The logical conclusion I get from this article is that if the government wants to improve hiring, they should remove all income taxes on people making <$100k a year, and tax business profits to compensate. Also increase taxes on those making >$100k to discourage upper-middle class and uber-rich hiring.
I don't think that's the solution he's looking for, but I didn't hear him offer one.
The solution is for government to cut its spending. But that brings up an interesting question. Has any government in history ever significantly cut its spending and reduced its taxes for the long-term benefit of its people, without a violent revolution?
It's clear that that would benefit the OP, but your assertion that it would be to the long-term benefit of the people is completely opinion. You take any piece of government spending and cut it, there's a rational argument as to why cutting it would cause serious harm in the long term, and many of those arguments are stronger than the reverse.
I don't think that's the solution he's looking for, but I didn't hear him offer one.