Sarah Palin's rise raises Questions about Conservative Women

Sarah Palin is all the rage as she promotes her new book, Going Rogue: An American Life. She was a conservative darling before she wrote the book and all the more so now that this book is being promoted by the former governor and GOP nominee for Vice President.

Columnist Jedediah Bila pointed out in a recent article that Palin's book conveys the qualities that made her a star in the 2008 Presidential campaign, noting "Palin almost immediately establishes herself as someone who reveres the ideals that she cherishes most — her faith, her family, and her liberty — but who also has a pungent distaste for the hypocrisy of the political machine: 'But it seemed that every level of government I encountered was paralyzed by the same politics-as-usual system. I wasn't wired to play that game' (5). She later echoes a kindred reflection: '...I had to live with my own conscience, so I voted according to my principles and let the chips fall where they may' (66). Palin pledges allegiance to her convictions and both the Alaska and United States constitutions, but not to her party, narrating several instances when she confronted GOP waste and corruption, choosing instead to side with her self-proclaimed 'commonsense conservatism': 'At the time, both parties, nationally and locally, were spending uncontrollably. No wonder voters couldn't tell Republicans from Democrats'" (146).

In spite of the fact her messaged resonated so clearly with many Americans and some could argue that she nearly pulled the McCain campaign out of the jaws of defeat, I believe that Palin and other women and minorities face a serious handicap when running for national office. That handicap is the mainstream media.

I have been arguing in my column, in interviews, and on my radio program, that the mainstream media will do everything in its power to prevent a conservative female or minority from being elected to national office. The left has believed that minorities and women would have no political power without the liberal agendas of the past. The left wants to keep these groups on an ideological plantation, with women and minorities marching in lockstep. I assume the progressives don't realize that the idea behind giving these groups their freedom was to empower them to be able to disagree with their agenda. That is, after all, what freedom is about.

Many on both the left and right disagree. They point out people like Bay Buchanan, who has enjoyed a successful career as a political consultant; yet she has never faced the scrutiny of the election process. To me, she is a weak argument.

Another popular example is Elizabeth Dole. There is no doubt about it; Dole has had an impressive career. Former Secretary of Labor, former Secretary of Transportation, and an US Senator, Dole has certainly had a career filled with accomplishments. Unfortunately, these individuals are missing the point. You can point to many successful conservative females in politics, but we only have one that was on a national ticket and that was Sarah Palin. Now Dole has run for national office, but had little to show for it. She was an interesting novelty, but not a serious candidate by any measure.

The only way to test my thesis is to apply it only to female candidates who have actually had the nomination for national office. Enter Sarah Palin. Palin was literally butchered by the mainstream media by every measure. The thought of Palin as Vice President provided nightmares to the left and to the media that largely supports a liberal agenda. Attention women and minorities, if you are serious about national office, you better be prepared to worship at the alter that "got you there." Other wise, we better be prepared to change the way the media looks at women and minorities.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Capitalism and Morality

I am a fan of Glenn Beck. I like his shows, website, and enjoy his books. Recently I spent some time with his latest, Arguing with Idiots. The book is excellent, although I choose to not waste my time with idiots since there are so many "sincere undecideds" that I believe are open to a better way of thinking about policy issues. He tackles several of the key headline issues that we hear about daily and clearly shows the insanity on the left when it comes to approaching our national problems. However, I had a very difficult time with his view of capitalism.

Beck's book tackles the question of capitalism from a purely utilitarian perspective, in my opinion. Capitalism, he argues, is not right or wrong, but is simply the most efficient. He recognizes the role of human behavior and the fact that capitalism clearly leads to better results, but in the end he says it as neither bad nor good. I could not disagree more. Capitalism is the most moral economic system in the history of the world.

Command economies -- be they communist, socialist, democratic socialist, or whatever -- have the following immoral characteristics:

• The government is a common vehicle for theft, taking money from one group to give to another in pursuit of political, social or other objectives. The taking of money from some to give to others is little more than stealing. Just because it has taken the power to do it, it does not make it right. Government expenditures are only "moral" when they benefit everyone and show special interest to no one. Furthermore, it must be in areas that the government is the only one that can do it.


• These types of governments have monetary policies that print money to pay for government programs (inflation), which devalue all other money in an economy. When individuals or crime syndicates do this, we call it producing counterfeit money, when government does it we call it business as usual. A truly capitalistic economy would depoliticize the currency and link it to gold or other precious metals to preserve the currency's value.


• These economies create social distortions on a macro level that we would never want on a micro level. We would not want families to be subsidized in a manner that encourages divorce so the children would receive more money, we would not want to reward poverty and waste or discourage individuals from increasing their income. These type of distortions are common in these types of command economies, but are contrary to free markets.

Few can honesty argue against capitalism's power to produce jobs, new technology, better opportunities, and personal economic growth. But these are only part of a much more important system. I guess it is fine if one wants to reduce the virtues of capitalism to efficiency, but to me it is selling one of the most powerful -- and moral -- systems far too short. Capitalism embodies liberty, efficiency, and morality. The most important and persuasive, is its morality. That is a high ground that should be taken in the war of ideas.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Earmarks Reflect a Bigger Problem

At the height of the 2008 Presidential campaign, John McCain finally began to make traction in one important area, which was earmarks. McCain, who was never a purist in the eyes of most conservatives when it came to government spending, did have an excellent track record in this area compared to Barack Obama. Generally, most Americans were more comfortable with McCain over Obama on this issue.

Although this issue gathered some stream for a short period of 2008, in 2009 it has fallen entirely off the radar screen, thanks to multi-trillion dollar bailouts and an exploding national debt. It simply does not seem that important to most policy makers.

This is too bad, because earmarks are an excellent indicator of the moral decay in the Congress and the total disregard of elected officials when it comes to taxpayer dollars. A few months ago, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) released its annual Congressional Pig Book, which went largely unnoticed by the media. In it, the book revealed over 10,000 earmarks, worth $19.6 billion from 11,610 in fiscal year 2008 to 10,160 in fiscal year 2009, the total tax dollars spent to fund them increased by 14 percent, from $17.2 billion to $19.6 billion.

Tom Schatz, the President of CAGW noted that "Everyone in Washington has promised a new era of transparency and restraint in earmarks, from President Obama to the leaders of both parties in Congress. Sadly, the hard numbers from the 2009 appropriations bills tell a different story. The current Democratic congressional majority is following the same trajectory as their Republican predecessors. They came into power promising to cut earmarks, and made a big show of it during their first two years. However, as the 2009 Pig Book amply illustrates, pork-barrel spending is growing fast." That is largely the story of pork. It is an excellent target of cowardly politicians fighting for the political life, but is no longer an issue when elected officials sit in decision making.

The new transparency rules were intended to get ridiculous bills out in the light, however CAGW uncovered over 220 earmarks worth over $7.8 billion that violated Congress's own rules. The book is only a "best of" the worst forms of government spending. There are many more not in the book that will certainly get you angry, but CAGW's examples are powerful and include:

• $3.8 million for the Old Tiger Stadium Conservancy in Detroit;


• $1.9 million for the Pleasure Beach water taxi service in Connecticut;


• $1.8 million for swine odor and manure management research in Ames, Iowa;


• $380,000 for a recreation and fairgrounds area in Kotzebue, Alaska;


• $143,000 for the Greater New Haven Labor History Association in Connecticut;


• $95,000 for the Canton Symphony Orchestra Association in Ohio; and$71,000 for Dance Theater Etcetera in Brooklyn for its Tolerance through Arts initiative.

A million here and a million there, and the next thing you know you are discussing real dollars.
The typical reaction to these type of bills is balance budget amendments and line item vetoes. These reforms are mere band aids that do not address the larger question of the areas that the government are allowed to spend. That would require a closer examination of the US Constitution and an adherence to Article I, Section 7 of that document. Doing such would not only cut into the billions of irresponsible pork, but attack the trillions in spending that threatens the future of our country. Now that would be change I would appreciate.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Obamacare's war on the Poor

There are, in public policies, these inconvenient things called the "secondary effects." These are the unintended consequences of even the best intended laws. Critics of Obama's national health care program have questioned its intentions from day one. Few doubt the program will lead to a serious rationing of health care (adding 40 million on the system and allegedly lowering spending will have that impact) and will lead to increase taxes for millions of Americans.

According to public opinion surveys, the number one issue of most voters is unemployment. This sentiment is backed up by the hard fact that unemployment recently broke into double digits, increased employment is still dragging, and the numbers added to the dole are still in the hundreds of thousands each month. One of the main deterrents to the creation of jobs is taxes. Obamacare is nothing short of a direct tax on labor and the cheapest labor in particular.

Writer Eric Staib has spent some serious time with this massive legislation that will change health care and the economy forever. He points out that "According to pages 269-273 of the gargantuan bill, employers of full-time workers will be required to cover at least 72.5 percent of the premium of the least expensive health-insurance plan available that fulfills the bill's minimum criteria of 'acceptable coverage.' In cases in which family coverage is provided, 62.5 percent of the premium is to be borne by the employer. Depending on the specific plan and other variables such as location, this amounts to a direct labor tax of approximately $300 per month for an individual, or nearly $700 for family coverage." Simply put, that means an additional cost of $300 a month for adding an employee and more than twice that if he or she has a family. This, of course, leads to discrimination of potential employees if they have a family.

To make matters worse, if adding $300 or $700 to a preexistent employee and the return being given back to the company is worth less than that, he or she might be laid off or find themselves part time. That leads to another problem, Obama's bill leaves the definition of part-time in terms of the health care bill to Obama's Czar on the subject and not the Department of Labor. The lower the number of hours are used in defining part-time, the fewer the hours people will have at a job. It will create a devastating cycle.

The political left claims to hate regressive taxes (those that get higher as you make less income), but that is exactly what this bill promises to be. The less productive (lower paid) employee will be the one in the business decision makers' crosshairs. Instead of improving the lot of those who are in need of national health care, this legislation promises to do them more harm by also making them unemployed or under employed.

Another unintended consequence of this bill, but certainly tied in to it, will be the continued growth of outsourcing to foreign countries as a viable way of doing business. Cheap labor that is around the world will be a more attractive source for getting things done. Instead of helping the working poor and those who aspire to rise up the economic ladder, Obamacare promises to make the "working poor", simply "poor."

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

The Road to Serfdom is Paved with Exceptions

For decades I have been sitting across the table from politicians, authors, business leaders, and economists as guests on one of the radio. There have been a few that believe that the government is the solution to virtually every problem. Government needs to solve health care, housing, poverty, and more. The vast majority believe that freedom works. They will be quick to say government does too much and that its role should be strictly limited.

These conversations tend to run a similar course. They will say the "free market is so amazing and powerful, it is able to create jobs and new industries. It is terrible that government seems to do everything in its power to undermine the economy's potential." However, you dig a little deeper and then you start finding exceptions. Most of the time those exceptions are based on what they do for a living. Attorneys who represent clients who have suffered property damage will say, "they support free enterprise, except when it comes to the regulations they place on insurance companies." The farmer will tell you, "I definitely support free enterprise, except when it comes to agriculture subsidies." Scientists definitely believe the economy is best left alone "except when it comes to research grants." You get the idea.

As a result, the United States is, largely, socialistic. We can argue to what extent, but there is no doubt what our country has become. The single biggest (and fastest growing) part of our GDP is government and it has evolved over the decades to accommodate exceptions like those above. Now we have millions of Americans who support free enterprise, "except." That "except" is bankrupting us and destroying our freedoms.

One of the most inspiring things I ever witnessed was the "Damn Right" campaign for President of Pete dupont in 1988. In that year, I actually voted for the former Delaware Governor while managing a Congressional race in West Texas. I have the feeling I was the only one who casted such a vote in that town. He lost big time in the ballot box, but his message is as potent today as it was then. Pete duPont had no problem telling farmers, seniors, scientists and anyone else that they were part of the problem and that everyone would have to sacrifice in order to restore our freedoms. It was "damn right" for people to carry their own weight and not seek government as a solution.

Those who founded this Republic were aware that it was the natural tendency of government to expand over time. That is why they believed in the dispersion of power and they wanted to make changes in policy hard to achieve. The states would not ratify the Constitution with its "necessary and proper clause" that could be used for all form of abuses, without a Tenth Amendment that makes it perfectly clear that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Those who created this republic saw a nation of nations, with each state offering their own unique approaches to solving problems. They believed that each of these states served as a check to the others because people could leave that state to another that provided more freedom. The decline in our liberties and the increase in socialism, are all linked to the undermining of the political institutions in government designed to protect us from an authoritarian federal government. It is also indicative of a nation that is rapidly moving from "rule by law" to 'rule by mob." The fast track to socialism the US is taking is not driven nearly as much by philosophy as it is selfish want.

If we are interested in restoring individual freedoms and making a nation into one that has prosperity as a priority, it begins by leaving our personal preferences behind. That is a necessary part of the path to freedom to get us off the road to serfdom.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

The GOP may have a race of three

If you listen to the mainstream media, the race for the GOP nomination is pretty much a dead heat between three candidates: former governors Sarah Palin of Alaska, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. No one else needs to apply. Most would argue that John McCain was too old and certainly too moderate in 2008. Nothing has changed since then and, according to the pundits, these three are the only ones with the name identification, revenue sources, and organization to be taken seriously. Thanks to the media, they have done the vetting for us. Thank goodness, because I certainly did not want to do any of the heavy lifting.

Seriously though, is the race already history? Do we need to not get behind a candidate but simply wait for one of these three to rise to the top? I have seen several articles on the subject and although there are some times additional candidates are thrown in, the reoccurring theme includes these three candidates. Of the articles, one of the most interesting was by Paul Bedard in Washington Whispers from US News & World Reports.

Bedard recognizes there are other players in consideration for 2012, including one or two that are not on his top three lists and he already places them in the "also ran" department. These include Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. He points out that the Republican Party is not much for surprises and is big on those who have paid their dues being rewarded, noting that "In a party that allows for only a handful of big names in the primaries and favors those making a second try, the room is getting full." But this is not just the opinion of a journalist, but even among professional observers of the Party. GOP pollster Bill McInturff stated that "We already have a relatively mature field." Those that are considered most "mature" or established" include Palin, Huckabee, or Romney.

"I always talk about oxygen in a presidential primary race, with the amount of oxygen being finite, meaning attention and coverage," McInturff is quoted by Bedard. "If Governor Palin does run, it is difficult to imagine how a new candidate gets the oxygen needed for a breakout," he says. "In this way, it accrues to the advantage of already established candidates like Palin, Huckabee, and Romney."

The race is certainly not over, but the GOP is extremely cautious in its choices of candidates. I think the writer hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that "the Republican camp generally likes to nominate somebody who has run before." Call it what it is, but this is good old fashion due diligence, which is the type of approach that is common in the Republican Party. I think many, if not most, Democrats wish they had done a little more homework in its choice of a President in 2008.

The one thing that is not being included in this "conventional wisdom" is the role of the Tea Parties, which are maturing and demanding more on a daily basis. The "good old boy" network and the "get along gang" are not nearly as popular as they use to be. Of the three candidates considered in the top three, Palin is certainly the most interesting to those who consider themselves a part of the Tea Party movement. I, personally, am keeping an eye on Governors Daniel and Barbour as well as her. I think the Tea Party could change all of the rules on Presidential politics and 2012 could be an interesting year indeed.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Before you vote for another candidate...

Examples of irresponsible governing can be found everywhere and transcend political party lines. Democrats are being held by a particularly high standard these days because they are in the driver's seat. Here is a reality check, Democrats have been fairly honest about their intentions to move rapidly to government control or ownership of the means of production (socialism) for years. Those quiet critics on the side, the GOP, have been equally cooperative in that effort. Their only concern is the pace towards massive government control. Republicans should actually be held to a higher standard.

There are certain bills that were passed that I am using as a litmus test for the next election. Every candidate who supported either bailout and candidates who support socialized medicine in any form are two good examples. Those who voted for such, need to be dealt with in a manner Horatio Bunce handled one of my favorite historical characters.

When Davy Crockett (also known as the "king of the wild frontier") served in the US House of Representatives and ran for reelection. He was handled rather firmly by one of his constituents named Horatio Bunce. Bunce told Crockett that he believed in the Constitution and that Crockett had, essentially violated his oath of office. This bothered Crcokett who strongly believed in the Constitution and limited government. He wanted to know exactly what he was talking about. Bunce told him "My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?" Crockett recognized the vote and the fact that the Constitution does not give him the right to allocate those dollars. He tried to justify it because the amount was so "small."

Bunce would have none of it, "It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.' "The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'

Crockett repented for his bad decision and pledged to not do such again. When an appropriation bill came forward that was not constitutional (aid for the widow of an Admiral), he offered his own salary for a week to help her if his colleagues would join him, and if they did, the sum to be given would be higher that the appropriation. That bill to provide aid was destined to be approved until Crockett took them to task. They voted against the bill, but also kept their week's pay. Crockett got back on the House floor after the vote and noted "You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

In 2010, if your member voted for bills that are unconstitutional, hold them accountable. If they are not willing to repent, you need to look else where for candidates. Kevin Brady (R-TX), on my show indicated that if TARP had been spent differently, there would have been better results. He had no regrets other than that. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) argued that he voted for TARP because "the best minds in the country argued that the economy would collapse without this spending." Those "best minds" did not swear to defend the Constitution. Candidates who have voted for bills like this need to denounce those decisions or we must decide to denounce them.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Buffet is Bullish on Trains

There has been a great deal of buzz this week about Warren Buffet discussing a recent purchase by his company. Buffet is noted for his candor, which makes him one of the more credible voices when it comes to the status of the economy and Wall Street in particular.

Recently, Buffet was found on the Fox Business network visiting with anchor Liz Claman. In particular, he was discussing his Berkshire Hathaway's gamble into the railroad business. Just recently the company purchased Burlington Northern Santa Fe in a deal worth about $44 billion.

This is a bold move for Buffet in a shaky economy, but typical of a person who has learned to take advantage of sales that can be found when a business environment is in decline. Furthermore, with the move towards reducing energy costs in order to support the environment and save dollars, trains are a very smart form of transportation. Buffet does not buy things he is not comfortable with and had already owned 25 percent of the company before he acquire the rest of it in a recent meeting in Fort Worth, Texas.

Why trains versus trucks or other forms of transportation? Buffet told Claman that "the rails move a freight at a much more environmentally friendly way than the truckers do. And they also only use about a third of the fuel. So, it's helping...It helps in terms of the atmosphere. It is a very, very efficient, effective, environmentally friendly way of moving freight. And, you know, our rail system is a huge asset to the country."

Claman covered a topic that is extremely important to anyone concerned about transportation. She noted that trains are, in transportation, the "cheapest, best way. But then there's cap-and-trade, Warren. Some analysts are very skittish about coal and a possible backlash if cap-and-trade goes through. You mentioned now -- you said, we're going to see a diminishing of coal use. But what do you think cap-and-trade would do to the business if that went through?"

Buffet can not easily dismiss the topic, but noted "It won't change the composition of what utilities are doing tomorrow or next week or next year. The utilities over time are going to use less coal and probably more nuclear. Our own utility, for example, uses wind very substantially in Iowa. So, over time, coal is going to diminish somewhat. Now, I think that will hit Eastern coal more than Western coal, but that's a fact of life over a considerable period of time. And that's true whether there's cap-and-trade or not, yes."

One of the things that caught my eye in the interview was Buffet's discussion of his view of the dollar in this current economy, stating "You're seeing us get rid of a lot of dollars today in exchange for a lot of assets. So, I would rather own physical assets than own dollars." Why? Because of the rapid decline of the value of dollars through the printing of money. Those of us who cannot afford to purchase railroads, might want to consider precious metals as a part of an investment strategy.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.