Wall Street Journal: The Obama Administration Should payroll taxes be reduced for one year to stimulate the economy?

700 vs 900, did everyone fail math?: Wall Street Journal: The Obama Administration Should payroll taxes be reduced for one year to stimulate the economy?

clearly this is more of the give the average taxpayer some extra money to spend - and, maybe (Keynesian thinking) this will add jobs in America (vs. China).

One comparison immediately comes to mind: By extending the upper bracket Bush tax cuts (which were credited with 'increasing' the percentage of income taxes paid by the top brackets from '48%' to '52%') at a cost of $700 billion, the administration is now going to try and put more spending money in taxpayer pockets at a cost of $900 billion.

The biggest joke (or blatant lie) is that this $900 billion is supposed to support job creation.

As shown elsewhere in today's paper, American kids still rank below other countries in math skills - so perhaps an excuse; but:

1) 2% of what the employee pays (i.e. 2% vs the 15% it costs the employer). Can anyone really see this as a meaningful number to the employer? (clearly it's just money in the worker's pocket)

2) Can one really in one's wildest dreams think that incentivizing basic (average taxpayer $800 per year) consumption is going to be more job creating - in the US (vs. China, etc.) - than giving corporations and investors a reason to expand in America?

Clearly this is a sign that the people running the US economy from Washington are Keynesians with no clue about how to turn around the unemployment problem.