Does spending kill jobs?

No, according to a Wall St Journal op-ed by Alan S. Blinder, a Princeton professor of economics. We have to take this with a grain of salt, Mr. Blinder's arguments are difficult to follow and are strewn with oddities.
For instance, "But even building bridges to nowhere would create jobs, not destroy them, as the congressman from nowhere knows." Mr. Blinder fails to understand that jobs must create wealth, not consume it. Farming, mining, manufacturing, logging create wealth. Bridges to nowhere consume wealth. Might as well just pile the money in a heap and burn it for all the good they do. Government make-work jobs are just welfare dressed up pretty.
Or, referring to the Obama Porkulus bill, "How in the world could all that spending, accompanied by tax cuts, fail to raise employment?" Good question Mr. Blinder, where did all that money go, leaving us with 9.1% unemployment? It is obvious to a Princeton economist that so much spending absolutely must raise employment. Perhaps Mr. Blinder is so wedded to Keynesian economic theory that he cannot bother to look at real data, like the unemployment rate
Then he makes a favorable reference to Paul Krugman. That is a bad sign. In my estimation, Krugman is an idiot, despite his Nobel prize in economics and his perch on the New York Times op-ed page.
Blinder sums things up by saying that we need spending and tax cuts to create jobs but cuts and tax hikes to balance the budget. He never mentions that economic growth ( which we don't have) will balance the budget. He then offers a tricky tax credit (aka tax loophole) to encourage hiring.
Mr. Blinder has just earned a spot on my personal idiots list.