Critics need not ask where the money is coming from to generate those jobs. As everyone knows – ought to know – jobs generate money in the form of earnings and taxes. So when you create jobs, you generate the money that create jobs. It doesn’t matter, therefore, which you create or generate first. The question where you will get the money or the jobs is irrelevant.

However, some critics think the question is relevant. If they are serious, they should come up with the answer, since they brought up the question in the first place.

Their trouble is simplistic thinking. They believe that generating 10 million jobs in six years requires creating less than two million jobs a year, when in fact, considering the multiplier effect, two million jobs will generate 10 million jobs.

A simple illustration should do. Just figure out what an additional presidential adviser means for employment: He or she will have a staff: That’s an additional five jobs at the very least. Theoretically, a president can have as many advisers as she or he wants.

Tracking down jueteng and drug lords, corrupt officials, and assorted criminals, needs legions of informers, law enforcers, clerks to write the reports, janitors to clean up desks and wastepaper baskets, and the like. That’s not even including morticians and embalmers.

That doesn’t also include abortionists who will take a cue from Congress’ awareness of the population explosion. Just distributing those condoms will require thousands of hands, not to mention drivers and skilled mechanics to maintain the public vehicles.

It’s just a matter of political will, a matter of deciding where to begin.

The only question is whether people are willing to employ themselves at whatever.