Replies

After WWII the US had a robust, massive industrial infrastructure that was capable of producing a lot of what the world and the US needed and wanted. Just a little retooling was necessary - easily done. The US coasted for a few decades on this advantage before the equipment started wearing out and with foreign competition, replacement was not justified. No such luck now.
The circumstances now bear no resemblance to then and require an approach appropriate to the situation as it exists. Phooey on CATO for missing this erroneous presupposition.
We have two political factions, neither of whom are able to propose effective solutions to the situation as they will inconvenience or irritate their base supporters.
Giving free money to ‘employers’ doesn’t work as they won’t hire anyone unless they can use them to cover the cost and a little bit on top. Giving free money to consumers doesn’t work as they will buy stuff from China. Amusingly, the free money in either case is borrowed from China - go figure.

"..Giving free money to ‘employers’ doesn’t work as they won’t hire anyone unless they can use them to cover the cost and a little bit on top.."

While I don't disagree with your basic point (economic landscape significantly different now than it was post WWII), the way you phrase the above sentence gives me pause as to what you mean by "giving free money" to employers. While I am firmly opposed to "bailouts", allowing businesses to keep more of their gross income (or put another way, refraining from TAKING so much of the business income) is not "giving free money".

Many "pro-growth" economists would acknowledge that it would be an economic boost to adopt policies that would help businesses reduce their cost of doing business via reduction in capital gains (and other) taxes and reducing/alleviating certain regulatory burdens imposed by our governments at several levels.

It's not a matter of whether such policies would boost the economy, imo, but of just how much it would boost the economy.