The fallacies in this article are in the conclusions, not the statistics.
If Liberals had it there way, they'd increase government spending by redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. No jobs will have been created, and a great deal of the money given to the poor will end up in China.
Defense spending is one of the few legitimate expenses for the Federal Government. It does in fact create jobs, and it produces actual real products and services. Social spending produces very little and results in no new investments.
The very first number cited by the article is probably the tax revenues that would've been collected over the last 4 years, assuming that the degree, breadth, and scope of the economic recovery following 9/11 had nothing to do with the tax cuts. This is a fallacious assumption and a disingenuous attempt to disconnect the economic recovery from the very real effects of the tax cuts on the sales of durable goods.
Even if a lot of the jobs created were government jobs or related to government spending, it doesn't cause the economic recovery to cease to exist. Tax revenues are growing at a faster pace than their pre-tax cut rates. The tax burden has shifted more heavily onto the wealthy and the well to-do with the middle class and poorer citizens paying a smaller portion of the total tax pie than before the tax cuts.
This reminds me of that NYT's economist... What's his name? The one who writes all the books full of facts and statistics, but when it comes to writing his conclusions and his interpretations, the facts and stats go right out the window and he basically paraphrases the Socialist Party. He's required reading in some University of Hawaii economics classes.
This observation really clarified things for me.
Under present conditions - rapid globalization of capital and goods, and to a lesser extent of labor - American labor is uncompetitive without protection. So no one in the private sector is going to invest in projects which depend on that labor if they have to compete in the international marketplace.
At the same time products produced with low-wages - mostly from China - are dominating American markets.
Put the two together and you arrive at the conclusion that stimulating the economy with counter-cyclical tax cuts - either supply or demand side - will not result in new domestic jobs, not without protection.
The Administration does not like protectionism. Thus they were left with a no-brainer; Choose between expanding American ownership of production or the opposite.
"We will choose to build our prosperity by leading the world economy, or shut ourselves off from trade and opportunity. In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting, yet it ends in danger and decline."
I'm sure I got it right.