i went to night school in the 1950's. i am long in the two. veterans there. going to school to use of their benefits because they were getting subsistence benefits at the same time. even though you're educating people, they were not really interested that much and being educated. you are paying people to go to school and maybe that is what you have to do now to get them into engineering. guest: the caller made some interesting points. i think the evidence shows that the gi bill after world war two was a positive. in terms of lifting the education levels in the u.s. economy. i would like to see us provide more support to people. we do that already to a large extent, but providing the kinds

of -- financial support that people need is one of several different tools that might help us get more people the education they need for the future economy and the good-paying jobs barrett host. host: our next call is from fairfax, virginia. caller: there is a 20% cost difference between a typical landed imports from china verses what we can make it for here. please check out this reference. it is called outsourcing cost index. the national association of manufacturing has a similar estimate. all we would need to do is to have a 15% tax cut or credit and i would target it at manufacturing because we cannot do across the board. it is too expensive. a corporate-only cut would not expect the past record companies. thank you very much. guest: if that number is

correct, it probably masks a wide range of numbers that average out to 20%. there are some areas where the cost differential is more substantial. 20% is not even a small number. it leaves incentives for many companies to outsource. providing an across-the-board tax credit aimed at manufacturing alone to offset that would probably be very expensive. i am not sure that that is the best way to invest our scarce resources. if in fact some of those products are produced more efficiently overseas, it is inevitable some things will go there. we have to generate areas at home where we can compete more efficiently and effectively and we do that a sectors. many jobs are not going overseas but there are other ways in which we can improve our productivity to try to maintain our ability to compete rather than this large across-the-board

tax credit which might be expensive. host:according to the labor department, 15 million americans are currently out of work and many more are under-employed a guest: if you count the under- employed, you are talking about city,70% -- 16 percent a - hose independent line, good morning. caller: i'm a first-time caller. i had a question about tax cuts creating jobs and that is why we need to continue the tax cuts bridge is there truth to that? guest: all else equal, if you did nothing else but cut taxes, that would help create jobs. it is not a very efficient tool for creating jobs. a lot of the tax cut money is

not spent. tax cuts create jobs only of people spend the money. it is a fairly effective way to stimulate demand. tax cuts for high-income people, most of that money does not get spent. out andon't go and run spend their tax break if they make over two other $50,000. the question is where these tax cuts will come from. we are already running deficits and they are projected to become more 3 if you have to cut government spending to finance the tax cut, what kind of spending are we cutting? in some cases, that direct spending is a more effective way of creatin you are spending on. politicians love to talk about cutting taxes. the light talking about what spending has to be made to

accomplish those tax cuts. tax cuts should be part of a stimulating the economy. the recently negotiated tax cuts by the obama administration with the senate and house republicans will stimulate some growth over the next year or two. i think it was a very expensive way of getting backways of doin. host: our next call is from detroit which is often called ground zero for the unemployment rate in this country, good morning. caller: 10 people who have been out of the system and have not had jobs be put back to work to rebuild homes or repair homes with the intention to get some kind of break? guest: i dect government spending on job creation. he talks about spending on

houses and that is mostly a private sector activity. there are all kinds of direct spending on in building infrastructure, repairing roads and bridges that are in such bad disrepair in the united states. there are other ways where direct government spending can put people back to work. i personally think we should have done more public service employment in the stimulus bill passed in 2009. dollar for dollar, that is probably a more efficient way of generating jobs. you get larger bank for the block from job creation than tax cuts. host: the tax cuts and a 2% reduction in social security payment, will lead generate more jobs? guest: it will generate some increase in demand. host: more so than the stimulus to guest:?

? guest: lower to middle-income people tend to spend more out of those tax cuts than higher income people it to do. it was expense of the way they did it. there might have been more efficient ways of getting the same job growth hosth. host: good morning, republican law caller: our real problem is we need an industrial policy. our companies have been wise enough to go to china. they can't afford health care. health care and the unions are killing business. it hurts the unions. they have to congress are scapegoats. they are scapegoats for the lobbyists. nobody will go against health care. they pay off everybody.

when a company brings 10,000 jobs back to the united states, the cost of health care will break them. there has to be an industrial policy. we cannot continue with our eyes closed. guest: he raises the cost of health care as something that kills jobs. there is a little bit of truth to that. in many other countries, health care is paid for by the government. private employers don't have to bear the burden. in this country, the way we have structured health care, it creates some burden but remember, it is a little bit of a false claim because most studies show that in the end, workers are paying for that health care. health benefits are coming in that case, they are the ones bearing the cost, not the employer. that is not really a huge contributor of jobs going overseas.

the other point about the need for industrial policy depends on what you mean by that. we had this debate back in the 1980's and some economists were concerned about if the government can pick winners and losers. if that is general set of policies on how we can improve our export base and how we can make our manufacturing sector more productive and competitive. that suggestion makes more sense. whinney to pay attention to those issues. host: right now, the system is not set up to be truly fair and the government protects its bodies and punishes its enemies. fair or unfair? guest: i am not sure i understand fully. host: i think they are talking about the bell out. guest: the issue of bailouts is a complicated issue. as much as we hated doing it as

much is it was terrible to reward the people because this problem, the bail out of the financial sector was necessary to keep the entire economy from collapsing. i think it did that relatively successfully. we were on the cliff of falling into a second great depression. the bail out and the federal reserve policy presented -- prevented that from happening. keeping the automobile companies of blood under a series of conditions and forcing them to become more efficient turned out to be a good policy choice. we cannot do that across the board. we cannot do that on every sector. in the end, it has to pick and choose. politics is part of the way those choices get made but there are other reasons. host: catonsville, maryland, good morning. caller: we are attacking the branches of this evil and i will call people to what the root is.

i will tell people to read "the new world order." the international bankers that have taken over america turned it from a country in 1912 manufactured more than any other country on earth combined into a country now that is not a sovereign nation like china because its foreign policy is beholden to banks. banks are controlled by the rothschilds and the media is controlled by the subsidiaries of these two interests. guest: there are several comments in there that i will not touch prayed i know that the country is controlled by international bankers. there is a lot of good that came out of our financial system. it helped to spread capital investments more efficiently for our economy and for economies around the world. things did get out of hand and things got sloppy. i think there is a need to

generate a new generation of financial regulations which the regulations bill that was passed and signed by the president starts to do. the reason we have lost manufacturing jobs is not because of the financial industry and the banking industry taking over. it is a natural progression where countries move on to service says. this has always been true. wonder did years ago, we gave up agricultural jobs. and now we are in a different stage of development. we are giving of manufacturing jobs. other places do that more efficiently. we have moved more onto services that we provide more efficiently. that is always the root of this. a lot of that is good for american consumers and companies. putting the whole thing in terms of conspiracy, i think it is misplaced although the financial industry did make a lot of

errors that contributed to the financial bubble that ultimately burst and hurt the economy. i think they should be held more accountable and more responsible in future reform efforts. host: the book is called," where are all the good jobs? going" thank you for being with us. congress is back this