What happened to the liquidity trap?

Mark A Sadowski comments:

In November 2012 the CBO estimated that the maximum level employment effect would be a decrease of about 200,000 jobs, 640,000 jobs (80% 0f combined payroll and UI effect of 800,000 jobs lost) and 800,000 jobs for the high income tax increase, payroll tax increase, and sequester respectively: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/11-08-12-FiscalTightening.pdf

In other words, according to these estimates, the sequester should already have decreased employment by over 500,000 jobs relative to baseline, and the tax increases should decrease employment over 400,000 relative to baseline by the next employment report at the latest.

What happened to the liquidity trap?

Read more at Macro and Other Market Musings: Is the Fed's Able to Offset Austerity? Insights from the Employment Report.

The Sequester Will Be Good for the Economy | Cato Institute

Jeffrey Miron argues that we should use cost-benefit analysis to evaluate government expenditure:

…even if transfers help stimulate consumer spending, their net effect on the economy is unclear. This implies that whether the sequester will harm or help the economy depends on whether cost-benefit considerations can justify the existing level of government expenditure. And on this question, the answer is clear. Across all categories, federal expenditure is far greater than necessary to achieve the legitimate goals of government intervention.

Read more at The Sequester Will Be Good for the Economy | Cato Institute.