No Reason

In Slate's summary of what's in other magazines, they call Jacob Sullum's short piece on how government programs are not a great way to create jobs as a "must skip." Why? Because it "shoots down the president-elect's plan without a compelling alternative."

I can understand how Slate missed Sullum's alternative--NOT doing the plan: "a recipe for wasteful spending that will divert resources from more productive uses...." After all, it's only in the first paragraph.

But let's assume Sullum gave no constructive advice. So what? It's not worthwhile to, say, note a multi-billion dollar program meant to fight some major disease won't work unless you can tell us how to cure the illness?