There's a long and sordid history of firms demanding tax breaks from politicians to keep jobs in a certain place, then taking the money and sprinting off. Here

There's a long and sordid history of firms demanding tax breaks from politicians to keep jobs in a certain place, then taking the money and sprinting off. Here's a way for executive-branch politicians to spend tax money to keep jobs in their districts. 1. agree with the legislature about the value of the jobs, and how much to spend on the subsidy, and for how long. 2. figure out the ratio between the subsidy and company payroll headcount and/or cash outlay. For example, "We are willing to subsidize employment at this location to the tune of US$50 per W2 employee per week", or "We are willing to subsidize employment at this location by one half of the employer contribution to social security and medicare." (Should subsidies be based on headcount or gross pay? I don't know. Working that out is part of the task of deciding the subsidy.) 3. After each payroll, get the employer to submit receipts for their social security and medicare contributions. 4. Certify that those receipts are legitimate (not faked, etc). That should generally be easy, and it's necessary for public trust. 5. Pay the agreed-upon amount, promptly, to the employer. This has the advantage that the subsidies go down immediately if employment goes down in the subsidized location. It rules out monkey business surrounding long term tax breaks for short term jobs. It's transparent in its costs and benefits. And, guess what, Dr. Summers? Spending the public's money in this way is certainly within the remit of elected politicians. If the public doesn't like it they can put a stop to it.