California, in effect, to leave wages intact and shed jobs, which takes more paychecks away from more people, requiring more unemployment benefits be paid by California. Even by your reasoning, as the spending-as-stimulus plan is failing to preserve paychecks, it cannot qualify as "bottom up".
Further, unless and until the spending-as-stimulus plan has specific employment targets (which it does not), there is no guarantee that companies will hire in proportion to the monies spent on "stimulus". There is not one single job or paycheck explicitly guaranteed anywhere in the text of the porkulus bill.
FDR's New Deal programs (WPA and CCC) were authentic "bottom up" stimulus efforts because they put people to work directly, put money in their pockets directly, and let their spending inject demand back into the economy. Dear Leader has proposed nothing of the kind.
President Bush's stimulus checks last year were authentic "bottom up" because they put money directly in the hands of taxpayers. Dear Leader has proposed nothing of the kind.
In fact, one of the biggest criticisms of the porkulus bill was and remains that Republicans, using Dear Leader's own pie-in-the-sky assumptions, showed that more jobs could be saved/created through a series of tax cuts with no additional spending. As job creation/salvation efforts go, Dear Leader's non-stimulus bill is a farce.
Also, as monstrous as the spending-as-stimulus obscenity is, it is the smallest part of the stimulative flailings Dear Leader has pursued. The greatest portion of his stimulative efforts are in the financial sector with the bailing out of AIG and Wall Street--yes, the programs were started in the Bush Administration, but Dear Leader is expanding upon and endorsing those efforts, and has co-opted them as his own. Efforts to stimulate lending and credit are not "bottom up" either, unless you're proposing Dear Leader give every American a government-backed Visa Card and encourage shopping sprees.
But like I said, it depends on what you think is the solution to the economic problem. If you don't think Keynesian economics is the answer, obviously you wont agree with the stimulus package.
Keynes' approach has failed miserably everywhere it's been tried. Historical fact, Democrat delusions to the contrary notwithstanding. Government spending is not a substitute for private sector spending--and by the very nature of its sources of cash to spend, can never be a substitute for private sector spending.