Future Success Stories in a Painful Economy

I have been involved in politics and business for decades and I have not seen a situation like we are in today since the late 1970s and early 1980s. It is simply a challenging time and people are having a difficult time determining what to do next.

The Stock Market is now worth less than half of its all time high and unemployment is on its way towards double digits, with the number of people filing for benefits swelling by over 500,000 in just a few months.

One of the earliest and biggest problems of such rough times is the focus of news and other business information from what works and what is positive, to some of the most negative content you can find. An excellent recent example has been the laying off of Donny Deutsch by CNBC. The reason why? The network decided that people don’t want to hear success stories (a big focus of his program) in such a dismal economy. I think they could not be more wrong. The reality is, CNBC was in financial trouble and laid off several hundred employees (including Deutsch) in a money saving effort. People don’t merely want bad news and negative information. They are demanding inspiration. I am planning on providing more such positive information on the Price of Business show in the months to come.

The reality is we are going to have some excellent things come from the currently hard times. This country is made up of entrepreneurs and many (if not most) of the 500,000 who recently loss their jobs will be providing future success stories of people who brought new products and services to the market place. They will choose entrepreneurship instead of wallowing in their difficult circumstances.

Do you have a success story? If so, I want to hear from you. Send me an email and tune into the Price of Business every weekday at 11 am on CNN 650 and on AOLRadio.com (central time).

This article originally appeared on CNN650.com, part of the CBS Radio Network.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Robert Byrd Fears "King" OBama

Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) is something of an institution in Washington, DC. He assumed the office of US Senator in 1959 and has served in that body longer than anyone in the nation's history. He is famous for his knowledge of Senate proceedings and is one of the most successful members of either House of Congress at "bringing home the pork" for his constituents. He has been a liberal champion of big government for years.

On the surface, he should be a huge fan of President Barack Obama. The federal budget up to 2008 was $2.7 trillion dollars. As a Senator in September of 2008 and as a President in January, Obama has increased that spending by over $1.5 trillion. It is the biggest growth of government in such a time frame in our nation's history.

Byrd's concerns about Obama are not the President's love for more spending, but how he intends to control that spending and the operations of government. In a surprising series of events, Byrd has written a letter to Obama condemning the massive shift of power from the Cabinet officials who are accountable to Congress to White House staff who are largely free from such scrutiny.

In a press release by the Senator, his office states that "Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va.... has written to President Barack Obama expressing his concerns over the increasing appointments of White House 'czars,' and the relationship between these new White House positions and their executive branch counterparts, noting that 'too often, I have seen these lines of authority and responsibility become tangled and blurred, sometimes purposely, to shield information and to obscure the decision-making process."

The release continues that "Byrd, in his February 23 letter, specifically referenced the creation of new White House Offices of Health Reform, Urban Affairs Policy, and Energy and Climate Change Policy, noting that 'the rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials. As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president. They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability,' Byrd’s letter continued."

Essentially holding Obama's own words against him, Byrd cited the President "recent memorandum to the executive departments and agencies in which Obama noted that, 'A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency.'"

This kind of public criticism by a Senator of a President isn't unusual. What is unusual is the Senator who is attacking this particular President and the seriousness of the charges. In the letter itself, Byrd describes Obama's approach as similar to the Nixon White House in terms of its secrecy and isolation from Congressional accountability. Those are "fighting words" among Democrats.

I have never been a fan of Robert Byrd, but he is certainly very correct in his concerns and assessment. While people continue to worry about the "Europization" of the United States under Obama, I'm more concerned that we are looking more like Venezuela and other regimes that have suspended constitutional law and that he changes the way we are governed. The policy approaches of Obama may not be as nearly as frightening as his approach to government.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Barack Obama: More Pork than Promise

Recently, AOL did a survey of the 10 people that are admired most. The list wasn't limited to modern times or the United States. In fact, Jesus Christ himself made the list and he was second only to Barack Obama. With those kind of ratings, expectations are very high.

So, tonight, when "the Messiah" entered the Halls of Congress, the American people were expected to get "wowed!" What that got was a lengthy list of promises that stand contrary to his commitment to cut the deficit in half in four years (one of his more recent commitments). The following are some "highlights" of what the President intends to do in order to not only "improve the economy," but to also fundamentally change the way we are governed.

The following are two examples in the Obama agenda of why only 13 cents of every dollar actually goes to job creation and raises concerns that the American people have bought into a questionable bill of goods.

Education

"Because of this (recovery) plan, families who are struggling to pay tuition costs will receive a $2,500 tax credit for all four years of college. And Americans who have lost their jobs in this recession will be able to receive extended unemployment benefits and continued health care coverage to help them weather this storm. "

This is the kind of aggressive spending program that will do little to add to jobs, but will do a great deal to add to the deficit. Getting a college education in this country is already more achievable than many other parts of the world, which is why we have so many people from around this planet in our universities. Some financial burden in pursuing a degree will heighten the "ownership" attitude of those who are pursuing it. Don't get me wrong, I can tell one first hand that this has been a challenge for my family (my wife and I have eight children). Some times they start at community college, they have to take a little longer to finish, but all of these things lead to better students and, I believe, a better education system. Besides being costly, adding tax credits like this will also cheapen the educational system.

Health Care

"This budget builds on these reforms. It includes an historic commitment to comprehensive health care reform - a down-payment on the principle that we must have quality, affordable health care for every American. It’s a commitment that’s paid for in part by efficiencies in our system that are long overdue. And it’s a step we must take if we hope to bring down our deficit in the years to come... I suffer no illusions that this will be an easy process. It will be hard. But I also know that nearly a century after Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform, the cost of our health care has weighed down our economy and the conscience of our nation long enough. So let there be no doubt: health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year."

His vision of Health Care Reform is socialized medicine. Besides being terribly inefficient (I have an aunt and grandfather who died as a direct result of the British health care system, these programs are expensive. The Health Systems Innovations Network (HSI) "estimates the Obama plan would cost $452 billion per year, or more than $6 trillion over a 10-year period. The dramatic difference between this estimate and others is largely a result of HSI's assumption that under Obama's mandate to cover children, the federal government would subsidize virtually the full cost of coverage. Also, HSI finds that the employer mandate would add sizable costs to the federal government."

Obama has been saying that we have reached "the beginning of the end" of government as we knew it and he is right. Instead of a country that gave some regard to economic freedom and individual responsibility, we are becoming wards of a nanny state that plans on taking care of us through systems that are too costly, inefficient, and fundamentally opposed to the values that made us great.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

The Bad Ride in the Markets and Main Street

Since September the federal government has been busy. Very busy. But it has very little to show for all its efforts when it comes to Wall Street's and Main Street's reaction. Back in September, when Congress got together to roll up its sleeves and to heal the economy's woes, Wall Street was worried by the volatility of the market. Back then, the market strongly worried investors as it stood at the brink of going below 10,ooo points. Slightly 4 months later and we are threatened by a market that could (and likely, should) go below 7,000 points. The irony is that the plummeting market was a direct response to the government's "best efforts" to placate Wall Street's concerns. Instead of getting better, it has gotten markedly worse and has now reached 11 year lows.

Main Street has responded in a similar fashion. 2008 began with unemployment at a remarkably low 4.9 percent, which many economists describe as "full employment," when you consider seasonal and other factors that make "zero unemployment" an impossibility. Unemployment hovered around 5 percent through much of the year until about a month before the huge minimum wage increase (yes, there is a connection), in which it solidly went into the 5 to 6 percent area around that time. By September it had broken 6 percent and showed no interest in going back. This rise in unemployment joined the drop in the Market in leading to Washington coming "to the rescue." Main Street has responded to the massive bailouts of September and the "stimulus" of January by laying off even more people -- over 500,000 in the last couple of months alone. Main Street has responded to the Obama agenda by casting a new ballot -- pink slips -- and now unemployment is squarely in the 7 percent area and is moving its way towards double digits.

So why have both Main Street and Wall Street reacted so negatively? It is because both of these sectors are in the arena of enterprise. They fundamentally know that the more government controls things, the less efficient and productive those things become. The Bank of America is now on the brink of having 40 percent of its ownership be in the hands of government. Banks running like typically inefficient government institutions have done little or nothing to bolster consumer, financial, or business confidence. Fundamentally, I believe that at some level Americans know better. Free enterprise, limited government, and private property -- the founding principles of this Republic -- are better values than government control and ownership. There is a very good possibility that the businesses today are suffering from rather serious buyers remorse. I hope the government gets that message.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Obama Wants to Restore Welfare "As we Knew It"

Hidden in the media coverage about Barack Obama is the eloquent argument being made by Republican Governors regarding their concerns over the stimulus package. The media believes that these politicians are jockeying for higher office. The truth is, most are opposed to the massive growth of the federal government and are particularly concerned about the bill's various "hitches" designed to force states to take positions that they are opposed to. Worse than being critical about these governors, many in the mainstream media are ignoring them entirely.

Robert Schlesinger has noted at US News and World Reports that the New York Times reviewed the views of GOP candidates and their thoughts on Obama's stimulus package and stated that "in terms of presidential politics, the most notable name in the Times piece is Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who campaigned with Obama for the stimulus package last week. Glaringly absent from the Times piece were governors like South Carolina's Mark Sanford, Louisiana's Bobby Jindal, Mississippi's Haley Barbour and Alaska's Sarah Palin—all governors recently named in the Washington Post's excellent 'The Fix' column as being among the five most influential and powerful voices in the Republican Party (the other person named was former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney). Palin and Jindal are often named as contenders in 2012, and Barbour gave 2008 a long look before passing on it. Sanford is chairman of the Republican Governor's Association."

Haley Barber has been particularly persuasive in discussing his concerns, stating on Fox News that the Obama measure would force states to allow people to receive welfare, even if they are not willing to work, if they want to enjoy the complete package. For example, Barbour notes, that if the state of Mississippi wants to receive $54 million in increased unemployment benefits, they will have to expand the benefits to those not actively looking for employment or willing to take it if offered. If Barbour doesn't take it, he will receive less than $4 million of the expanded benefits.

We haven't seen this kind of pressure on the restoration of the Welfare State since Bill Clinton and Republicans in Congress led the efforts to reverse many of the damaging policies that led to multi generational poverty. I consider that to be one of the the greatest policy achievement of the 1990s. This achievement is threatened as the Obama policies are implemented in the states.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Obama's Mortgage Plan Could Destroy Middle Class Home Ownership

Barack Obama is trying to "stop the bleeding" when it comes to the number of people losing their homes by implementing a controversial mortgage program (called an "affordability" and "stability" plan). In the future, this plan could destroy home ownership for everyone except the extremely wealthy.

The plan is riddled with government in both money and intervention, but it doesn't stop there. The biggest problem with the plan may not be the dollars spent, but the demands placed on the mortgage market place. There is a section in the $75 billion dollar plan that provides coercive measures to lower the costs for those with mortgages that they are struggling to pay.

Some of these measures would have been described as "socialistic" just a few years ago, but are now considered fairly common in the bizarre political culture we live in today. These include:

• A Shared Effort to Reduce Monthly Payments. This would be a "joint effort" between government and mortgage companies to lower monthly costs.


• "Pay for Success." This essentially subsidizes mortgage companies at a rate of up to $1,000 per lender to keep people in their homes.


• Incentives to Help Borrowers Stay Current. This is the borrower's cousin to the program immediately above. With this program, the government will pay borrowers $1,000 a year for staying current.


• Reaching Borrowers Early. This pays lenders to modify distressed borrowers before they go into foreclosure.


• Home Price Decline Reserve Payments. This would essentially be an insurance policy to help protect against home values declining.

For a person who believes in free enterprise like I do, the above policies are offensive enough. But at least these measures largely compensate mortgage companies for some loss of income and inconvenience. There is one provision, that comes with very little explanation, that could make middle class home ownership a thing of the past. In the words of the plan itself, this provision will "allow judicial modifications of home mortgages during bankruptcy for borrowers who have run out of options."

This provision sounds innocent enough and, unlike many of the other measures, has little direct cost to taxpayers. In the long term, however, this simple provision could devastate middle class home lending because you will have judges arbitrarily deciding whether all other options have "run out," lowering interest rates at will, or forcing decreased payments on lenders. These decisions will be done by a person who has no vested interest in the process and often no knowledge about the dynamics of the lending process. As a result of this bill, many lenders will likely increase the already high standards for home ownership or simply make home ownership only accessible to the very rich. This is contrary to the objectives of Barack Obama, who has built his career on increasing home ownership to every income group, but is the typical results of the latent effects to fundamentally bad public policy.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Is Illinois Poised to Get a GOP Senator?

Illinois use to be known as the "Land of Lincoln," but in recent years may be better described as the "Land of Corruption." After a series of governors who spend their retirement years in jail and a new one (Blagojevich) seemingly not far behind, I think many citizens of Illinois are ready for change, especially when we consider how its latest Senator was appointed.

Roland Burris was chosen a US Senator by then Governor Blagojevich after a scandal broke out that the latter was being accused of actually trying to sell Obama's seat. It was concluded that Burris was some how above the scandal following an impeachment committee hearing that the Senate appointee testified. During that hearing he indicated that he had only spoken with Blagojevich Chief of Staff Lon Monk and there was no discussion for "pay to play." However, it appears the Feds may have recorded conversations that indicate that Burris had several other discussions with those connected to Blagojevich. The question is, did such recordings lead to Burris modifying his list of contacts?

USA Today reports that "Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., said Monday that it is "positively not true" that the reason he filed an affidavit revealing new contacts with ousted Gov. Rod Blagojevich's associates was because federal authorities had told him conversations had been secretly recorded." Republican legislators are using this modification of this list as grounds for an investigation and GOP leaders around the country are wetting their lips at the prospects of getting that seat on the GOP side. With barely sixty votes and the power of the filibuster, the Democrats can hardly afford losing such an important seat, but Burris is extremely vulnerable.

The next election for Burris is 2010 and with the exception of one short six year term (of Senator Peter Fitzgerald), Illinois has been represented exclusively by Democrats for decades. This is clearly a Democratic state. But how much more can this poor state sustain when it comes to the quality of government? It is poised for a serious house cleaning like Washington, DC saw following Watergate.

Following two years of absorbing the costs and trauma of Barack Obama's "stimulus package" I think many more House and Senate seats will be found off the Democrat's column. 2010 should be an interesting year.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

It is not About Doing Something, but the Right Thing

The majority I speak to are excited about Barack Obama and his sweeping legislation that is going to possibly change this economy for decades to come. They are excited because they argue that something -- anything -- needed to be done. This type of logic does not serve well in any other aspect of our lives. For example, we don't praise the heroic efforts of the person who poured gasoline on a burning building, or the person who avoided rush hour traffic by driving on a shoulder, or the person who attempts to forget about his problems through alcohol. In the real world, we know there are rules to almost everything. There are also rules to the economy: some things work, other things do not work.

There are two basic views of government. One sees the best government doing as little as possible and being focused on protecting individuals from other individuals and our country from foreign adversaries. The opposite extreme is that government should play a pervasive role in every aspect of our lives and that it should be the primary driver of our economy and society. The vast majority who have an opinion fall some where in between. Far more than those with an actual opinion have no real view at all. Those people are my concern here.

This uniformed majority are the same people who are driving Barack Obama's extremely high approval ratings. They don't really know what they are doing, or what they believe, they are merely very sincere. They think some action is, at least, action. But the actions of this administration will take generations to pay off and they promise to make things far worse than better.

The majority of countries around the world are moving away from more government as an answer to economic problems. Although still Communist, China's economic success has been due to areas of decentralization. This is true, also, for India's famous bureaucratic country. Maybe the best example to the United States is Ireland.

For decades, Ireland was little more than a Third World country. It was uncommon for Europeans to face starvation in the 19th century, but it was a major problem on the Emerald Island. On the economic front, Ireland had the highest tax rates among industrialized nations. This is not the case any more. Ireland dramatically lowered its highest tax rates to around 10 percent and for over a decade it has had one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Countries that have moved towards government solutions and high taxation are only seeing more economic problems. Japan has had chronic economic problems for over two decades (and the highest corporate tax rates in the world). The US now has the second highest and we are quickly catching up in terms of economic woes.

We all know that businesses have to work hard to attract customers, and states have to work hard to attract businesses, but don't countries have the same responsibility as well? Ireland seems to understand that and, in light of the "something" our government did this past week, it is clear the US does not.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Americans Don't Care About Pork?

Wasteful spending is a common practice by the federal government. Major bills are often greased with pork spending to get things through the legislative process. The political elite seems to believe that the American people are not concerned about this reality. In fact, Sen. Charles Schumer of New York stood on the floor of the US Senate and lamented the complaints of the "chattering class" (aka radio hosts) and said that the American people simply don't care.

If he is right, the old cliche is true -- ignorance is bliss. Democrat leaders in Congress and the White House are using our economic troubles as an excuse to perform things they would never be able to get away with under normal circumstances. The stimulus package of over $780 billion was printed one evening and was expected to be voted on the next day. Not a single Member of either Houses of Congress read that bill in its entirety (nor did the vast majority of their staff). The only ones that were intimately familiar with the bill were the lobbyists who glued it together. Maybe Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was right when he said "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before." You have to appreciate his honesty.

For every dollar spent on stimulus, hundreds were spent in political paybacks designed to keep the Democratic party in power for years to come. With only 3 Republicans voting for it as it went through the process, this was nothing more than a gift to political allies. A very expensive gift at that.

The Wall Street Journal reviewed the pork and they declared that they "couldn't believe" what they saw. "There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons."

The Journal also points out that, in spite of Obama's promises that this bill would provide stimulus, it is next to impossible to find examples of such happening, noting "some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities." How about those exciting business tax cuts designed to spur economic activity? We find that if you "add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. "

Candidate Obama promised four days of public review of legislation online before a bill would become a law. This final bill flew went to the House 24 hours after it left the Senate. The last thing the Obama administration wanted was serious review. It shouldn't be a surprise, this bill is about payback to all of the lobbyists and special interest groups that took the Democrats from the outhouse to the White House.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Trade Deficit Shrinks, but no Parades?

The balance of trade -- the amount of goods imported versus goods exported -- has been a tool used by those who are shallow in their economic knowledge and deep in their isolationism. We are told by many politicians that trade deficits (importing more than we export) is a "terrible" thing and an indicator of an economy in decline. As a result of decades of trade deficits, the US is a "debtor" nation, we are told.

So the headlines at CNNMoney this morning should be good news: "Trade Gap Narrows for 2nd Straight Year." This narrowing is because the amount of goods we are importing each year is declining. Yet, this "good news" accompanies headlines of the fastest and largest increase in unemployment in decades (500,000 just since the elections). There are few, if any, who would argue that this economy is anything but weak and has been in a downward spiral for about two years (about the same period for which the gap has decreased). This reality should not be a surprise to any student of history.

In 1928 Republican Herbert Hoover was running for President of the United States against Democrat Al Smith of New York. Hoover, the Secretary of Commerce under one of the most successful Presidents in US history, was running against a very popular governor. It was easy for Hoover to defend the record of the President he served, Calvin Coolidge, as virtually every indicator pointed to an administration of success.

During the 20s Republicans took a tax rate that was as high as 70 percent under their predecessor and lowered the top rate to a low of 5 percent. Coolidge opened economic trade with countries and unleashed a level of prosperity we had not seen in generations. The number of people who made six digits (a very high income in the 1920s, and still is today) quadrupled. Inflation was less than 2 percent and unemployment was at a comparable amount. They called it the "Roaring Twenties" for a reason. There was, however, one area of "weakness" following Coolidge and that was the trade deficit that exploded during his administration. This area feel under the Secretary of Commerce and Hoover was taunted by his opponent through out the race. Finally Hoover assured voters that if Smith or he were elected, there would be quotas and tariffs placed on trade. Hoover won and by the Fall of 1929, he was sticking to his guns and pursuing protectionism in the form of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.

That law did exactly what it intended to do -- dramatically reduce the importation of goods. Within a few years, the US had its first trade surplus in decades and also one of the highest unemployment rates in history. The Stock Market crash that proceeded the Depression was fueled by this trade protectionism. Wall Street knew that, if we penalized imports, foreign countries would retaliate. That led to the Market crash because investors knew that the value of goods would decline as the trade markets would shrink.

The high unemployment rate was associated with the trade surplus for a very simple reason. We imported more goods than we exported because our buying power had declined dramatically. Through out our nation's history over the last century, our periods of highest prosperity were accompanied by eras of trade deficits. Meanwhile, trade surpluses accompanied economic decline. In our prosperity we were buying more.

Today, the trade deficit is shrinking because the economy is shrinking. Our national buying power is in decline. Trade deficits continue to indicate a sign of economic strength, rather than weakness.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

RINOs Should Become an Endangered Species

The Republican Party is in need of cleaning house (or is that Houses). It is dominated with people who claim to be Republicans, but are so in name only (in other words, RINOs). These people have to go and they are becoming increasingly easy to identify.

For example, those "Republican" Senators who simply disregarded the interests of their constituents and the mandate to defend the Constitution can be found in the vote today for the $830 billion move towards socialism (also called a "recovery" or "bailout" package). This bill came 6 months after a similar measure, costing a similar amount, did absolutely nothing. In fact, it actually slowed down the recovery because companies that should have failed were not allowed to and the confusion in the Stock Market has been unprecedented as it has waited to capitulate.

Thirty six Senators voted against this disastrous bill that was geared towards creating pork rather than jobs and what I found interesting is that a fourth of them were actually Democrats. These Democrats may have showed more courage than three Republicans who sided with the President: Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania. Most Republicans who were foolish enough to vote for the bailout last September had enough sense to say "nay" this time. Not these three. They demonstrated their true colors and proved their credentials as being among those who are Republicans in name only. (This bill passed with only 61 votes, the one last Fall had 74 votes and several more of them were irresponsible Republicans).

The National Republican Trust PAC Director, Scott Wheeler, is placing people like Spector and company on notice: If they are going to vote like Democrats, expect a serious primary challenge. I completely agree. This Republican Party looks increasingly like the one that was on the scene back in the 1970s. This was back before the Republican Revolution led by Ronald Reagan (who had no problem acting like a Republican). Many of them served in Congress through the 1980s and foot soldiers of the Reagan Revolution (like myself, working for Senator Gordon Humphrey of New Hampshire at the time) would call these "RINOs" members of the "get along gang." They were far more interested in congeniality than principles, which is why we struggled for decades for majority party status. If people have the choice between the "genuine article" (Democrats) and those who are a weak alternative (RINOs), they will always choose the former. Wheller and GOP PAC are right, RINOs are like a plague on the American political system. Either they need to go or the Republican Party will find itself as relevant as the Whigs were in the late 1850s. I encourage people to take the time to visit Wheeler's site and consider taking a stand for liberty and for the extinction of RINOs who are undermining that freedom.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Fox News is Now on Dish

I was wondering why my friends who were on Dish Network were not able to find the Fox Business Channel on their system and that they had to pay extra to get Fox News. Now I have found out the "rest of the story."

The Fox News and Fox Business Networks released a press release stating: "FOX Business Network (FBN) has launched on DISH Network to four million subscribers while FOX News Channel (FNC) has renewed its carriage agreement with the satellite television provider, announced Tim Carry, the network’s senior vice president of affiliate relations. The deal expands FBN’s total distribution to nearly 50 million homes nationwide." The statement went on to state that "Starting today (February 3, 2009), FBN will be available on channel 206 through DISH Network’s Classic Gold 250, formerly known as America’s Top 250 package. FNC will move to channel 205 on Classic Bronze 100, formerly known as America’s Top 100 package, increasing its distribution to more than 11 million DISH Network subscribers. Both networks will be available to DISH subscribers in HD."

Tim Carry went on to point out that “The inclusion of FOX News on Classic Bronze 100 is a milestone for the network. We are grateful for the opportunity DISH Network has given FOX News to continue to expand our audience as the number one cable news provider in the country.”

The Dish Network is the third largest pay-TV provider, so how was it that the most popular cable news network was being so greatly disrespected? According to Multichannel.com, "The deal comes shortly after the companies settled a 2007 lawsuit filed by Fox alleging Dish violated the terms of their previous agreement because the satellite operator did not include FNC in its "most widely distributed' tier. Fox had sought $50 million in the suit, which was settled Jan. 31, Reuters reported." I am biased, but I certainly believe that Fox had a legitimate case and that Dish has finally done the right thing and maybe the only thing necessary to keep it a viable satellite provider for those who are serious about the news.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Fox is Secretly Creating New Networks

What started as something of a whim has grown into a media phenomenon that promises to change the way we get our news. The Strategy Room, a FoxNews.com online streaming TV program that has the look and feel of a typical cable news program, came on the scene during the 2008 Presidential election because there was simply too much political news to be covered by the network. I don't know if the architects of the program knew it at the time, but they were creating a bridge between traditional and new media that was both exciting and profound.

Often, when I am working on my computer, I play Strategy Room behind the window or document I am working on and click to it when they bring up something of interest. When I find myself watching closely, I almost get lost in it and forget that it is a web based show. Fans of new media like myself love it and say "thank you very much," but one has to wonder whether it is in the network's own self interest. I think it is, because the move to online is inevitable. After all, the show has great talent and a professional set, but the big costs to creating a network are the distribution costs. An online program like Strategy Room does not have such problems. However, it seems such moves only weakens the legs of traditional networks, but the power of the Internet leaves them little choice. Fox News seems to understand they are in the information business, more than TV. That will keep the network relevant.

Eric Bolling, who hosts one of the Strategy Room hours has been a guest on my show and we discussed the program's reach. "It is really amazing," he noted, "we often get thousands of emails from people around the country -- and world -- who are wanting to interact with us on the news." The lines between old media and new are only becoming more blurred. He told me that most at Fox were under the impression that Strategy Room would fade away after the elections, but its popularity demanded for it to stay.

It doesn't end with Strategy Room, however. When you get to the site and the actual streaming you find that your options don't end with the talk show. If a governor is being impeached, you see the proceeding live. If a stimulus package is stuck in the Congress, you see it live. If another Obama apointee is trying to explain why he or she doesn't have to pay taxes, you see it as it happens. These additional views probably cost very little for Fox to produce, because the networks already have cameras at these locations, but they make it easier for viewers like myself to stay with the site so I can keep up to date on what is going on. With C-Span you are having to bounce bank and fourth between channels. With Strategy Room, it is all there and one click away. Furthermore, you can also find Fox News Radio conveniently located there and for those who only want to focus their eyes on their work, it is excellent alternative. I am expecting the network to only add "more channels" as it goes along.

There is also a very high likelihood that other TV networks will create similar web based platforms and online channels of their own. Furthermore, this move by Fox only makes it easier for up start new media entrepreneurs to compete against the major players.

The only down side to Strategy Room is that it has yet to find a way to monetize the network. Currently, all the staff have to make themselves available for all the network's news programs, so I don't believe there are additional salary demands in the talent area. But there are costs for those involved in production and the show runs 9 hours a day (from 9 am to 6 pm Eastern). I would think that it would be fairly easy to make it profitable. Yahoo Music does short breaks and plays an ad and there is room for labeling on the big screen TVs in the room or even at the table they sit at. I am only assuming that they are making sure they are in a position to make a long term commitment to the concept. It is pretty safe to assume they will and I believe new media will continue to improve because of it.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

The Arrogance of Officialdom

"The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt." Marcus Tullius Cicero, circa 63 B.C.

Cicero's quote is one of my favorite when it comes to expressing my frustration with politicians who are out of control. The Obama administration is full of such characters. Very rarely has a politician failed to be confirmed by the United States Senate because of tax issues. We have never certainly seen this happen to three in one administration (with two on one day with former Senator Tom Daschle who was nominated for Secretary of Health and Human Services and Nancy Killefer, who was chosen as the President's performance czar).

It is extremely bold that the candidates forced to pull out of their positions found themselves in this predicament:

• Tom Daschle was a member of the Finance Committee for many years while in the United States Senate. This is the committee that oversees tax laws. It is hard to imagine that someone with that kind of background could find himself owing over $140,000 in back taxes, interest, and penalties. This is more than what most Americans make over several years. To be ignorant about owing this amount in taxes seems very hard to believe.


• Nancy Killefer has years of experience as a government and business consultant. With a BA in economics from Vassar College and a MBA from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Killefer looked like a great appointee on paper, but she too had to withdraw because the District of Columbia had filed a more than $900 tax lien for failing to pay state unemployment taxes on domestic help. A person in charge of the efficiency of the US Government being unable to keep track of her tax obligations became more than the administration could bear and she withdrew as a result of it.


• Timothy Geithner, our new Secretary of Treasury and the man who oversees the IRS is another person who had serious tax issues. Geithner failed to pay tens of thousands in taxes over several years. You would think that, if any person would be forced to withdraw, it would be Geithner. However, the Obama administration told us that this would be an isolated incident and the Senate chose to over look it. Now, tax evasion seems to be a prerequisite of getting an offer from this President.

Obama lectures us about the importance of maintaining the highest standards in government and tells us that he is choosing the "best and the brightest" for his administration in the Kennedy tradition of "Camelot." However, it is looking more like "Spamalot" as people ask if Obama's appointees believe they are "so good" and "so smart" that they don't have to abide by the same standards as the rest of the population? That is the exact impression that the Obama administration is conveying to the American people.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Michael Steele: Trendy or Substantive?

After one of the most contested races for GOP Chairman in years, Michael Steele was chosen to lead his party. Why anyone would want that job is beyond me, but he pursued it with a vengeance and he now has the post.

The question many will ask is, why was he chosen. Is he the GOP's answer to Barack Obama? Are they saying, as a party, that "we can choose a black man too"? There is no doubt that he is an articulate and successful African American who certainly has the biography that is worthy of the post, but is he the best person for the party in the times we are in today?

Pros of Steele

The new media is playing a bigger role in politics now than ever and that is only expected to grow. Steele is a huge fan of social networking websites (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) and used them even towards the goal of getting elected as Chairman of the party.

Furthermore, he is extremely articulate and conveys an image of the Republican Party that most people simply have not seen else where, but certainly needs portrayed if it is going to be anything more than a minor party. When Steele discusses the needs of minorities and issues of importance to them, it resonates in a very sincere way.

Cons of Steele

We keep hearing that the former Lt. Governor of Maryland is very "conservative." This is one of the statements that demands an asterisk or a disclaimer. He is "conservative" by media standards and the reporters who interview him. He is "conservative" by African American standards, which is a population that tends to be over whelming liberal. He is "conservative" by Maryland standards, which is one of the most liberal states in the union. He is not nearly as conservative, however, as the rank and file of his party that is crucial in electoral success.

The biggest problem facing the GOP is that it is becoming increasingly like "Democrats Light." Republicans are socialist, they are just not as socialistic as Democrats. We are soft on social issues, just not as liberal as Democrats. Some where along the way Republicans became convinced that the big thing the GOP can do is be a "softer" version of the Democrats. That is what the media, which is clearly in the Democrats pocket, has encouraged for years.

The GOP has always enjoyed its biggest level of success when it acted more like Republicans than Democrats. The stronger the positions that the party has enjoyed on free markets (particularly taxes), strong defense, and pro family, the greater the electoral wins. I believe Republicans need to restore its Reagan roots and becoming the party of success it use to be. I don't know if Michael Steele can help the GOP reach that objective.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Shift on What Worked in Super Bowl Game

For years many have watched the "biggest game" of the year for the commercials. Budwiser, Geico, and Frito Lay have always been knocking themselves out to make bigger, better, and more entertaining advertisements. However, this year, I don't think most of the conversations today will be about the 30 second spots, but about the quality of the game itself.

It seemed that the games had become anti climatic. One team would go in there and simply blow the other one away. Sure, there were the occasional "close ones," but most of them seem more like coronations, rather than competitions.

The last couple of these games, however, have been among the most interesting I have seen in years. It seemed that most plays were game changers and that the final results were completely up in the air. This was particularly true after the second half when St. Louis Cardinals quarterback Kurt Warner came out to win. Typically calm, cool, and collected, Warner racked up more points in five minutes than he did through the rest of the game. It was an impressive performance, but not enough to compensate for the tough calls by officials and amazing feats by the Pittsburgh Steelers. In the end. the Cardinals came up short. We will be slow to forget many of these plays.

The commercials, on the hand, were not memorable at all and may be among the least interesting lot we have seen in years. The funniest one, in my opinion, was the Doritos spot (of the "crystal ball") which was developed by participants in a $1 million dollar contest and cost around $20,000 to produce. This shouldn't surprise us in our YouTube era. In fact, that may be part of the problem, we are surrounded by so much spontaneous and web driven humor, it may take so much more to make us enjoy a good commercial. I have read that NBC was barely able to fill its commercial spots. I guess the new media has even spread to the NFL.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.