See How They Run: Observations on the 08 Race

The 2008 election dominates the news, but some of the biggest stories in that race (in my opinion) are quite neglected. There are some developing themes that which could play a major role in the election results.

* Social activists will be motivated. The partial-birth abortion decision by the Supreme Court is the first decision in years that put any restrictions on the practice. This proved the importance to both sides that elections for President matter, because they lead to the appointment of Justices. I believe this will be a major theme through out the campaign.

* How a moderate could win the Republican nod. Frankly, I am no fan of John McCain and have written on such in this blog. The most important fiscal policy issue is, in my opinion, to understand the importance of tax cuts in keeping an economy rolling. Tax cuts and the changing of the debate on that issue has made the Republican Party a majority party for much of the last 25 years. McCain doesn't get it, he isn't pro-life either, his views on campaign finance undermine the First Amendment, but his stock is still going up as a candidate in my opinion. The trump card of all issues for many Conservatives is the war and McCain and Giuliani get it more than most of the other Republican candidates. I never believed I could ever be interested in a candidate like McCain, but the war is that important. Winning the nomination doesn't mean they win the general election, but I thought it was impossible for a moderate to win that just a few months ago.

* How Hillary Clinton could win the nomination and loose the election. Hillary is extremely polarizing as a candidate and I can't recall any in recent history who is both most beloved and entirely disliked. Furthermore, who old style of campaigning -- acting like a Southerner in the South, a Yankee in the north, and a what ever where ever she is at -- is only irritating voters, and it is captured on the news every day. She acts like we live in the old days where candidates could largely say and do what they want without fear of being caught. In the YouTube world we live in today, good luck. She is by far the most organized, has the best access to money (in spite recent fundraising reports), and is the most experienced at handling the pressure. Because of this she could win the nomination. But her personality and controversial stances will haunt her in November of 2008.

These are a few of my thoughts on the campaign, I will discuss some more growing themes as the race progresses.

See How They Run: Also, See How They Fly

The first debate for the 2008 Presidential election (photo) took place last night (can you believe it?) and the biggest story wasn't how different the candidates are from one another (there was little discussion on such), or even the difference between the Democrats and President Bush (a big part of the discussions), but about how the candidates got there.

All of these candidates have taken the nation to task because of the Global Warming issue that has become so prominent today. All of them discuss the need to conserve energy, develop better fuel alternatives, and car pool at every opportunity.

Of the 9 candidates that participated in the South Carolina debate sponsored by MSNBC, at least four of them (Clinton, Obama, Dodd and Biden) left from Washington, DC at about the same time (following the Iraq funding debate in the Senate) on four separate private planes (all of the Democratic candidates are using this mode of transportation). At a cost of around $9,000 a flight and at a huge fuel cost, you would think one of these champions for energy efficiency would have suggested jet pooling! It didn't happen, they just boarded their respective energy hogs, possibly shaking hands at the airport and wishing each other a good flight, and met each other again at the forum.

Most people are chuckling about this story, but it speaks to me about the hypocrisy that is pervasive in politics today. Candidates who pound the public over the head with their moral mandates while breaking their own rules every opportunity that get. Until a couple of elections ago, virtually every Presidential candidate traveled on the major airlines, saving their supporters dollars, helping the environment, and conserving energy. Ironically, there was little talk of Gloabl Warming in those old days. I, personally, find the hypocrisy sickening and will start reminding politicians to put their money and their actions where there mouths are.

The Stock Market Continues to Boom

The Stock Market broke 13,000, breaking a new milestone in its continued growth. That is the 35th record broken since October of 2006. Why the continued growth? New home sales are rebounding, companies are demonstrating record returns, and the unemployment levels are incredibly low.

This happens, in spite of the fact that the media continues to beat its negative drum. In fact, this is the toughest time I have seen for the Republican Party in many respects since the 1970s (post Watergate); in spite of incredible economic performance they are fighting for their political lives and have no clear leader to make sure they maintain the White House after 2008.

The growth of the economy is partially due to divided government. In spite of pledges to bring sweeping policy changes for the President to sign into law, the Democrat led Houses of Congress haven't brought a single piece of legislation down Pennsylvania Avenue for him to sign. "Do-nothing" governments often mean economic environments where businesses can grow. Furthermore, the business community's disregard of the pessimism promoted by the media keeps it humming along. The media has "cried wolf" so often, many no longer consider it a legitimate source of information of how business is performing, meaning businesses will listen to one another and operate on its own instincts. That is an essential part of the "invisible hand" of the free market that makes economies grow.

Boris Yeltsin, 1931-2007

In 1993 I was on the second of several trips I took to the former Soviet Union for an organization called the American Economic Foundation. Founded in the 1930s, the American Economic Foundation (no longer in existance) was designed to help teach people about the free enterprise system. In October of 1993 I was there as a Fellow of the Foundation doing seminars on how to convert the Communist market into a free market.

Just days before I left to go to Russia, the Communists took over the Russian "White House" (parliament building). I contacted the State Department and was assured that it should be safe, so my colleagues and I took off.

When I arrived I could tell things were different from my previous trip from a few months before. Armed soldiers were on every corner and tensions were very high. The State Department could give me every assurance that I was safe, but in the school classrooms I was lecturing about the virtues of the free market and condemning Communism. With them trying to throw over the government, I don't know if that was such a good idea at the time.

The Communists who had taken over the White House believed that friendly troops would come and back up their coup attempt and restore "order." Those troops never came. Between the time my flight left Moscow and landed in Germany, Boris Yeltsin ordered the Russian White House attacked (photo, left), the Communist surrendered and the coup was over. My trip went without incident.

With this back drop, I remember Boris Yeltsin rather fondly. The first popularly elected President in Russian history (and maybe the only one since he was followed by Vladimir Putin who has made it virtually impossible for challengers to the President to be competitive) was noted for his heavy drinking and continuous heart problems (whcih evenutally took his life); but he was also one of the first to challenge the government long before it was safe to do it. The one time Moscow Mayor was fired because of his efforts to force reformed and stood at the brink of ruin as he slowly worked his way back up the political ladder.

He often gave way to corruption in his government, he had few reforms of his own to look back upon, and his legacy is one of alchohol abuse and placing blame on others. Yet, he is also one of the most important reformers in Russian history. Arguably, he is every bit as important as Mikhail Gorbachev in the country's move from the old Soviet system.

Toyota: The Rising Sun Continues

Japan is known as the "land of the rising sun" and its chief auto maker, Toyota, continues its towering rise. This morning I was watching the Today Show and it was announced that the car maker has surpassed GM as the largest automobile producer in the world this past quarter. This is something that everyone in business and politics has been expecting for years. That time has come.

A half a century ago, there were a "Big Three" -- GM, Ford, and Chrysler -- that dominated the marketplace and no one imagined Toyota (or any other foreign auto maker) eclipsing any of them. Admittedly it is only one quarter, GM is still number one over all, but the slide for US car builders is expected to continue.

Why the decline of US auto makers? The cause is multi-fold:

* US auto makers are not nearly as nimble as their Japanese competitors. They are typically behind the curve and limping behind Japan when it comes to change.

* Japan has taken a surprisingly safe approach to auto making that gives the consumer assurances of the quality of product. It sounds "boring", but Japan's predictability in style and substance (e.g., engineering) has made it the up and coming "king of the road."

* The devastating impact of Big Labor. Unions have hampered these companies with salary and benefit packages that make it impossible for US companies to successfully compete. This is likely the number one reason.

The above are just a few examples, but Japan will continue to torment US auto makers and I expect its prominence to becomes permanent. That is destined to happen if the US doesn't do the things necessary to be competitive.

See How They Run: The Republican Quest for a Quality Candidate

My first vote in a general election was for Ronald Reagan in 1980 at the ripe young age of 18. Since then I have voted in virtually every primary and general election for which I have had the opportunity. This current Republican lot for President is the east impressive I have seen over the last 27 years and it is also the largest group. This crowd is a mess.

The sheer number of minor league candidates and the weaknesses of the heir apparent (who people would think would be John McCain) almost makes me wonder if the Republican party is in shambles or if they are letting Democrats win in '08 so they can thoroughly mess things up and restore Republican rule for years to come (a possibility in light of how disastrous the Democrat front runners are).

Democrat rule of Congress should empower Republicans and make them optimistic about our prospects. The Majority Leader (Harry Reid) is voting to fund the war and putting our troops at risk and at the same time declaring that we lost and it is over. The Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi) appears to be breaking the law by representing the US in meetings with tyrants that our State Department has requested she not have communications. The Democrats have failed to govern and has held our legislative process hostage through the pursuit of witch hunts rather than policy changes. Left to their own, the Democrats are in serious trouble.

But the Republicans must offer an alternative and I don't see it in this group. I, personally, am hoping that former Senator Fred Thompson (photo) jumps in this race. He is a solid conservative from the South (crucial in winning Presidential elections), he has wide spread name identification, he isn't "needy" when it comes to the job, and his Hollywood credentials makes it difficult for him to be painted as outside of the mainstream (because he is on the Right). He is spending virtually nothing and is pulling higher numbers than many of the major candidates in the race.

If not Thompson, someone in the current group needs to rise to the top and needs to reflect the best that the Republican Party can offer.

The Network News Mystique

It shouldn't surprise anyone that I'm a devoted viewer of news in general during the day and Fox News in particular. My posts at this blog reflect that fact. However, on those very rare days that I'm at home at 5:30 PM (Central), I begin looking for a network news channel like clockwork. In the past it was always NBC because I like the way Brian Williams presents. His liberal agenda, however, has me moving away from the network. Then, with the move of Katie Couric to CBS, I became very intrigued to watch that train wreck unfold. Now, more often than not, I'm tuning into Charlie Gibson (photo) of ABC News because it is slightly less biased than the other two.

The question is, with the several hours of news I see daily, why would I want to see the broadcast networks? It has come down to a few reasons:

* Creature of habit. Before there were so many cable news channels, people got their news from the networks at the end of the day. The younger a person is, the less likely this will be a factor.

* Entertainment quality. The networks spend significantly more on the 30 minutes of nightly news than the cable companies do on hours of their news programming. They use their best talent, with the best sets, and the finest graphics. If "good looking" broadcasts is important to you, than you probably still find yourself watching the network evening news.

* The "catch all" factor. When you cover the news 24/7 like they do on the cable channels and you find yourself watching them often, you often wonder if you are missing something because there is so much out there. That 30 minutes tells you all the major stories of the day (at least we hope).

* The major network "legitimacy." I think everyone wants to know what "the big networks" are saying. The stories they cover and the way they cover them often tells us the direction the news is going and the stories we can expect in the future.

In light of the fact that I'm typically disgusted by the liberal ideology pervasive in the "mainstream media" today, I'm surprised that I can still stomach it, let alone take extra steps to watch it. But through it all the major networks still have their own mystique.

Who to Blame at Virgnia Tech?

People are trying to figure out who to blame for the tragedy that took place earlier this week at Virginia Tech University. Korean-American organizations are all strongly condemning what took place at the University and are expressing concern over the possibility of retaliation because of what happened. The university is under intense scrutiny for failing to shut down the school after the first incident (see time line) and the police are answering tough questions as well about the fact that he was under legal scrutiny because of past offenses, but no one could seem to do anything about him.

Fingers are pointing every where, except where they belong -- at Cho Seung-Hui (picture), the perpetrator of the crimes. Most people seem to be participating in a similar type of "blame game" that the murderer was playing. The murderer, in his multi-media package that he sent to NBC, blamed everyone but himself for the murders he had already done and those he was about to do. The murderer went so far as to blame all of us for the crimes he was committing. To listen to the media, the culture, and all the other chattering voices, there is a great deal of collective validation of his views. The "blame game" is pervasive in our culture. It differentiates the winners (those who own responsibility for their behavior) from the losers (those who always blame others).

We shouldn't play the game of losers such as Cho Seung-Hui. Let's put the responsibility on him, where it belongs, and let us work at developing approaches to prevent such tragedies in the future. The first step in that process is appropriately assigning blame where it belongs.

What People Earn

Every year Parade magazine does a special report on "What People Earn." I keep an eye out for it and my interest speaks volumes about how nosy I am. As soon as it comes in I look at every photo and read about what they make. Here are a few examples below:

* Rachael Ray, 38, TV Chef, $6 million, New York, NY. I'm so glad they didn't call her a TV talk show host, I can barely stomach her.

* Albert Einstein, Physicist, Deceased, $20 million (photo, making fun of the rest of our salaries). Wow, I heard of people getting rich while asleep, but this is ridiculous. He earns income for his estate mainly through commercials and other media that use his images.

* Steve Carell, 43, Actor, $9 million, Los Angeles. The star from The Office is actually pretty funny, although $9 million translates into quite a few dollars per laugh.

Don't get the wrong idea though, the Parade article isn't merely about rich people:

* Renay Gonzales, 30, Product Placement, $24,000, Tampa, FL. You know when you go to a grocery store and some items are placed in better positions than others? That happens because of the skills of product placement experts in persuading stock managers where their brand should go.

* Aaron Jones, 34, Real Estate Broker, $435,000, Salt Lake City, UT. Homes have been very good to this gentleman.

* Kenneth Martin, 31, Air Force Staff Sgt., $48,000, Minot, ND. Have you ever been to Minot? My brother was stationed there during the Vietnam War and I use to visit him. That place is so boring that people should probably get hazard pay based on potential mental health concerns.

The above are only from page one, there are many more inside. I encourage people to check out the article (linked above) at the web.

It is difficult to learn any lessons from the article, but here are a few observations:

* Education can pay off. There are certain jobs that require substantial skills in very specific areas that can only be obtained through school (e.g., medical doctor). School, in general (getting a BA) can often be helpful because of its ability to show determination to a potential employer.

* Sales can be lucrative. I consistently note very high incomes associated with those in sales, including the Real Estate Broker cited above.

* People obtain income based on the job they do. This seems obvious, I know, but that goes against the grain of certain people that want salaries to be set artificially high. This includes minimum wage, labor unions, and other means that harm the economy.

Go ahead, be nosey, find out what your neighbor may be making.

Thoughts on Virginia Tech

The tragedy of Virginia Tech is most profound and has affected people nationwide. I received an email from a very dear friend of mine whom I have known for 25 years and who lives just a few miles from the university sent me an email, knowing that I (and the others on her list) would be concerned about what happened and whether she was affected. This is what she wrote me ( am not including her or any other name mentioned, since I have yet to get her permission):

"First of all, for those outside of SW Virginia, I and my family are fine. Thank you to those who have called about concerns.

To put things into a little perspective. While working at Tech, I drove by Lane Stadium and Cassell Coliseum (where today's convocation will occur) each time I needed to go to my "on campus office," which is near the West AJ Hall (the first shooting scene). It's a very centrally located main-drag kinda area. At the end of my pregnancy, our campus offices were moved to the other end of campus and technically on the outskirts. I had several clients from Norris Hall (the second shooting scene) and am familiar with it. The staging area that has been set up is at the new Inn at Virginia Tech. This hotel is a sister property for The Hotel Roanoke that I had my "real" office at. (Hotel Roanoke is partially owned by VT.) The general manager and Director of sales (now co-general manger of the Inn) are two wonderful men who I know will take care of all the media, parents, and student counseling areas necessary to begin the healing process. The Inn is the main "base" if you might call it for the department that I worked in, Continuing Education.

Today is maroon and orange day. Even the arch rival, University of Virginia, have asked their students and alumni to join in "marooning."

Our governor had just landed in Tokyo 6 hours prior to the first shooting and is on his way back to Blacksburg to join the convocation service. (that's 28 hours of traveling in less than two days). He was beginning a two week visit/tour for trade (one was a partnership with Japan and Virginia Tech) and visit Virginia Tech students in Asia.

As many media reports have accounted, this will have far reaching implications. Tech is such a large university in a very small town. You either attend Tech, have children attend tech, or you work there.

I've forwarded a text msg I received from one of our youth at church (##### those locally), that I received after I texted her to see about her boyfriend, #####, who is one of maybe two? CDL drivers for the Tech's ambulance. Not knowing if he was one of the victims or was dealing with the carnage, I checked in on her and this was she text back to me. Wow!"

The text message from her (about her boyfriend) that my friend included was very short, yet profound: "Oh. Its awful. He saw everything and is transporting dead bodies. He knew people he had to bag."

This is very sad. I want to get on my soap box about the decline of our culture, criticize gun control advocates who falsely make a case for more controls on what happened, and other political rants. I will save that for another day and simply ask others to do what I have chosen to focus on, which is the need to pray. For now, I believe all of us are the Hokies of Virginia Tech.

What Will Global Warming Advocates Do with Coldest April Ever?

Bloomberg is reporting that this April in New York is the coldest in recorded history. The agriculture industry is reporting the same thing nationwide. Such news is having a chilling effect of the global warming campaign. Well, at least it should. But the common belief among the global warming crowd is "please don't bore us with facts."

The facts are is that weather has shifted in different directions for years. In the 1970s, when I was a young person in school, the fear was global freezing. Every serious weather scientist has told me that these changes have been cyclical and have serious doubts about global warming. The current extreme weather in April is indicative of this fact.

Why are conservatives and many libertarians suspicious about global warming warnings? Here's just a few reasons:

• Environmentalists need to produce negative reports in order to get more money. The alarmism fuels a very lucrative industry called "scientific research"


• The real issue for environmentalists is control. They are not nearly as interested in stopping pollution as they are in controlling the economy. For example, if the rain forest is so important in preventing climate change, environmentalists should buy large portions of the land, rather than try to force the Latin American governments to do what they demand. The ten largest environmental organizations have more money than the two major political parties in the US combined. They could certainly afford to preserve much of it.


• The best way to improve the environment is technology, not regulation. I visited Poland and found it almost impossible to breath. While there I found out it had the toughest regulations of any country in the world and that they existed for decades. Another example is the Super Fund, which was designed by the EPA to clean up waste from factories and other environmental disasters. The vast majority of that fund goes to lawyers, according to the National Center for Policy Analysts.


• The safety of such reforms are questionable. For example, every time fuel mileage requirements goes up, auto safety goes down because cars are not as safe when they face such difficult fuel mileage requirements (they reduce the weight in order to improve the mileage).

I can go on, but the theme is the same. The science is suspicious and the consequences to dramatic reforms could be huge and devastating on the economy. Freedom and economic prosperity could be victims of the global warming hysteria.

Republicans for Pelosi?

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (photo) may be the best thing to happen to the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan. Her trip to the terrorist state of Syria has many Jewish voters (a strong Democrat constituency) moving rapidly to the Republican Party. Her focus on witch hunts rather than legislation has the media rightly calling this a "do nothing" Congress. The 100 days of work she promised hasn't produced a single bill that has made it to the President's desk. Her failure to have the Congress renew the tax cuts (required for their continuation) could easily destroy the very low unemployment we currently enjoy (since such cuts stimulate economic growth). Most recently they sent a bill to the President that requires a deadline for the troops in Iraq to return. They are actually implying they won't fund and protect our troops unless there is a deadline that aids our enemies. The list goes on.

Rumor has it, Pelosi is considering a trip to Iran! She's been told "no" by the White House and has been threatened with the Logan Act for the trip she already took to Syria. The Logan Act prohibits any US citizen from going to foreign countries negotiating without the authority of the US government or purporting to represent the country. It certainly appears she may be guilty of such. With her comments about possibly going to Iran, some Republicans in the Senate are offering to buy her a ticket. It seems the more actions she takes, the more helpful she is to the Republican Party.

When Democrats challenged Republicans in the 2006 Congressional races, they claimed they would turn things around once elected. "Turning it around" is beginning to look like a war on the economy, the abandoning of our troops, and an irresponsible approach to foreign policy. The Democrats have been largely a minority party for quite some time. Pelosi's behavior is making me believe they actually prefer that status.

US-China Trade War?

I'm a very strong advocate of free trade between nations and absolutely despise protectionism. Free trade encourages competition and forces companies to produce the best products at the best prices. Protectionism is anti-consumer, causing higher prices for consumers and is a form of corporate welfare and indirect taxation. Protectionism usually destroys more jobs than it creates, because so many domestic jobs depends on imports. With 4.4 percent unemployment, what are we protecting the US from? The typical argument for protectionism is the lost of jobs due to unfair trade practices, this certainly isn't the case now.

Furthermore, the reasons for protectionism never make sense. Historically, our economy is doing best when we have high trade deficits. Why? Because we are able to afford more goods -- including foreign -- when our economy is doing well. The period of our strongest trade surpluses was during the Great Depression, because the US couldn't afford to buy foreign goods. Trade deficits and prosperity or trade surpluses and depression? Tough choice. Instead of being seen as a negative, I actually see trade deficits as an economic positive, because of the other indicators associated with such.

I do, on the other had, have problems with China. China uses slave labor to create its goods (e.g., political prisoners) and it is a consistent violator of intellectual property rights. But it isn't in these areas that the US wants to punish China. Rather, it wants to put tariffs on goods that we know are subsidized by the Chinese governments. Let's see, China wants to help us get stuff cheaper? Isn't that the same as foreign aid? The US, meanwhile, wants to penalize our consumers who will suffer from the higher prices that the tariffs will carry. Furthermore, our struggling airplane builders that need cheap steel in order to compete internationally will probably have to layoff employees when the price of steel goes up after the tariffs go into effect. Trade wars don't happen in a vacuum, they happen in the real world with real consequences.

Furthermore, trade wars typically go both directions, with countries retaliating against each other, further negating any economic benefit to protectionism.

But protectionism also creates conflict. Frederic Bastiat (photo), the great economist, pointed out that "when goods do not cross borders, soldiers will." Many believe that the tariffs of the 1930s fueled the fires that lead to World War II.

Any question on what I feel about free trade? If the US is going to punish China for behaving badly, penalties need to relate to the specific areas of violation and not be some excuse to apply protectionist measures. The best ways to protect the US economy is to keep costs for consumers down, create a tax and regulatory environment in which our businesses can perform, and to make sure US businesses must compete in order to make the best products for the price These objectives are best pursued in an environment of free trade and not protectionism.

See How They Run: Democratic Candidates Won't Debate on Fox

Rumor has it that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (photo)are joining John Edwards in a boycott against Fox News in that network's upcoming debate, according to the Huffington Post. The candidates argue that Fox News is too biased and anti-Democrat and they don't want to legitimize its views by participating in the forum. I first learned about Edwards' decision about a week ago and was some what offended by the idea. However, the more I think about it, I have to respect all of these candidates for sticking to their convictions, regardless of how wrong those beliefs may be.

If conservative candidates had done the same thing to CNN many years ago, the media would not be nearly as polarized as it is today, in my opinion. Americans couldn't expect the Democrats to boycott that network 20 years ago, it was the Republicans who were getting abused. They obediently took their regular beatings rather than holding the network accountable. These leading Democrats are doing just that when it comes to Fox.

There is, however, a difference in my opinion. I honestly don't believe that Fox's treatment of the news is biased. The editorial departments clearly lean to the Right, but the news itself really is fair and balanced. A typical Fox story will point out truths that neither side wants to hear. In my memory Fox has also been fair in its treatment of candidates during debates, which weakens the arguments of these Democrats about whether they should participate.

With these leading Democrats firing this salvo, the question is, how should Fox respond? If I were in charge I would move full speed ahead towards having a debate among the Democrats willing to participate. This would do several things:

* It would likely cause one or two of these major candidates to blink. The thought of one of their opponents -- even a minor one -- getting that kind of uninterrupted exposure, would be more than they can handle.

* The majority of Fox viewers consider themselves independent, a more moderate Democrat could have an excellent opportunity to pick up some key votes. Hillary Clinton has heavily marketed herself as such a Democrat and would be the must likely to suffer from such a boycott.

* I believe this could possibly move the Democratic party towards the much neglected center. Candidates who are largely ignored by the media whose agenda is established by the Democratic party (most media, in my opinion) would have an opportunity to voice their views to an audience that hasn't heard such perspectives.

* It would put the power of the candidates at check. If Fox News doesn't budge, these candidates likely will. Those candidates who don't will likely regret it later.

There are checks and balances for every branch of government. Although I disagree with the Democrats about the network they want to boycott, I'm impressed that they are holding this "fourth branch" of government accountable.

New Studios for the Houston Business Show

Regular readers of this blog have seen my remarks regarding our world famous studios (they were actually the old news "closet" in the old KIKK days). Well, I am proud to announce that we have gotten brand new facilities that put us well into the 21st century. We now have top of the line facilities with four microphones and a large studio table. In the photo you will find Houston Business Show Advisor in the information technology area, Richard Sonnier between breaks. Richard is President of Nimble Services and has been an with the program for over four years. I have had some people comment on the old studio and was encouraged to share our good news. That is the exact purpose of this post. I now feel like I'm a part of the media elite.

On this week's show I visited with Bruce Kaufmann of Kaufmann Capital Advisors and Business Show Advisor on Corporate Finance and Jim Stein of the Bank of Houston. You can learn more about these guests and listen to the show 24/7 by visiting the Houston Business Show website.

Gingrich Joins Anti-Gonzales Fray

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (picture) has come out calling for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, joining a growing chorus of individuals who are on a witch hunt against the nation's chief law enforcement officer. I find it hard to believe that he would get on this train for several reasons:

* He was a victim of a political and character assassination himself. He was forced out of office due to largely trumped up ethical charges when he was the Speaker. He knows what Gonzales is going through and I'm surprised he would concur with those who would support the AG's demise.

* Gingrich knows the Constitution and the law, and I believe he knows Gonzales hasn't violated either.

* He also has to know that the President becomes politically impotent if this resignation is forced to happen.

It is one thing for Gingrich to suggest this based on the fact that the Attorney General has become a distraction -- an argument that can certainly be made, although his resignation will only create more problems in this area in my opinion. It is completely inappropriate, and not at all Presidential, for him to get on this bandwagon for political expediency, which seems to be the basis of his argument. Being a leader means standing up for what is right. The Attorney General's actions -- although unpopular -- were completely legal. Gingrich should join the many who are calling on Congress to deal with real issues and get away from the political grand standing that is hurting this country.

Tommy Thompson's Proposal on Iraqi Vote Makes Sense

Former Wisconsin Governor and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson (R) has come up with a proposal that could dramatically change the debate when it comes to the war in Iraq. Many liberals believe that the war is both a losing battle and an illegitimate one. Many argue that it was an act of imperialism on the part of the US government designed to put a puppet government in that country to support the objectives of the US. Thompson wants to have a referendum among the Iraqi people about a continued US presence in that country.

I believe recent elections (see photo) in Iraq have already validated the case for a US presence in the eyes of Iraqi voters. Terrorists told Iraqis that participating in the election equaled a vote for a US presence. As a result the allied forces had to take extreme measures in other to implement the voting process. Because of the possibility of bombers, people were forbidden to drive and often forced to walk for miles in order to cast a vote. The threat of snipers was rampant and voting at all was potentially very dangerous.

In the election in which the Iraqi Constitution was approved (something many considered a direct referendum about the US involvement), over 63 percent of the people voted. This is significantly higher than the 55.3 percent in the 2004 election (and 37 percent in 2002 in an off year) in the United States under much safer circumstances. The Iraqis seem very excited about the opportunity to cast a vote.

I believe Thompson's idea has a great deal of merit and should be seriously considered. My guess is that you will find very few opponents of the war who will get on board this proposition, I believe the voters should demand candidates to seriously debate this idea.

U.S. Enemployment Drops to 4.4 Percent

I remember my first economics class in college and the professor discussed the concept of "full employment." Most would think that would be be the same as zero unemployment, but it is not. Instead, full employment is simply when all the people who want to work, have a job. In other words, there are people who only work seasonal jobs, there are others who are involved in illegal activities and want to stay below the economic radar as much as possible, and other still who chose to create a new business rather than get a job after they became unemployed. With that explanation, full employment is typically defined as around four percent.

At our new lower rate of 4.4 percent, the US is hovering slightly above that remarkably low number. This incredible number leads to me making a few observations:

* The tax cuts work. In the early 1980s Ronald Reagan (see photo) described his tax cuts bill as an "unemployment act." He knew that the cuts would revive the economy, stimulate economic growth and reverse the long term unemployment problems pervasive at the time. His plan worked and they recently did it again for President Bush.

* We are losing the point when it comes to illegal immigration. Many free market economists argue that illegal immigrants contribute more to the economy than they take. This is probably true. These immigrants do the jobs that keep food affordable, homes obtainable, and allow middle income people to live like the rich by being able to afford their services. Our low unemployment validates the claim that we need these workers to improve our lives. We just need such people here legally. That doesn't mean amnesty per se, but developing a logical approach to immigration that protects our security, but still provides opportunity for those less fortunate, and improves our economy. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking they are "stealing our jobs." Rather, they are largely improving our economy.

* Let's not exaggerate the "negative effects" of globalization. Another concept I learned in economics 101 is the "law of comparative advantage," which means it makes sense for some countries to produce some things and other countries to produce other things still. Because of that law we drive cars with parts from all over the world (including the US) and cost less than $20,000, where as the exact same car made bumper to bumper in this country would likely cost multiples of that amount. With 4.4 percent unemployment, these countries aren't stealing our jobs, but allowing Americans to live much wealthier than we otherwise would if the earth wasn't "flat." We are getting great products, at lower prices, that our almost fully employed economy enjoys.

Our economy is much healthier than the media wants to admit and it should put the "big stories" in the news into perspective. We don't need to become fortress America, but instead fully enjoy the advantages of a world economy.

Starvation in Africa: Global Warming vs. Man Made Poverty

This morning I saw several headlines about how Global Warming will be particularly devastating on poor countries. Vast starvation will become common place in the years to come because of the "climate changes," these articles argue.

Ironically, I also recently stumbled on an article by the Heritage Foundation that noted that Zimbabwe had 7 million people facing starvation and it is one of the fastest declining countries of the last two decades. This is not proof of climate changes, however, but policy changes. Until the late 1970s the country then known as Rhodesia was the second richest country on the continent (following South Africa) and until the mid 1970s was a country who's economy was comparable to many countries in Western Europe in many ways.

If one studies climate and other issues since the late 70s when it comes to Zimbabwe (Rhodesia), there has not been any of the dramatic changes that people would expect to cause the type of deprivation that is rampant. The real problem is the same ones facing most African countries: bad policies. Impoverished African countries suffer from common themes:

* Corrupt governments that put their own personal wealth as their single biggest priority.

* Price controls that forces farmers to charge less for their products than it costs to make them (this is a leading cause of starvation), people will not make food if they can't make money from it. This has been a rampant force behind the "droughts" that Ethiopia has suffered from over the years.

* Punitive tax laws that discourage economic growth.

* Often the total disregard of private property rights, forcing land to be redistributed without cause.

These are just a few of the examples that relate to Africa's poverty, although we will see more news stories pointing to climate change than the real culprit of policy change. This type of government created poverty has been around for decades in Africa. Blaming it on the environment makes these third world dictators victims and allows Liberals to promote their environmental agenda.

The headlines continually warn of global warming, but many in the United States are preparing for a White Easter, including some who live here in Texas (in the Panhandle). There is discussion by very few in the media about "global freezing" (see picture). But, don't expect such an idea to become rampant in the media, it doesn't meet the media or the global warming communities' objectives, which have more to do with government control than the environment.

On the International News Front...

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Blinks

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran (see photo) has announced today that he was releasing the 15 British sailors his country has held for over two weeks. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced that he is elated by the news, but I am sure he is being cautiously optimistic in his response, since Ahmadinejad announced he was releasing the one female prisoner a week ago, but failed to do so. Both US and British officials have indicated that they will believe it when they fly out of Iranian air space. The President of Iran is calling it a "gift" to the British, but I have a difficult time interpreting it as anything but a blink. I have always seen Ahmadinejad as a crazy, not knowing the limits of his power. His response to this situation is actually a little encouraging. He blinked, something I didn't think he was capable or willing to do.

Nancy Pelosi as a Shadow Secretary of State

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is something of a shadow Secretary of State for the Democratic party, travelling to the tyrannical state of Syria and meeting with the President of that terrorist state, Bashar al-Assad. While President Bush and other western leaders have been trying to isolate this dictator, Pelosi has her own agenda and foreign policy with no regard to what the Executive Branch is pursuing. Diplomacy has always fallen under the Executive Branch, historically. This has become fashionable as of late, with Members of Congress doing their own diplomacy. The trend is dangerous, in my opinion, and creates a situation in which the US is sending confusing messages to the rest of the world.

See How They Run: How Important is Money in a Presidential Campaign?

Clearly money is important, but could it be over rated? Forbes.com seems to think so in a recent article at its website. The article, entitled "Money Doesn't Win Presidential Elections," is built on several assumptions:

1) A truly wide open field. With so many candidates starting this early, there is plenty of opportunity for other players to come onto the scene and change the landscape.

2) The role of the Internet changes everything. The web has become a great tool for raising money and its role should expand in the future. Many who become major fundraisers on the web will not attract people or money in the "real world," however, having an affect on the actual election.

3) Early primaries are forcing candidates to raise money at record levels, especially California's move to February 5th. This state will require big money in order to reach this large population.

4) Faltering front-runners. Candidates that are bringing in the cash and showing strong numbers today could be an after thought before 2007 comes to a close. As candidates start campaigning earlier, more money will come in quicker, having an impact on the previous records. Never have so many people been running for office so early, in the history of the Republic. This cannot help but impact the flow of dollars. The timing of the arrival of those dollars, in particular.

When I think of the power of money, I think of Phil Gramm's failed Presidential campaign of 1996 which brought in a great deal of money and early buzz, but found itself a mere after thought in the end. Money is important, just ask both the candidates with it and those who wish they had it. But money alone doesn't mean instant success in the turbulent world of politics.

Reign Over Me: An Excellent Film that Brings September 11th Close to Home

There are now several epic dramas on the horror we all know as September 11th. Some are from the perspective of those who were on the planes that crashed into the towers. Others were the stories who tried to survive in the buildings after they were hit. Others, still, are of the heroic individuals who came to the rescue. Reign Over Me is not like any of these films.

Reign Over Me is the story of Dr. Charlie Fineman (Adam Sadler) who tragically lost his wife and daughters on one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center. Unlike most victims of major loss who, some how, slowly put their lives back together, Fineman not only fails to move forward but goes back into the past, becoming like an irresponsible teenager who is financed by insurance money following the tragedy.

Yet he is clearly in pain and a lost soul, roaming through the city of New York or playing video games. This remains the case until he runs across his old college roommate, Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle). Fineman tries to drag his old friend into his world of denial and adolescence, but Johnson is married with children of his own.

The two go through numerous incidents filled with humor and drama that leads to the end of the story. That is something you are going to have to watch yourself. The movie was really quite profound to me and showed me that there are thousands of individuals who were directly devastated by September 11th. There are thousands more related to those individuals and are also affected. This tragedy continues to spread. This is a powerful drama that reminds me why we fight the war of terror. I'm sure it wasn't their point in making it, but it still had that type of impact on me.

Regardless of your view of the war or the movie, this film is a "must see" picture. This film was brilliantly acted by all the major characters and it is something I look forward to seeing again. You have heard the saying, "it made me laugh and it made me cry." That is the story of Reign Over Me.

The Decline of Newspapers... A Personal Story

We have all seen the stories about the massive decline of newspapers in recent years and it is reflected in newspapers being offered for around half price (not at the news stand, but in M & A deals) and practically having to have to give ads away in order to stay afloat. I recently have had a personal incident happen that brings this reality very close to home.

I stopped subscribing to dailies years ago, but I do have a ritual of getting the Sunday newspaper. Sometimes it is the Houston Chronicle, other instances it is the New York Times, and still, other times, I get both. My wife and I might grab coffee or go grocery shopping on Saturday or Sunday and just pick one up along the way. We did just that on Saturday. I grabbed a newspaper and put it with the milk, fudge bars, and other necessities. When we got home we put all our bags on the dining room table and went to work putting things up. Well, here it is on Sunday evening and I just walked pass the table, and guess what I found there? A Sunday paper still in the grocery bag. If my wife sees this, it will likely be my last newspaper.

So did I deprive myself of news today? Not hardly, instead I get the exact news I want, when I wnt it, online. No longer do I fumble through pages trying to find articles worth reading. No longer do I find milk from my cereal on the corners of the paper. No longer do I wonder where that great article was that I read, instead I simply put the keywords in and the name of the publication, and eureka, the article appears.

Still, traditions die hard, so I probably will keep on getting a newspaper out of habit. In fact, as soon as I'm done writing this, I'll run to the dining room and get reading. But you and I will know my secret, I get my serious reading online.