John Cochrane quotes extensively from a post by an academic economist who happily proclaims "It really does seem that on the big macroeconomic questions, our [Liberal] side is winning." Cochrane is calm and respectful, but he slams the post's logic really hard.
This is a good and logical point. If you take it seriously, though, it should show the illogic of the whole edifice. I found this claim that the child tax credit will cut child poverty in half illuminatingly ludicrous, not enticing. Really, that's all it takes? Why not spend $4 billlion [sic] and eliminate child poverty forever? Why not spend $8 billion and eliminate adult poverty? It hilarious that after the "war on poverty" declared in 1965, people could actually say with a straight face that the only reason "child poverty" remains in America is that we didn't pass a little tax credit.