@Cycloptichorn,
I read the article you linked. The author says he consulted with ONE (unamed) economist who said the "Republican plan "wouldn't produce any short term job growth". That's hardly the expressed opinion of "most economists".
A part of the problem here is that you are not either clear or specific about just what is the problem you believe needs correction here. If one listens to the President it is unemployment and the lack of adequate social welfare programs. Most Republicans say it is an unusually slow and limp recovery from a cyclic recession, combined with a looming crisis in government financial obligations - debt, the present value of future social security, Medicare, Medicaid, pension and various loan guarantee obligations, plus similar obligations held by state and local governments. The aggregate total is well over 100% of our GDP and still growing fast. This takes an even more ominous aspect in the face of the still growing European crisis. The essential point here is we have to find solutions that address both elements of this problem.
Obama's tax hikes for "the rich" won't yield nearly enough to deal with the debt crisis we face. Some level of entitlement reform is indispensible. If that is done, I would support some tax increases. Unfortunately the administration denies that necessity and campaigns on the dangerous illusion that we can avoid a crisis merely by "harvesting the bourgeois" - to use the Leninist phrase for it. Temporary government jobs aren't a lasting solution to an economic crisis - as the last trillion dolllar giveaway so amply demonstrated.
Energy is a fundamental element in almost all aspects of our economy, particularly the manufacturing sector that once produced so many high-paying jobs for less educated people. Our current energy policy (if you can call it that) is positively destructive to both aspects of the problem - job creation and public debt. Stupid limits on domestic production of all fuels significantly worsens our balance of trade; exports the jobs involved in production overseas; and leaves the profits in the handfs of foreign governments. Even more stupid subsidies for unrealistic "renewable" sources breeds insider deals and coruption in goverrnmernt, losses for ther public treasury, and.... no energy.
The Sarbanes Oxley Bill and subsequent legislation has made it far more costly and risky to launch a publicly traded companies. This inhibits capital formation and investment in jobs-creating enterprises of all kinds. These are examples of regulations that need to be revisited, simplified and made more cost-effective.
Human beings everywhere, in government or in corporations are subject to error and the common elements of human venality. As a result regulation itself is subject to the same potential for error and corruption as the things being regulated. We have seen lots of excamples of this fgact lately. This doesn't mean we should have no rergulation any more than it means we shouldn't have any businesses being regulated. But it does mean we should be judicious and cautious in dealing with both.
