Here’s a question: If unemployment is the problem, then why aren't supply-side tax cuts, along with tougher government budgetary restraint, a possible solution?

Top Obama economic advisor Christy Romer delivered a very gloomy forecast late last week to Congress, saying unemployment will remain at a “severely elevated level” and that the U.S. jobs market will stay painfully weak next year. She was just being honest. Romer even said the Obama stimulus plan will not contribute much growth to next year.

So the administration is searching for a jobs recovery plan, just like the rest of the country. Meanwhile, big government spending and temporary tax credits have not worked by their own admission. That’s basically what Ms. Romer was saying.

So why not try something different? Why not go for lower tax rates across-the-board on individuals, businesses and investors? Permanent tax cuts for new growth incentives? To use economist Art Laffer’s phrase, if it pays more, after tax, then folks will work, produce, and invest more.

It’s worked in the past. And I believe it will work again.

Incidentally, this idea of cutting spending and cutting tax rates is attracting a lot of attention in many of the key state races right now—like over in the New Jersey governor’s race where unemployment is also hovering around 10 percent.

It’s also looming large in Virginia, as well as some of the early skirmishing out in California.

So if it’s happening in the states, when will Washington finally get the message?