By Jesse Taylor Okay, well, not so much. One of the focuses of any Presidential campaign is who's going to create new jobs. The main mechanism of Republicans is the tax cut; of Democrats, robust use of government programs. But the discussion that tends to happen on far too limited terms is what, exactly, happens with all those people who are gainfully employed, but falling behind. Incomes are stagnant and prices are rising, and the most prominent solution is "the jobs of the future". As comforting as it would be if we could continually ensure our entire economic structure was perpetually reinvigorated with new jobs in new industries, we still need administrators and janitors and accountants and cooks and cashiers. The only real policy mechanism proffered tends to be tax cuts - middle class tax cuts, working class tax cuts, putting "more of your money in your pocket". But for someone who was earning $40,000 in 2003 and is earning $41,500 in 2008 (or, worse yet, earning $32,000 in 2008), the tax cut as pay hike is a sadly limited tool. Eventually, you can't cut taxes any more - and on a stagnant or declining salary, the value of each successive tax cut continually falls, especially as it relates to inflation. It's a discussion that needs to enter the lexicon of election-year talking points, and soon: how, sans tax cuts and/or recommending a job change for tens of millions of Americans, you help make Cheerios and milk more affordable. Talk to my increasingly expensive cereal habits, candidates. I'm jonesing for some whole grain, you gotta understand.
