Raising taxes on corporations that have to produce their product here and are already turning massive profits wouldn't hurt anything. However, corporations which don't have to do produce here and can easily relocate will do so if it makes good economic sense. If you pass protectionist laws in order to try and keep them here even after you screw you them, you'd have to use dramatic enough measures to balance out the difference in labor cost. This will raise prices. Lets do the actual math.
Right now John Q Worker in China is paid the equivalent of $1.50 an hour to produce widgets. Lets say it then costs $1 to import the final product and that the dollar spent goes entirely to foreign countries (which isn't realistic, consider that the import process requires American workers manning import facilities plus the vehicles could be American manufactured, etc.). That means it costs $2.50 to produce these widgets in a foreign country, and lets say he makes about 50 of them in an hour. Raw materials probably only cost something like $.50, so that means the cost of each is a messily $.06 to produce and ship to America. Then there's advertising, logistics, the final product needs to make it to the retailer, the retailer needs a mark up to make a profit of their own, and the business itself has overhead and tax to pay. All of those costs are going to scale to the actual cost of producing and shipping, so lets say that in the end in order to be profitable retailers need to make 4x that number (which is a fairly solid number, for example, publishers/developers of video games get $15 of every $60 sale). That means the American consumer is going to pay about a quarter for each of these objects. Not too bad, huh? Lets do the math again with an American worker.
At the bare minimum the American worker is going to make $7.25, and if they unionize as a lot of people on this forum support, it's going to be a lot more. It probably isn't even close to realistic to assume that any factory worker is going to make $7.25 in America, but I want to come up with a baseline estimate. Raw materials will probably cost more to purchase here, but again, lets give America as much leeway as possible and assume $.50 for them too. Does a worker in America making minimum wage have the same productivity level as a Chinese worker being paid $1.50 an hour? Nope, but we'll be nice and assume the answer is yes. There's no import cost, so that's something. $7.75 at 50 an hour is about $.16 to produce in America. In the end your product is going to cost about $.65 per item, and that's a generous estimate (in reality it'll be much more because there's so many other places where the cost of labor is going to hit you, not just the first laborer who produces the item, such as quality control). But by having that item produced in America, you've nearly tripled its price.
Is it worth it to triple the price of a whole slew of basic items with protectionism so that a few people can earn $7.25 an hour? Sure, that $7.25 an hour is gonna be leveraged over a few times as it travels through the economy, but I don't see how it'll bring about an employment renaissance.
Moves like these really only help the uneducated and unskilled, and there's no real lack of positions available for those workers as is. These measures would raise the cost of living for everyone though. This isn't even necessary; are plenty of minimum wage jobs that are hiring, but the unemployed aren't looking for minimum wage jobs because they don't offer what people need to live the standard of living they're accustomed to (not that I blame them for this sentiment).
The thing is, when you're already making profits hand over fist, businesses are more than happy to share the wealth with their country. It wouldn't have been easy, but it's been possible to export labor since the Great Depression. A global economy was emerging then, and overproduction on all sides is part of what caused the crisis. Protectionist laws were passed as a reaction to that overprotection and global economy, which is in part what actually caused the Great Depression.
The answers to our problems usually have a lot of nuance, and that's one of our biggest challenges. More often than not, Americans want solutions pitched as bumper stickers. "Ending the tax breaks that send jobs over seas" for example -- does anyone really think that there is a law aimed specifically at giving a tax break to companies that send jobs overseas? That is so clearly an unintended consequence of another law, and the difficulty there is not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
We live in complicated times, especially so economically, and the only sane thing to do is look back and ask what worked and what didn't work. Protectionism has never worked in a global economy. Innovation always does. We've raised the debt ceiling before without the sky falling, and you have to remember to adjust the debt that your country is facing according to inflation and its ability to pay it off -- GDP. Are things really as bad as they look? No, not at all. But there's pointless fear and alarmism in masses right now over the debt. It isn't that the debt couldn't be a potential problem, it's that people don't even understand why they're afraid. They don't understand how the debt becomes a problem exactly and they don't have a rational outlook on how to cut it.
Everyone wants fiscal responsibility, but who is stepping up to say "cut my government services" in order to get it? No one, not a single group. Each political segments wants the government to pull the entire sum out of everyone else's state-sponsored pie, and that isn't how sacrifice works. Everyone has to be willing to give some and feel the burn, from senior citizens through social security and college kids through grants and loans, if we're going to get out of this mess.
I really don't see this happening. For one, the person who asks the country to truly sacrifice is basically committing political suicide. Obama does it and he can kiss his second term goodbye, and whoever gets into office will be elected on undoing anything he does for his constituency -- then it'll just be a matter of who's back we'll ride on to get the cuts necessary (SPOILER ALERT: it's going to be the poor, Republicans will slash aid to the poor).