Mr. Klement's article fails to mention that lower corporate tax rates also mean a lower cost of capital. Based on simple economics, I find it utterly improbable that a lower cost of equity capital does not correlate with higher economic growth (which does not NECESSARILY mean higher profits). But a lower corporate tax rate, plus taking a meat ax to all of the growth-stifling policies that Emperor Obama put in place through executive orders, should certainly increase economic activity and draw back into the job-seeking market some of the 95.1 million people (as of December 2016) who are not counted as being unemployed because they have quit looking for work.

This is another reason that news outlets should report unemployment using the U-6 measure [which includes those who've given up] and the current U-3 measure [which makes the political class's policies look a lot better than they actually are]. As of February 2017, the U-3 rate was 4.7% vs. the U-6 rate of 9.2%.

It's worth noting that Mr. Klement's chart about the relationship between lower rates, expected CapEx, and actual CapEx omits the effect on CapEx of the significant rate cuts in the early years (1981, 1982, and 1983) of the Reagan Administration. Annual GDP growth per working-age adult rose from 1.15% under Jimmy Carter to 1.8% under Mr. Reagan. Therefore, the author's assertion that lower taxes don't increase economic growth looks questionable. . .unless the number of working-age adults fell under Reagan, which it didn't.

One thing is sure: Mr. Klement's assertion and three bucks will get him a latte @ Starbucks. In the meantime, I'd like to see him back up what he said. . .if he can.