>In this vein, some bloggers' claims
><http://www.econopundit.com/archive/2004_03_01_econopundit_archive.html#108038969080992205>
>that 10 million jobs would be gained under normal circumstances are
>exaggerated, though they are not completely out of the ballpark.
>150,000 jobs a month for four years get you over seven million,
>which is almost three-quarters of the way to ten. Getting 'normal'
>might not prove to be so easy.
10 million is about in line with long-term averages. Why is it exaggerated?
>If only Kerry had a fiscal policy.
You mean, if only he wanted to run big deficits? We've got those, Japan has those, and they ain't helping. During the heyday of social dem, Sweden ran a balanced budget and was close to full employment.
>The second piece is the proposed cut in the corporate tax rate. That
>this would have any impact on U.S. jobs is to be doubted
><http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/000176.html>. In and of itself,
>it's a revenue loser. It embodies a rotten principle. If cutting the
>rate 2.5 percentage points is good, why not ten percent? Why have a
>corporate income tax at all?
That's a good question, and one I often ask myself. Who pays the corporate tax ultimately? Hard to say really. Why not replace it with higher taxes on rich individuals?
>This is the essence of Clinto-Rubinomics. Propose a tiny change that
>fails to roil the base and embodies a fundamentally bad notion, then
>step back and let the Right practice one-upmanship with the bad idea.
A minor detail: Clinton won two elections, and went out with a 60% approval rating.
Doug