The key issue: Do you believe in Keynesian fiscal policy? Clearly, Rick Perry does not, as he stated in last week's Republican debate: Obama "has proven once and for all that government spending will not create one job." However, the facts just don't back him up on this claim. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office just released a report that by the end of 2010, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) had created close to 3 million jobs, which is not far from the outcome that White House economists predicted in early 2009.

The only reason it didn't bring the unemployment rate down to 8 percent is because the financial crisis the Obama administration inherited was much more catastrophic than previously thought; between the end of 2007 and the second quarter of 2009, the Gross Domestic Product declined by more than 5 percent, the deepest drop since the Second World War. That means $787 billion wasn't enough to pull us out of such a deep recession. But it helped, according to the CBO--without the ARRA, current unemployment would likely be over 11 percent. Read the CBO report, there's plenty of solid evidence that Keynesian fiscal policy works.

At $447 billion, the plan is just big enough to move the needle on the unemployment rate, and broad enough to provide a significant stimulus in key areas. Even Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Analytics and former advisor to John McCain, is bullish about the plan, forecasting a 1.9 million job boost and a 2 percent lift for GDP if the package is passed as proposed. Zandi adds that while pushing more money into the economy is the key, passing the jobs package could also provide a much needed boost of confidence at a time when the economy teeters near a new recession, due to so much uncertainty.

However, the real issue is whether the American Jobs Act will generate the kinds of jobs and inventions that will drive American competitiveness. Therefore, we need to drill down to see if the AJA can accelerate the pace of American innovation and the success of U.S. entrepreneurs, who have historically been responsible for virtually all new job growth across the country. The answer is yes. President Obama announced a new initiative, Startup America, that should help unlock capital for startups through regulatory changes. Most important, this means reducing the disproportionately high costs that smaller companies face when going public, as well as raising the cap on mini public offerings (Regulation A) from $5 million to $50 million. It also means governmentally sanctioned crowdfunding --gathering small-dollar investments over the Internet that will add up to as much as $1 million.

Steve Case, chairman of the Startup America Partnership, noted, "High-growth entrepreneurial businesses have been responsible for nearly all of the net jobs created in the last three decades; so policies that make it easier for entrepreneurs to start and expand companies must be at the epicenter of any jobs effort. While Republicans and Democrats don't seem to agree on much these days, they do agree that entrepreneurs hold the key to a bright economic future. Therefore, I hope both parties will put politics and partisanship aside, and work together to ensure the success of the next generation of great American companies."

Additionally, the President is advocating the innovative use of Federal unemployment insurance funds to support long-term unemployed workers who create their own jobs by launching their own start-ups. A few states already have these self-employment assistance (SEA) programs, many of which have been remarkably successful. For example, SEA allowed two unemployed software developers to co-found a new mobile advertising company in 2009; and today that company has raised $6.5 million in venture capital, employs 28 workers, and plans to hire many more.

Also, the President has vowed to drive job-creating legislation, spurring deployment of high-speed wireless Internet service to at least 98 percent of Americans, including those in remote rural communities. By freeing up spectrum through private-sector incentive auctions, this plan will also reduce the deficit while creating a nationwide, interoperable wireless network for public safety, as recommended by the 9/11 Commission.

Finally, the President has been pushing a significant and dramatic overhaul to the U.S. patent service. First, it will transition the country to a first to file system, instead of the current first to invent approach. This will prevent random inventors from challenging pending patents. Second, the patent office will now be adequately funded; under-funding has led to a 700,000-patent backlog and a three-year waiting period for the average patent to receive final approval. When signed into law, the legislation will mark the first significant modernization for the U.S. patent system since 1952.

One other important point to remember is that a recovery is within our grasp. Corporations are actually quite profitable right now, having taken advantage of extensive offshoring (2.4 million jobs so far, with cost savings of 42 percent for every job off-shored). The problem is that over the short term, America needs to withstand the temporary higher rate of unemployment due to the shift to offshoring and globalization. However, a new report by McKinsey, Exploding the Myths About Offshoring, indicate that after an initial shock, offshoring is actually a win-win game. For every dollar of corporate spending that is outsourced to a low-wage nation, the spending economy captures more than three-quarters of the benefit and gains as much as $1.14 in return. Consumers benefit, exports increase, profits are repatriated, domestic job growth ensues... and most importantly, that company did not end up getting slaughtered by a foreign competitor. Which would have cost 100 percent of those jobs in the long run.

Globalization is our only course, but the seas can get pretty rough. However, the alternative of protectionism is a non-starter; throwing up tariffs to protect jobs usually triggers a trade war, shuts down exports, and sometimes, like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act did in the early 1930s, might even help trigger an actual war. Another lesson from the past is that after the crash of 1929 and the passage of massive tariffs to protect jobs, the Fed decided to let the money supply collapse by a third within four years, depriving the economy of the liquidity it needed to breathe and exacerbating the Great Depression. We are in a similar situation today and we need to decide if we, as a country, are going to follow the example of Herbert Hoover or FDR.

The American Jobs Act is the best alternative available today; and it can help put America back on top. No other plan addresses creating jobs today. Mitt Romney's proposal outlines a thoughtful, long-term, pro-business strategy--there's lots to like in there for 2013-14--but proposes to instantly cap government spending at 20 percent of GDP, which would most likely send America reeling into the double-dip recession immediately.

The bottom line: Most economists give the American Jobs Act positive reviews, and indicate a minimum of a million jobs created, that would bring the unemployment rate below 8 percent. From the innovator's perspective, it has what it takes to help startups go and invent the Next Big Thing. But a lot of partisan politics stand in its way. However, we must believe that it'll pass if all Americans lift their voices as I am doing today. Thus, I urge you to do so as well.