Dick Armey, Majority whip in the House said, "The Fed has done its job. Now it's time for us to do ours. I believe it is vitally important that Congress move quickly to enact a pro-growth tax cut that could help avert a recession."

His specific recommendations include:

Congress should pass President-elect Bush's meaningful and fiscally responsible $1.3 trillion tax cut, representing one quarter of the projected surplus over the next decade.

Tax cuts should be pro-growth to help avert a recession. The best proposals are the president's across-the-board income tax rate cut and proposals to expand 401(k) plans and IRAs.

Tax cuts should be retroactive to January 1, 2001. If taxes can be raised retroactively, they can be cut retroactively.

Congressman Armey went on to say, "We've all heard the debate over whether to move the tax cut through Congress in one package or in several pieces. Some are arguing that we should put off the income tax rate cut until later in the year. I disagree. I believe the income tax rate cut must move first, whether alone or part of a larger tax cut package. It's imperative that we cut tax rates quickly to bolster our economy."

While not a panacea for the sluggish economy the right tax could help bolster economic growth. The economic data released during the past several weeks have business leaders, Wall Street economists, and working men and women across the nation concerned about the possibility of a recession.

In January the Dow Jones Newswires reported that Morgan Stanley Dean Witter chief economist Stephen Roach "thinks the U.S. will post negative growth in the current quarter and the second, satisfying the technical definition of a recession..."

Recessions are difficult to predict. In fact, previous recessions went unnoticed by most economists until after they had begun. Even Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said, in October of 1991, "the economy has not yet slipped into a recession." That was three months into the 1991 recession.

The economy is suffering from a hike in the price of energy. The price of oil, now about $28 a barrel, is about double its price in 1999. The price of natural gas has more than quadrupled, and California's energy problems are reaching crisis proportions. As the Fed stated in a press release, high energy prices are "sapping household and business purchasing power." Money that could be invested by businesses in pro-growth activities or spent by consumers on goods and products in the marketplace is instead being spent on energy. In recent decades, previous energy price hikes of this magnitude (1991, 1979, 1973) have produced a recession.

High Tech Slowdown. Another foreboding sign is the problems in the technology sector. Technology has been the driving force in our economy, accounting for the entire increase in industrial production during the past year. The collapse of the NASDAQ, a string of dot-com bankruptcies and countless announcements of slowing profit growth in technology and other companies are strong indicators that economic growth is slowing. All these factors explain why a number of top economists on Wall Street are putting the odds of a recession at 40 percent or higher.

Mr. Armey went on to say, "The flurry of new federal regulations that (were) announced by the Clinton Administration...are going to place a heavy burden on our economy." It is estimated that the Clinton Administration issued 29,000 pages of new rules during its last few months in office, setting a new record.

Just one of these, ergonomics regulations, imposes a $6 billion mandate on employers across America. That's $6 billion that won't be spent hiring employees, increasing salaries or lowering prices for consumers.

"There is some good news. Despite these problems, most of the underlying fundamentals of our economy remain strong. The key policy changes that helped create the long wave of prosperity that began in the early 1980s-sound money, relatively low tax rates, free trade-remain in place. The tech revolution, which benefited from these policies, has also clearly increased the potential of our economy to grow," Mr. Armey said.

The Majority whip believes that the answer to the economic problems facing us is to pass a tax cut. "And not just any tax cut, but a pro-growth tax cut."

His plan spelled out in January of this year calls for a tax rate cut that encourages growth because it provides individuals with a greater incentive to save, invest and start new businesses.

He believes that a cut should be broad and fair. "That's why it is critical that we enact a tax cut this year that contains the chief element in President George W. Bush's tax plan: across-the-board cuts in income tax rates. It should also contain the expansion of 401(k) plans and IRAs that overwhelmingly passed the House last year."

Congressman Armey believes that a balanced tax cut package should contain a number of other important provisions. Out of a concern for fundamental fairness, any tax cut should address the marriage penalty and eliminate the death tax (which also helps boost growth because the government doesn't wreck family farms and small businesses).

A rate cut meets the simplicity and fairness tests too. A rate cut is simple and doesn't add complexity to the code. It is the fairest way to cut taxes because it treats all taxpayers equally.

Dick Armey believes that this reduction would be a move toward a flat tax that is "simple, fair and pro-growth as any federal tax regime could be. A flat tax would tax all income at one low rate, eliminate the unfair marriage penalty and death tax, and end the double taxation of savings by providing what amounts to an unlimited, universal Roth IRA. It would also allow Americans to file their taxes on a postcard-size form.

"Critics of tax cuts will find any reason to oppose giving the American people some of their money back. They will say that the Federal Reserve can do more to boost the economy by cutting interest rates than Congress can by cutting taxes. That's probably true, but it's beside the point. Mr. Greenspan has his job, and he will cut interest rates as he sees fit. And we have our job too, which includes bolstering the economy by passing a fiscally responsible, pro-growth tax cut.

"Critics will also argue that a tax cut won't take effect in time to do any good. To be honest, I share this concern. I'm worried that a tax cut that doesn't begin until 2002 and is slowly phased in over a number of years won't do much to help our economy this year and next year-when it really needs it. That's why tax cuts should be made retroactive, so the impact can be felt almost immediately."