Carolyn of NBC's Apprentice is FIRED!

I was a big fan of NBC's the Apprentice craze when the show first came out. Early on you could actually gather a better understanding of the competitive nature of business and you could see the rise of creativity when individuals were under pressure. Over time I still watch occasionally, but the show has become a little more silly over time. Street Smart Vs. Book Smart was a disaster, in my opinion. What I have found, is that it is usually best to have both, although neither are a deal maker or breaker.

However, if there is one thing I have learned from the show, is that you better put the boss first. Especially if he is Donald Trump. This is a harsh lesson that one of the Donald's closest assistants learned earlier this week. Carolyn Kepcher, the often harsh ice lady who helped point to the Donald who deserved the axe on his hit show, found herself the victim of his wrath as well.

Trying to put her best face forward on the issue, she released the following statement: "After 11 years with the Trump Organization, Donald and I had different visions for my future role in the company," Kepcher said in a statement. "Donald has been an extraordinary boss and a great mentor over the years, and I will always be grateful for the opportunities and experiences he has provided me."

Her former boss was a little more select in his words saying: "Mr. Trump wishes Carolyn the best," through his Real Estate rep, Jim Dowd, as seen on E! News.

So why the nasty break-up? According to sources in the Trump organization, the Donald got frustrated over her outside activities. Rumor has it she was less and less interested in her day to day operations and is now bringing in over $25,000.00 a speech.

It would seem to me that it would make sense to keep Carolyn on in a role as a spokesperson for the company. Her giving $25,000 speeches and the Trump Organization making part of it would seem very lucrative for everyone involved. Plus she would seem to be an excellent help in building the Trump brand. Through such they could simply shift her responsibilities to other parties. But they decided that wasn't in the organization's best interest. Why wasn't there room for her in the future?

• Could it be because Trump wanted to make room for his daughter, Ivanka, who had already become Trump's female side kick for the 6th season of the series?
• Could it be that she had actually out grown Trump and is maneuvering to flap her own wings away from her long time mentor and Trump simply beat her to the punch?
• Could it be there is room for only Trump as the brand's spokeperson?
• Could it be that she wasn't actually representing Trump any more in her activities and she behaved like a person who had already left the nest?
• Or was it in order to create a little excitement for a show that has lost some steam? The only firing that could have been more "sexy" would be if Donald had fired himself. Not likely.

Whatever happened is pure speculation by me. But the bottom line lesson for me is that you better meet the needs of your particular boss. If you don't, you could find yourself a victim of the axe. I hope for your sake that we don't find it on the cover of national magazines and on the home pages of major publications.

Giving Clinton His Due

Most Presidents accomplish very little in the legacy department during their tenure. Policy changes are relatively common and usually changed again by someone else. Presidents are fortune to leave one major legacy and it usually requires two terms. Reagan left a few, which is why he is held in such high regards by others. He changed the debate on taxes from one of the patriotic position paying as much as possible without complaining to holding the government accountable by demanding they tax less. Further, he profoundly convinced people that tax increases not only hurt the economy, but often fail to actually increase revenues. On the foreign policy front, Reagan developed the concept of "peace through strength," convinced the Soviets of the rise of the strategic defense initiative (AKA "Star Wars") and largely ended the Cold War without a shot being fired. Before Reagan, "Mutual Assured Destruction" (MAD) was considered the wise position of strength. Reagan believed and convinced enough Americans that the acronym was a good name for this philosophy.

The first President Bush left virtually no long term legacy. Hampered by a single term (largely, in my opinion, for failing to keep his promise not to raise taxes), Bush was largely lucky to leave with minimal damage reputation wise.

The current President Bush has developed a policy of preemptive defense (e.g., in Iraq), but the jury is out on whether on not that will create a legacy. A legacy is noted by how it effects future policy, not just current governing. Also, he has made an articulate argument for Social Security reform that certainly had the potential of leaving a positive legacy. But right now that is a dream. Bush II, as legacy maker, is in question.

What about President Clinton? Any regular listener of my radio show or anyone who has read my articles or books know how I feel about Clinton. He was an embarrassment on several fronts. There is, however, one area I must give him his due and that is welform reform. A policy for which we are celebrating a 10th anniversary. I believe we can call it a legacy because it is still in tact and Congress is entertaining on how to build on it. When welform reform was pursued in 1996 it had three objectives: to reduce dependency on welfare and foster employment, to slow down and reduce child poverty, and to reduce out of weklock births and promote marriage. It clearly succeeded in all three fronts.

The following are a few facts:

• Following the passage of this bill in 1996, welfare caseloads declined in earnest and has fallen 56 percent since then.
• There has been a hundred percent increase in employment among young single mothers age 18 to 24 since passage of this bill.
• Between 1995 and 2003, overall unwed childbearing has increased very slowly, only 2.4 percentage points, a fourth of the pre-reform rate of increase of 7.7 percent annually (and at over 40 percent when the bill passed into law).

This bill has succeeded and the legacy continues to expand as Congress considers tackling other means tested programs besides AFDC, which was centerpiece in the 1996 act. I encourage everyone to review some of the events and papers surrounding the ten year anniversary of this important law by visiting the Heritage Foundation's site commemorating it. I also encourage people to contact their Member of Congress and encourage them to take further action towards ending welfare as we know it.

For the many cynics out there (I know, I'm often one of them) who believe Clinton was forced to pass this legislation by a Republican Congress, I disagree. In the early 1980s when I was a student at Abilene Christian University, I remember reading about a young governor who offered hope to conservatives who thought the Democratic Party was entirely liberal. This governor actually supported a pro-life position and spoke widely about "ending welfare as we know it" and "replacing welfare with workfare." That governor was Bill Clinton and he wasn't a "Johnny come lately" on the welfare issue. And although he clearly lost his conservative leanings in some (if not most) issues, he didn't on that one, and the results have been nothing short of profound. And what he has left in this one important area is a legacy we should build on.

I also believe it took a Clinton. More than likely if there had been a Republican President, the proposal would have been shot down as cold hearted, even with a Republican majority. It was the right bill, for the right Congress and, most importantly, the right President, at the right time.

The Rise of HoustonBusiness.com

Recently I put "Houston business law" in Google and up appeared Shahara Wright on page 1. Later I put in "Houston factoring" and up came Steve Hansen, very high on page 1. Out of curiosity I tried "Houston Business Brokering" and, again, a very high on page 1 Ralph Fain. Google searches are probably the most common way individuals find businesses today. What do these people have in common? They are all Business Show Advisors and were found, not on their own websites, but through HoustonBusiness.com. Many businesses pay tens of thousands of dollars to get noticed on the web through optimization, but fail to do the simple step of making sure they are found on sites such as HoustonBusiness.com. Yet the cost of being in a directory such as HoustonBusiness.com is only $4.95 a month. I'm not criticizing optimization services, and can recommend some excellent companies for such, but it makes sense to do the simple things such as get seen in places that search engines easily find.

HoustonBusiness.com has become, in just a few short years, one of the largest trafficked web sites in the Houston area. According to Alexa, an Amazon company that monitors web traffic, HoustonBusiness.com is ranked number one for companies when "Houston Business" are put in its engine. Considering the number of businesses that have that name, that's an impressive number.

HoustonBusiness.com has over 750,000 hits by over 70,000 unique visitors each month. It is widely promoted on the Internet, supported by a business radio show on CNN 650 (the Houston Business Show, and by three billboards that over 500,000 people see daily. According to MarketLeap.com, HoustonBusiness.com has close to 9,000 web sites linked to it, showing the power of its presence on the web.

Again, businesses can get the most basic listing for only $4.95 a month and a premier listing (which includes greater prominence, radio promotion, and newsletter promotion) for only $19.95 a month. Find out about both by sending us an email.

I don't normally do such brash self-promotion, but every business that takes itself seriously in Houston, needs to have a presence on HoustonBusiness.com. Its a very affordable way to take one's business far.

Minimum Wage, Minimal Thinking

Recently one of my sons, overhearing a news story about minimum wage, asked me the question “dad, why is minimum wage so low?” I was surprised he knew what minimum wage was, but was glad to have the discussion with him. I asked him, “how low is too low?” He said it was “around 5 bucks.” Pretty close, it is $5.15. I asked him why he thought it was so low. He said “it isn’t enough money.” I said, “no, why do you think they set it at such a low rate?” “Oh, I don’t know. It would be great if it were $10, $20, or even more an hour.” “What if the job isn’t worth more than $5.15 an hour?” He looked puzzled. “I guess the job would go away.” “So if Congress raises it to $7.25, what happens to jobs worth less than that?” He now looked concerned. He said, “gone too?” Than he asked, “why do they have minimum wage at all?” I think he is getting it. Congress is arguing that, after almost ten years and a strong economy, it is time for an increase. Furthermore, Republicans (who are, oddly, the chief supporter of this increase) can go back home and campaign as doing something for the little guy.

Many economists are minimizing the negative impact, saying that the economy can absorb the increase. But historically, such increases have led to increases in unemployment for the people that are suppose to benefit most from such a policy – young people, minorities, and the under skilled. There have always been increases in unemployment with increases in minimum wage.

Furthermore, the problems won’t end there. My wife, who is far more perceptive when it comes to economics than most Members of Congress remarked, “this is going to increase prices” and “whatever amount people get in increase wages will be eaten up with higher costs.” She understands that costs are derived by a several key factors, one of the biggest is labor. When labor costs go up, so do prices. Good-bye higher wages.

So who are the chief beneficiaries of a minimum wage increase? The first are the politicians who will likely convince voters of their compassion through passing this wage increase. The second is the government, which will probably enjoy increased revenue because of higher sales (and even income taxes) because of the higher costs that will follow.

The losers will likely be the very people this is suppose to benefit – young people, minorities, and the under skilled. Minimum wage, minimal thinking, we certainly deserve better in our land of opportunity.

Orlando Sanchez for Harris County Treasurer

I've recently got involved in a new networking group called The Executive Committee, which is designed to be something of an Uber Networking organization. It is really quite new, but the recent attendees have been extremely impressive. Recently, former Houston City Councilman Orlando Sanchez spoke to the group about several key issues and what is going on in the political process in general.

For those who don't remember, Orlando twice ran unsuccessfully for mayor of Houston in two relatively tight races (especially the first one in which he won the majority of the vote in the general, but lost an extremely tight run off). In a weird twist of fate, he unsuccessfully challenged County Treasurer Jack Cato in the Republican Primary. Cato won that race, but surprisingly lost his life shortly thereafter. Precinct Chairs of the Republican Party voted to replace Cato and 66 percent favored Sanchez. He will be the Republican nominee. Meanwhile, Democrats are rallying to actually get rid of this office because of that Party's apparent concern of a Hispanic being elected to such an office as a Conservative Republican.

Orlando's critics have said for years that he is simply too Anglo. The popular joke about Mr. Sanchez is that the only thing Hispanic about him is his name. Those who say that, simply don't know him. There is a Latin immigrant stereotype that, frankly, paints an entire race with a very broad brush and both parties tend to want to exploit that view. Orlando is definitely Hispanic and is proud of that heritage. He just came to this country in a way that most people in the media are simply unaware. His parents came here legally when he was very young and were originally from Cuba. Pre-1960 Cubans (like the Sanchez family) are strong believers in traditional family values, limited government, anti-Communism, and a respect for law. In fact, some of the strongest opponents of illegal immigration are members of this unique demographic group. People don't recognize him as Hispanic because the media (which is the vehicle who tends to shape a candidate's image) has a very one dimensional view of this ethnic group. Further, I would say, a very racist view of both Orlando and Hispanics in general. Don't get me wrong here, the bulk of Hispanics who have come since the 1960s share conservative values and interested in working hard, contributing to the American Dream, and taking care of their families. The media doesn't understand them as well.

On the stump, Orlando is very articulate. The media has treated him as "dry" and even "unconvincing" in media reports, but in his presentation, he was very powerful. He gave everyone the sense that he was speaking to us individually. He actually has a very powerful style of communication and I believe that would translate well in his leadership.

His presentation had little to do with the County Treasurer race. Instead, a significant focus was on immigration. He is a very strong believer in immigration, but an even bigger advocate of the law. He believes that America's national sovereignty hangs in the balance without a reform approach that keeps the borders safer and our expectations of future citizens, higher. Although I'm sure he had this focus because he thought it would be interesting to this audience, many of us had the sense that he really should be pursuing something on the state or even federal level. I say this because those type of issues seem to be his passion. Yet, I only became more convinced that he is competent to lead on many levels, including County Treasure and wish he could have been our mayor. He's still young and certainly has plenty of time to make a continued difference in public policy. I believe the Republican Party should do all it can to get him in front of larger audiences and in higher offices. He is good for business, the county, the country and for the Republican Party.

I didn't entirely agree with him on the issue of immigration. I, personally, have this sense that if roles were reversed, I might be tempted to do whatever I could to get in this country. Further, I believe our economy needs the large number of immigrants we have and will continue to need them in the further. But his sincerity is huge and I know he hates the staus quo which makes so many believe their only choice is an illegal one.

Mr. Sanchez is articulate, intelligent, and speaks with candor. I believe he would be excellent for many offices and look forward to voting for him for County Treasurer.

The above is a personal endorsement of Kevin Price and not that of CNN 650, HoustonBusiness.com, or HoustonBusinessReview.com