The question of whether the federal government can lower taxes while, at the same time, fix the economy at this critical juncture of our history. The answer is, in theory, yes, but it will take some drastic and disciplined action.
For starters, Senator John McCain's proposal to freeze spending on non-critical functions of government is the tactic that is needed to begin the healing. A major criticism of the Bush Administration's domestic policy was that, as a conservative, he failed to reel in spending and, in fact, grew government in a manner that contravenes the Republican mantra. Senator McCain's stance on spending, when contrasted with Senator Barack Obama's proposal to introduce over $800 billion in new spending in addition to the money forked out due to the bailout package , shows a major difference between the two candidates.
Further, it highlights a simple yet clear approach to begin the journey of righting the American economic ship. ...
Even more beneficial to the McCain campaign is this: if Senator McCain held to this campaign promise as president, it would be a break from the Bush Legacy and the last 8 years in the White House.
Without the federal government spending more money, the burden of spending in order to spur the American economy forward falls upon American citizens. This task becomes an easy endeavor if the threats of higher taxes on capital gains, small businesses, and private investors are alleviated.
On the surface, this may appear only as a tax policy that champions protection of the very wealthy and corporate fat cats, many of whom may have contributed to the financial mess that we are in currently. However, history shows us that the ability to invest, spend, and make economic decisions in a freer fashion has resulted in a higher quality of life for citizens around the world. This has been true for countries that traditionally held restrictions on the free market – countries such as India, China, and Russia. For the optimal impact on the economy at a time when we need the economy to churn again, we need as much private cash flow to circulate through business channels to stimulate growth, consumer spending, and in turn, job creation. This can come about when tax burdens are not an issue.
For example, here in North Carolina, there is a movement to lower the corporate tax so that businesses that are enamored with the universities, diversity, talent base, and topography of North Carolina – yet move their businesses to South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia due to their tax rates – consider North Carolina more seriously when deciding to bring their organizations (and subsequent jobs) to the Southeast. This thinking led to the growth of Wachovia and Bank of America in the Queen City (versus having these banks stationed in the traditional financial capital of New York City) over the past 15 years, a phenomenon that improved the quality of life for North Carolinians in the Piedmont, including African-Americans.
This is where the betterment for us as Black people comes into play.
If history – including recent history across the globe – shows us that lower taxes and less government involvement provides the incentive needed to create more opportunities and, thus, a higher quality of life for citizens, it behooves us as African-Americans to understand, support, and participate in this principle. We can no longer sit on the sidelines and call this "white man's business" when, in fact, the global economy is now moving along this modus operandi. This involvement must include the Black middle class, especially when it is at a point of time where its size and influence are challenged. Though the reinvestment of Black capital into the market (think of "market" as in running businesses, consumer spending, college education, etc., instead of "stock market", per se), we create additional opportunities to gain equal economic footing within a 21st century America that looks primarily to economic strength as the determining factor for status versus definitions of race and ethnicity. Lower taxes – and thus more discretionary income as a result – afford Black America a chance to invest in ventures such as Black businesses, property in historically-African-American neighborhoods, and struggling Historically Black Colleges and Universities. The vitality of such entities is where the empowerment of the Black community lies, particularly since these institutions are often more willing and better equipped to provide opportunities for younger African-Americans that are talented but underexposed as they attempt to compete globally.
History shows us that free market principles and subsequent policies lead to a higher quality of life for citizens. It also shows that more government, more control, and more taxes often lead to a dampening of the quality of life, usually due to a decrease in quality, efficiency, and opportunity. Again, the previous failures of countries such as India and Russia under economic and political impositions come to mind as examples.
Of course, deregulation to the point of being ruled by impractical (or lenient) policies and greed is not the answer, either. However, the ability for those with money (not just the very rich, but those with the ability to create wealth – including jobs) to have opportunities to invest their money – and create avenues for a higher quality of life for more people as a result– is foundational in our economic turnaround. This can not occur if we are cutting taxes on 95% of all Americans, adding new federal spending by the count of over $800 billion, and increasing the tax burden on those that can directly impact economic movement.
When the Americans government spends, we create more debt. When the American people spend, the wheels of business churn and the heart of our economy pumps. Lower taxes give a better chance of making this happen sooner than later.
____________________
Lenny McAllister is the Political Guru for Fox News - Charlotte and blogs the Republican side of the election for BlackVoices. He is a frequent contributor to The Charlotte Post and The North Carolina Conservative.

Comments: (23)
Add a comment
By: mstran on 10/19/2008 1:55PM
"Which candidate do you think it more likely to break that stranglehold?"
I don't like either plan very much. We all seen how taking taxes from one group to give to another with no question asked is a handout "charity"
Goverment was to big roads and make coinage, Goverments roll was to make business growth. Not take frrom the taxes to just give out as handouts, but use taxes to make growth possiable.
If both sides would come togather they could fix the economy in one shot.
Energy, health issues, jobs, and the market. just image this with out me going into to much detail
-- Nuclear plants takes about 20,000 people to biuld a plant in 7-9 years. Also those nearby areas benifit like supply warehouses, food, entertanment, and services. Which past plants had about 1bn to build. takes over 10 year period.
-- If projects like high speed rails is put in as a state project 500miles of track could be done in 4-5 years, the people would be employeed of about 15,000 workers, and local area business, constrution compaies, and draft & design.
lets say 3bn costs
-- also open drilling but that comes in later to this.
crunch the figures respectivly and over shoot money need
1 plant 20,000 5bn +10,000 local people benifit
1 rail 15,000 5bn + 10,000 local people benifit
If every state had 1 plant & 2 rail corridors the total would be
1 million new people working across the country for 10 years build nuclear plants
.5 million local people benifiting from the projects.
1.5 million new people working on rail construction projects.
.5 million local people benifiting from the projects.
Thats is 2.5 million new jobs for ten years & a million people & local business.
total price for 5bn per project times 3 in 50 states is 750bn dollars.
Wow you say thats allot?
Well not all that money has to be spent, thats because it gives a chance for other companies & people to actually invest in the projects. How?
-- Airports, amtrack can invest in the rail and so can the trucking and teamsters. Airports can invest money for those transport people checking in the terminal and either take a plane or high speed rail, this way the airport companies have a chance to MORPH the services for passagers from planes to trains.
-- Seaports and trucking companies, instead of trucking seaport cities cargo to inner state metro areas, the can have distribution centers which gives them the chance to MORPH services by alternative transports.
Ok what about the oil? As this is going on, we all know 2007-2008 gasoline consumption dropped 9%, we all know ONE rail car uses 3% energy that the same 30 people driving thier cars.
AS WE MAKE alternative high speed rails, and plants to supply electricity and some. We will see people railling from Augusta to Atlanta in an hour, VS. 3.5 hrs by plane (check in to check out), and 2.5 by car.
AS OIL CONSUMPTION is slow and reduce, the extra NEW oil which is pulled from the ground is taxed to be put towards those alternate energy projects, then as any uneeded oil surplus is building up will be DIRECTLY sold overseas and THAT MONEY goes right back into the socail security and needed medical covager plans which should never have been touch by either party over the years.
My outline is much larger then this, this is very short,
JUST in the first year we don't spend 750bn dollars, thats is just a total cost, the first year puts somany people to work and can afford thier homes which stimulates the banks, Companies taking loans to work on the projects or benifit from it coming through the area. Mega corp putting money into the projects to Morph their services to the new Alternate transportions. and at the end of the 1st year, income taxes can be seen cycling back the the budget.
Show not all the 750bn dollars would go straight to plants and rails, but we need that as a stepping stone to get off or curb oil need till we can mass produce 100% green cars. any % of the money not spent in the years as they go, can go directly to research, because people & Business will be directly buying in shares to the projects via direct tax money of the 750bn.
Just in 5 years, think of all the tourism generated from a inland city like Atlanta railling down to Savanna for the day in about 2.5 hrs!
** Or if a coastal evacuation is need the amount of people you can move away from the coast in a timely mannar.
BUT this is why I don't agree to tax the tax payer or inject it directly to failing systems.
Across the USA people want good paying jobs, not a one time handout for a couple $1k's, sure it might help put food on the table that month, but what about the other 11 months.
But if one goes into detail, 750bn really would not even be need because of how people & businesses can invest into it, and in the first year you have started to create hundreds of thousands of jobs which are taxable the first year.
That is growth injection to directly make jobs, NOT JUST HAND OVER 750bn dollars to the compaines which have failed, ruined many taxpayers over the past 10 years, and just HOPE it makes jobs.
Neither one will grab the bull by the horns and make direct jobs while fixing (planning) how to reduce our forgien energy problems and put money back into the health, medical, and Social security.
You can play the numbers all you want, or change the project per state, but direct job creation is need which effects the above USA problems directly as well.
even home loans is a very simple fix without kick peole out, letting the bank claim it as a total loss, or have to buy up 100% of the home, all you need is t
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: mstran on 10/19/2008 10:40PM
I lost part of my point,
Just think of all the new High skilled jobs, after the 7-9 years a just nuclear plants alone need about
1000 people to run one plant, not including all the roaming labors from site to site during outages.
Just think all the new jobs created, parents sending there kids to collage and be proud that their kids can have a chance for a high skill job, or have thier own company which support services to such projects after collage.
WE NEED JOBS for our kids to have in ten years also.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Davon P. on 4/24/2009 3:30AM
Small business is part of the backbone of the American economy. A recession and economy in which credit is unbelievably tight makes it very hard for small business owners to operate. Legislation is currently being introduced that would make things a bit easier on small business owners, who may benefit from not having to look into short term loans as often. They are trying to lower business taxes, such as the Medicare tax and social security tax that takes a bite out of small business budgets, which may provide them with a little debt relief.
Reply to this Comment | Report This