Long banned under the U.S. Constitution are federal minority set-aside programs. These
laws were once used to target and stimulate minority private sector
growth. Changing that law is not likely on the list of to-dos for a new
2017 Republican administration despite its stated interest in embracing
support in minority and impoverished political places. However, should the Trump Administration now revisit Empowerment Zones (EZs) to fight economically blighted areas? Could this be the political charge into communities long thought lost to Republicans? What happens if EZs disproportionately help minorities...okay…? Could
this become the “doable” Republican agenda item that soundly answers
the pre-election demand of “What have you got to lose” to minority and
poor communities around the United States, asking them to further
support a Republican candidate through an invitation back to an American
private sector they were told was beholden to the American one percent
and as such, of no use to them? The EZ concept arose
out of an effort to encompass a geographic area in which policies are
implemented to encourage economic growth and development. This
enterprise zone concept was brought to the forefront of the U.S. policy
arena in a bipartisan effort by two former New York congressmen, then
Congressmen Jack Kemp and Robert Garcia. The early idea generated considerable support among conservatives readily because it was based on free-market principles of private investment, reduced regulation, and no large-scale public spending. However, it was Democratic President Bill Clinton
who further advanced this concept by creating Empowerment Zones and
Enterprise Communities for highly distressed urban and rural
communities. President Clinton used a combination of grants, tax credits
for businesses, bonding authority and other benefits and passed the Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities initiative of August 10, 1993. Then sitting President Clinton also referred to the use of zones as a “reformation of affirmative action.” The final product was indeed a zone of sorts, however it
suffered from standard pro-government twists and tape that arguably
eliminated any true liberation of the free market in the zones
themselves. Since then, EZs have limped forward with extensions of tax credits and have been renewed every so often through piecemeal legislative efforts. One
can only wonder what would be the political result of a 2017 private
sector Republican President embracing a pro-private sector initiative
with…corporate private-sector buy-in and support? Would this be a radical step toward economic healing and growth in often heavily populated minority communities? What
affect would President Trump have on companies if he spoke toward
better chances at federal contracts and even more favorable taxes for
any company doing business in economically blighted communities often a
few close miles away from major corporate facilities? Would corporate America step up and step into the zone? Yes and they would publish it particularly if EZs were reworked into a truly pro-free market focus. Economic
inclusion, especially under law, is race neutral, and can steer clear
of the sticky politics which could derail such efforts. The Center for
International Private Enterprise defines Economic Inclusion as follows: Economic inclusion refers
to equality of opportunity for all members of society to participate in
the economic life of their country as employers, entrepreneurs,
consumers, and citizens. EZs can avoid the political problems arising on
the right by soundly supporting, advocating, promoting and bragging
about neutral EZs that would harness the might of the American private
sector to serve the economic least fortunate. Disenfranchised
Americans could first-hand recognize the effects of proper deregulation
policy, American ingenuity and how they too can participate. EZ’s
can be justified and also defined by economic measures including but
not limited to factors such as unemployment, income, and percentage of
government assistance recipients. See Adarand Constructors, Inc. v.
Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995). Federal
contracting carrots for businesses willing to enter the zone, set up
shop or otherwise work in the zones could radically change the political
landscape making the private sector the answer it has always been, not
the modern day scapegoat some want it to be. EZs were
birthed by a prominent Republican Congressman in a bipartisan effort
furthered by a sitting Democratic President, then politically sidelined
with attacks on the private sector these past few years. EZs, if seized
and tweaked by this Administration, could potentially redefine the
parameters of minority politics for a generation to come. Perhaps
President Bill Clinton was right in saying “No amount of affirmative action can create opportunity where there was none.” Perhaps this time, care needs to be taken to not saddle
EZs with an over-reliance on community power brokers who may feel
threatened by a rebirthing of private sector independence in their
communities? Instead, EZs should be overhauled to give true meaning and
freedom to participants to economically heal our communities. This
opportunity to lead is ripe and waiting for the Trump Administration.
It is also a glaring political opening into minority and impoverished
communities tired of decades of failed promises. I suppose the question
for the Administration now becomes, “what have you got to lose?” The Hill
Gerardo (Jerry) H. Gonzalez is a pro-free market advocate and a board member of Wisconsin based think tank MacIver Institute, which promotes free markets, individual freedom, personal responsibility and limited government. He is managing partner of Gonzalez Law, LLC, located in Arizona and Wisconsin. Gonzalez Law, LLC