The High Price of Green Jobs

The Obama Administration is moving fast towards green jobs that will have the economy bleeding red in lost revenues and employment. This is not merely the rants of the President's political opponents, but an assessment by Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid and his team in their report "Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources."

The report provides an insightful view of the negative impact the pursuit of green jobs have had on the economies of Europe. The chasing of "green jobs" is nothing new, according to Calzada. He points out that European countries have lived under regulations and subsides for the development of such industries since 1997, and the economic impact has been both impressive and very negative.

According to Calzada, Obama's "model country" of Spain has lost 2.2 jobs for every job created. That translates to 9 jobs lost for every four new jobs provided. Calzada goes on to extrapolate the numbers and points out that, if the US was "fortunate" enough to create 3 to 5 million green jobs, it would do so at the lost of at least 6.6 to 11 million jobs that already existed. For most Americans, this is simply too big of a price to pay.

What is also disturbing is how much these green jobs cost. According to the study, each job cost an incredible $800,000 each. This for jobs that often only pay approximately $15 an hour. In a situation where the US unemployment rate is growing at a rapid pace, this type of cost for employment and the trade off of pre-existing jobs is a difficult sale.

Some other facts, according to the study, about green jobs:

• The cost of these type of jobs goes across many energy alternatives, according to the study. 8.99 jobs are lost in photovoltaics, 4.27 by wind energy, and 5.05 in mini-hydro.


• The problem is not a "Spain" problem, but has to do with the energy alternatives. The costs are the same through out Europe whenever such policies are pursued. Therefore, we can expect the same challenges here.


• The cost to taxpayers of renewable energy is enormous, including 4.35% of all value added tax, 3.45% of income tax, and 5.6 percent of all corporate income taxes.


• According to Spain's energy regulator, Spain's electricity rate would have to increase by 31% in order to pay for the cost of government subsidies to start this industry.

The value and wisdom of "green jobs" is suspect in a perfect economy. The "science" behind it is more religious than factual, and the market simply doesn't seem very interested in pursuing such on its own (the best test if something will work in the "real world"). In our current economy, with the massive loss in jobs we have already experienced and the high cost of inflation that should follow our government expenditures and inflationary policies, this is a complete nightmare.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Fox Business to Tackle Red Ink

This morning I had the opportunity to visit with one of my favorite broadcasters, Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business, for this blog. The purpose was to learn more about his fascinating career that has included professional baseball, being one of the world's largest commodity traders, and his work in cable business television. He began that TV career with CNBC and is has been a pioneer at the Fox Business Network. I will be going more into Bolling's story in a future article. For this piece, I want to mention that Bolling will be one of the many Fox Business personalities who will be involved in the coverage of what the Network is calling "Red Ink Week."

In a press release, the "Fox Business Network (FBN) declares the week of June 1st 'Red Ink Week.' The American government, and so the American taxpayer, is now drowning in red ink. How much of this will be billed to your family and your future generations? Have we ever seen anything like this before? Has anyone? Do we have a reasonable expectation of getting out of it?" What I appreciate about this is that the network is taking this subject on with the passion it so greatly deserves. There is no "dry" detachment like the subject of a history book, but the sounding of an alarm, which is so greatly needed. The network has our attention, the burden on them now will be to help us calmly navigate through our national challenge.

The press release went on to say that "FBN will have a full five days of coverage dedicated to uncovering how the government is spending taxpayers’ money and what the long-term implications of the auto industry and bank bailouts will be for taxpayers of today and tomorrow. Politicians, industry experts, and business leaders will be on hand to go through the line items and discuss how much of this will be billed to our families and future generations." It is refreshing that the network will be focusing on where these policies are having their biggest impact. They are studying the financial institutions, factories, and main street businesses being pounded by government action and the people who work in these actual industries. It is important to get the perspective of policy makers, but it is more important to see where these policies are showing their biggest impact.

The coverage begins Monday, June, 1st through Friday, June, 5th at 7 PM Eastern Time. If you have money, you are going to want to watch this programming.

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

Consumer Confidence Jump May Show that Ignorance is Bliss

Bloomberg reported this morning that "Confidence among U.S. consumers jumped in May by the most in six years, fueling speculation the economy will recover later this year. The Conference Board’s sentiment index surged to 54.9, higher than forecast, according to figures from the New York- based research group today."

To say that this "confidence" is optimistic is to put it light. Consumers do know that over the last several months many things have taken place on the political and economic front. There is this hope among these people that "doing something" has to be a good thing.

What is interesting is that Wall Street seems to be thinking in similar terms to consumers and may be drinking from the same drink, Bloomberg notes "Stocks climbed for the first time in five days on speculation a lifting of the gloom surrounding the worst recession in half a century may spur consumers, who account for 70 percent of the economy, to spend. Still, rising unemployment and falling real estate values underscore that it will take time to establish a sustained rebound. " I think the key word in this paragraph is "speculation."

I believe that this optimism is based only on perceptions and not substance. Once the American people begin to see the policies that are going into effect, they will likely lose a great deal of that confidence.

For example, when the $1.4 trillion dollars that was pumped into the economy on one day earlier this year to help satisfy some of our expenses, we will begin to see a significant jump in prices (which never makes consumers feel confident), a likely decline in economic activity due to the instability that will create, and have a punishing effect on job creation. What will also hurt consumer confidence is the direct attack the Obama Administration is waging on employment, by focusing on raising taxes on job creators.

Obama also wants to double tax businesses with operations both here and in other countries, which will certainly chase capital to other parts of the world. The vast majority of the jobs created in this country are from those who make over $250,000 a year, yet, according the National Taxpayers Union, those who make $153,542 or more already pay more than 60 percent of the total tax bill. Thinking that this is a viable source for more money will only translate for greater economic difficulties.

When the fact that the US has increased its debt annually over the next ten years with the Obama budget and when the additional strain that will bring on the economy finally sinks in, "confidence" is not the word that comes to mind.

The biggest concern that even the most casual observer of our economy and politics should have, is the apparent huge lack of understanding of the consequences of public policy by the American people (including the geniuses on Wall Street), when it comes to the choices being made by the Obama Administration. Optimism is one thing, but the upswing in consumer confidence seen this recently is pure fantasy.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Term Limts are Wrong Answer to the Right Problem

For years, many conservatives have been pleading for limits on how long people can serve in office. They are tired of the rampant corruption, the influence of money, and the "cronyism" pervasive in politics today and they feel the need to do something...anything. Term limits are among the most popular of promoted "solutions."

It seems to make sense, keeping people in office for a limited period of time, instead of them becoming too comfortable, complacent and, most importantly, too powerful. We have politicians who have money in the freezers, with bridges to "no where," and inappropriate relationships with interns. Something has got to change. On the surface, term limits seems like a brilliant proposition. However, this idea mandates that we dig a little deeper. Term limits are a fairly simple concept. Members of the US House would likely serve up to four terms, according to most term limit proponents (eight years), while US Senators would serve two, six year terms. According to the theory, these politicians would serve their time and since it is short, they would hurriedly run back to their home town and go back to contributing to their communities and economies. Unfortunately, the theory doesn't seem to hold up against the harsh realities.

When I use to work for Senator Gordon Humphrey (R-NH) back in the 1980s, I had a surprising experience one day that humorously displays how difficult it is to get traction as a legislator in Washington. I was busy away typing a response to a constituent's question when an exasperated Rudy Boschwith (then, a Senator from Minnesota), flew into the room and with a dazed look, asked where the rest room was. He looked shocked and he acted as though he was going to a public rest room. It wasn't, but one of the many ones in the offices of US Senators for their staff. He was a Senator, I wasn't going to correct him, but the story has drawn many a laugh from other Hill staffers who have enjoyed their own new Member story. What is most amazing is that this happened in 1983. Boschwitz had been in the Senate for five years and still didn't know where the rest rooms were.

I know tons of stories like this. There is the new Congressman who told M. Stanton Evans how much he enjoyed his articles with Robert Novak (wrong Evans). I also cannot forget the member who insisted on not wearing her Congressional pin and expected every member of the Capital Hill police to recognize her. The list continues. My contention is simple, Congressional bureaucrats would rule Capitol Hill and Members of Congress would largely blindly follow. The stock of those who represent us would crash, while the unelected bureaucrats would grow in influence.

An even bigger problem is its potential impact on government spending. Take the lowly citizen (whom we will call "Mr. Smith") who decides to run for his state's legislature. It takes an enormous amount of time, energy, and money to get elected. Upon getting to the House, he realizes he wants to do more and help more people, and do it without the pressure of having to run again every two years. He gets elected to his state Senate and before he knows it, Smith wants to put his sights on the US House in Washington, DC. Once he gets there, he notes the new term limits and he knows that eight years will be here in no time and he immediately begins to focus on statewide office... the US Senate, Governor, or other office. In order to have “a name” through out the state and favors to bear, Mr. Smith will send pork to the entire state from day one. As candidates feel forced to run for higher office, they will feel forced to share the wealth.

Instead of solving the "power problem" common in Washington, term limits will likely make it worse. Since the problem is power, solutions should be found in the way they govern. This could be seen in "super majorities" required for new taxes and spending, sunset commissions that require all spending bills to be reevaluated every two years, required changes in both committees and chairmen over certain time frames (this would certainly disrupt the influence of lobbyists). Most importantly, such reforms would address the real problem, which is power and not the length of time they are in office.

Power limits, not term limits, is the right answer to government out of control. They should be the priority for anyone who is serious about getting government under control.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Newsweek Changes its Image, But can it Change the Future of Magazines?

Newsweek is joining a list of other publications that are trying to reinvent themselves as it undergoes a major design and image change that includes a look that is similar to The Economist magazine. Many publications are making similar efforts, whether they will be successful in remaining economically viable is doubtful.

I love print publications. Any time I discuss the subject of the decline of magazines or newspapers, I always feel compelled to throw that in. I'm not exactly sure why I do it. Maybe it is to explain that I don't have an agenda against print publications, but I think it is to point out that I find its demise as sad as anyone else (with the exception of those who make a living from such).

I'm now largely old fashioned, I own a Blackberry, while my most of my friends are "clicking along" with their IPhones and GPhones. Yet my old Blackberry (which I am up grading in a few months) is more than adequate to find all the information I need on what is going on in the news and more opinion columns than I will ever use. Furthermore, the content I find is usually up to the minute. Weekly magazines, like Newsweek, are typically outdated before the ink even dries. I find it very funny that publications like this have a date from a week out on its cover. I know, it isn't saying that it covers what is going to happen (it covers how long it is suppose to be on the stands), but the whole thing seems ridiculous.

The New York Times recently wrote about the changes and noted that "a major change in its identity, with a new design, a much smaller and, it hopes, more affluent readership, and some shifts in content." In my opinion, it will be in this latter area if Newsweek makes a difference.

The Times also reports “There’s a phrase in the culture, ‘we need to take note of,’ ‘we need to weigh in on,’ ” said Newsweek’s editor, Jon Meacham. “That’s going away. If we don’t have something original to say, we won’t. The drill of chasing the week’s news to add a couple of hard-fought new details is not sustainable.”' I like this. because we are so deluged with the exact same headlines and the exact same stories on a daily basis. Something has got to give. "Giving" us a unique perspective, something not being offered by other news publications, would be refreshing. I'm delighted to read about the commitment, but will be more exciting if they can translate that into a reality. Talk is cheap and there is plenty of that online, in print, on TV, etc.

Part of changing its editorial approach should mean a serious look at philosophy. Currently, Newsweek has a reputation of being among the most "radical" among mainstream news publications. Inviting writers from a different perspective certainly couldn't hurt.

It is funny, because as Newsweek visually strives to look like the Economist, it is also trying to be more like it in content. The Economist has long been one of the most current, creative, and serious contributors to original content. I actually think that, in spite of the fact it has struggled like other magazines, that it will remain relevant. I am not so confident about the future of Newsweek.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

What do you mean by "Unconstitutional"?

There is a great deal of rhetoric, particularly among conservatives and libertarians about the "unconstitutional" actions of President Barack Obama. To me, those are rather strong words, but they flow out of the mouth of pundits and radio personalities without a blink and, even more often, without an explanation. Many (if not most) Americans hear such and say "this is ridiculous" (at least according to the polls, with most still supporting the new President) and others say "Yeah!" with clinched fists and they are ready to take action. The sad thing is, the vast majority of the pundits, radio hosts, those with clinch fists or Obama supporters do not really understand what it means to be "unconstitutional" or how to abide by the law of the land.

The problem is, the vast majority in this country have received their knowledge of the Constitution from the government schools. It is similar to chickens learning self defense from the foxes. It is simply beneficial to the government, but not necessarily to the citizens. The Founding Fathers would not understand how we would allow the government to be in charge of educating the population about such issues (or anything, as far as that goes), which is why there wasn't a department of education in any state until the 1830s, fifty years after this country was founded.

The founders saw education as a "check" against a government that could overly expand its authority. This is one of the constitutional concepts our population doesn't understand. So what is "constitutional" and "unconstitutional"? What can the government actually do? If someone is serious about this discussion, they don't merely argue in clichés, such as "government should only do those things that the people can't do for themselves," but offer a very specific policy agenda. The following are only a few of the guiding principles that define "constitutional" government. In fact, they only scratch the surface. But if we majored in these important areas, we would be so much closer to having our constitution restored.

A Republican form of Government.

This is actually a small "r" and has nothing to do with any party. Article IV of the Constitution defines the guarantees by the federal government for the state. At section four it states "the United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. " The characteristics of this are rule by law (the constitution). Although such a government can have democratic institutions, a Republic is designed to check all tyrants, be it a federal government out of control or a mob with a destructive agenda. The constitution was designed to protect minorities, not just majorities. If the majority wants to oppress people, the people still feel oppressed. Under a republic, the government limits itself to "referree" and not a parental role.

The Dispersion of Power.

The Constitutional Convention was made up of representatives of the thirteen states. Their primary goal was to protect those states from a federal government that could undermine state rights. Most Americans don't even realize that the US Senate was comprised of individuals chosen by the state governments to represent their interests. This was the practice until the 20th century. Furthermore, our US Constitution could not get ratified by the states without the Bill of Rights. These ten amendments that are now claimed by the federal government as being designed for its protection, were intended to protect the states and the American people.

Limited Government.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution lists 20 powers of the federal government. Most of them are very basic and not very expensive. These include things such as post offices, post roads, and standard weights and measures. The military, of course, is one of the few things relegated to the federal government. What the Founders intended was a very small federal government that did the few things it was suppose to do and to do them very well and deliberately.

In the end, there should be no question about whether we are wandering away from the spirit and letter of our US Constitution. A better question is, what do we need to do as a nation to restore our Republic?

Time to get Over the "S" Word

Recently, a very good friend of mine and nationally known economist (and frequent guest on the Price of Business Show) told an interviewer on Fox News that he liked to "avoid the 'S' word." This economist is one of the most passionate and best informed advocates of freedom that I personally know. His credentials in the cause of liberty are without question. With that, I find it hard to believe that he and other free market economists have a problem with the "S" word. It is time to get over the word, and focus on its consequences.

Let's begin by demystifying the word "socialism." If you recall back in your basic economics class, we are told that socialism is "government control or ownership of the means of production." Let's break this already basic definition into even more simple terms. We largely know that the phrases "Government control" and "ownership" are self explanatory. It doesn't have to be both, simply one or the other. The other part is the "means of production." This can simply mean people, businesses, machines and any thing else that adds to the economy.

So is the United States becoming a socialist country or is it already there? Who would believe we would have the President of the United States firing the CEO of an American automobile company? Who would imagine the United States government becoming the major stock holder of untold numbers of American companies? Who would think that the United States would arbitrarily and retroactively break contract law with companies (e.g., the government's taking of bonuses of AIG executives, when they clearly originally agreed to such).

The US didn't have an election in November and then wake up to a socialist regime in January. As Fredrich Hayek pointed out in his The Road to Serfdom, these processes do not have to happen over night. Our road has been, arguably one that has taken over a century (maybe longer), but we are reaching that point where socialism will soon be the commonly accepted worldview. A few years ago politicians shunned in fear the "liberal label," now politicians coolly dismiss comparisons of our countries with European socialism. In fact, they almost appear to be saying, "That is a problem?"

This "road to serfdom" for our country could be a rather lengthy book, but I'm going to only give a few examples:

• Our Founding Fathers originally prohibited income tax because they believed that the federal government had no business knowing how much people made or even how they made it. Furthermore, income taxes are a tax on wealth creation, which is the type of tax that makes economies weaker. Why would any government want to do that?
• The Constitutional Convention was made up of representatives of the thirteen states. Their over riding objective was to protect those states from a federal government that could grow out of control. Most Americans don't even realize that the US Senate was comprised of individuals chosen by the state governments to represent their interests. This was the practice until the 20th century. Furthermore, our US Constitution could not get ratified by the states without the first ten amendments. These Bill of Rights that are now claimed by the federal government as a tool for its protection, were designed to protect the states and the American people.
• In the 1930s there was a complete perversion of the role of government from one of an umpire (making sure that everyone was judged by the same rules) to a parent (attempting to "create" equality in results), which is a contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

The very first step in dealing with any addiction or disease is to own it, so you can battle it. The first step on the road to get the US back where it belongs is to recognize the "socialist" label so we can find a path to liberty.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

A Tale of Twenty States

Our story begins with Twenty states. In the last decade ten became richer and ten became more poor. The question that matters for policy experts should be "why?" Ten states enjoyed an upward economic and population trend between 1997 and 2007, ten others saw serious decline in the same time period. The American Legislative Exchange Council recently published a study (Rich States, Poor States) written by economists Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal and Arthur Laffer, most famous for being behind the development of Ronald Reagan's economic agenda. These two economists have gone "under the hood" to determine why some states are prospering, while others suffer.

The Winners

The states that have enjoyed the most prosperity over the last decade, according to the study, are Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Virginia, South Dakota, Wyoming, Nevada, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas. On average, these ten states saw an 85.1% increase in the states' gross state product growth, an 87.9% increase in personal income growth, a 55.9% increase in personal income per capita growth, and a 20.4 percent increase in population growth.

The Losers

On the other end of the spectrum you have Hawaii, Pennsylvania, California, Illinois, Ohio, New Jersey, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, and New York. These unfortunate ten states saw an 59.3% increase in the states' gross state product growth, an 60.7% increase in personal income growth, a 52.3% increase in personal income per capita growth, and a mere 4.4 percent increase in population growth.

The Similarities and Differences Between Winners and Losers

The similarities between the winners is fairly obvious geographically -- they are in a similar geographic area -- a collective of states in the South and West, with the only exception being South Dakota. Meanwhile, the losers are heavily concentrated in the economic black hole of the Northeast (with the exceptions of Illinois, Ohio, Hawaii, and California).

Geography, however, is not nearly as important as policies, when it comes to the differences between the winners and losers. For example, all but one of the winners are Right to Work states (Colorado). Meanwhile, all of the losers are under force unionism. When unions (and their higher benefits, wages, and other labor expenditures) are a fixed cost of doing business, those states are simply less attractive.

It doesn't stop with unions. The ten losers are noted for having excessively high taxes on businesses and high income earners. In other words, they are attacking the geese that lay the golden eggs. When these income earners feel such pressure, they know they can't always or quickly "fight" the policies effectively, so they take "flight" to states that are friendlier to business and wealth creation. Furthermore, the losers are known for more excessive regulations than the winners, another cost in time and money in building a business. Finally, these losers often have crippling licensure laws that undermine entrepreneurship and economic activity.

Laffer and Moore's study goes much further by examine several "principles" of effective taxation and shows huge disparity between the winners and losers. Some of those include:

• The more you tax something, the less you get of it



• Taxes create a wedge between the cost of working and the rewards of working



• If you tax too much, revenues can decline, because the incentives to produce decline (or those who are being taxed move to places that are more tax friendly)



• An economically efficient tax system has a sensible, broad tax base and a low tax rate



• If there are two locations for decision makers to choose and one has significantly higher tax rates, those decision makers will typically choose the other location.

It is not surprising that the winners fall squarely on one side when it comes to the above principles and the losers fall on the other. The results of the states who ignore the ability of businesses and the affluent to flee such policies has led to a huge decline in both prosperity and even population growth in the "loser" states. The study should be read by policy makers, business owners, and individuals who want to live in states of prosperity and not poverty.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Politicians use Wrong Benchmark in Decision Making

After their designated election cycles members of the US House of Representatives and Senate, as well as the President of the United States, swear to defend the US Constitution. In the vast majority of cases, it appears they are lying.

Unfortunately, most Americans haven't read the half a dozen pages that make up that lean, but important, document. They haven't noticed Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that limits Congress to around 20 powers. Real exciting things like post offices, standard weights and measures, and post roads.

Very few members care about these mandates and to support them as the scope of government makes them seem little more than eccentric (or worse) in the eyes of their colleagues. It simply isn't trendy to support the law you swear you will defend. When I think of such, I consider my own US Senators, John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, both of whom are Republicans. One of them, Cornyn, is consistently ranked in the top 10 percent of the most conservative by groups that rate voting records. I don't consider this a badge of honor, but an indictment of how liberal Republicans and the Senate have become.

John Cornyn, for example, is among the many who voted for TARP in 2008. Instead of being a true leader and representing his constituents, he chose to be a cheerleader and tried to win support from the GOP leadership. The bill he voted for began in the US Senate (unconstitutional according to Article I., Section 7, which states that "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." TARP included provisions for raising revenue. Where it started was grounds for being unconstitutional. I won't even begin to list the many other areas that it fails to uphold the Constitution.

Many who brand themselves as "conservative" use their colleagues with very liberal agendas as the benchmark their philosophy. The reality is, it simply means they are willing to take their time as they stroll down the road to serfdom. I believe the American people prefer those who are honest about their agendas (liberals) than those who are dishonest (so-called conservatives). The last election seemed to prove that true.

The only way to solve this problem is to set a different standard for our elected officials. It is time to select politicians who are strict constructionists when it comes to the Constitution. People who have sworn to defend it and a voting record that reflects that they have done jsut that. Many call themselves "strict constructionists," even George W. Bush who paved the way to much of the socialism the US is now pursuing at a breakneck pace. That is where seriously examining one's political record matters. Instead of "conservatives," I'm looking for candidates who describe themselves as "restorationists" (of the Constitution), and can back it up with their actions.

Holding politicians to the Constitutional standard will lead to more honest government, less government, and the restoration of America's greatness. This won't happen over night and we will receive lectures about "practicality" and being "realistic." Making those concerns our primary drivers, which has been the case for decades, has squarely put us in the mess we are in today.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

T. Boone Pickens' Crystal Ball...Predicting Oil Prices

Something is up with oil prices and T. Boone Pickens was discussing this on the Fox Business Network with Liz Claman. It is interesting to me that this important subject has not gotten more exposure on business television networks since consumers and companies dependent on gasoline have been concerned by the upward trend. Fortunately, Fox chimed in with one of the industry's leading authorities.

Today, oil closed slightly down at $58 a barrel, but that is not the direction one can expect it to go in the future, according to Pickens. In fact, he believes it will go to "$70 before $50” and that oil will be at “$75 a barrel by the end of the year.”

Concerning the continued stressful situation in both the United States and around the world, Pickens had a great deal to say:

• Concerning the Middle East, Pickens stated that "If Saudi Arabia falls, you will have $200 to $300 overnight. It’s razor thin where you are. When half our oil comes from unfriendly countries, anything goes off track, that’s where you are.”


• On Believing the Obama Administration Will End US Dependence on Foreign Oil, the tycoon showed incredible optimism: “Absolutely...This administration is going to have renewables, no question about it. They are going to reduce dependency on foreign oil. I have had meetings with Speaker Pelosi, [Senate] Majority Leader Reid, and they understand the problem and will get it corrected.”

Other highlights of the Claman and Pickens discussion:

• Pickens expressed concern about the huge number of oil imports, stating "This is more than half the trade deficit [and] has far-reaching tentacles and influence over what goes on in this country, where it has not been exposed or even explained to anybody,"


• Regarding obtaining oil from countries that are potentially hostile (such as Venezuela, Nigeria, and nations in the Middle East): "This is absolutely insane, that this country is dependent on supplies as precarious as Nigeria for instance or Venezuela," said Pickens. "Look at Saudi Arabia: They produce 9 million barrels a day. What we import is greater than what Saudi Arabia produces."


• In sum, the long term predictions are very dire indeed, with Pickens noting "I promise you this is going to get tight, very, very quick," said Pickens. "You're going to be back to $75 oil by the end of the year -- and $200 per barrel within five years."

The 80-year-old oil baron turned alternative energy guru provided interesting insights on an issue that is crucial for consumers and business owners in their decision making. Fortunately, Fox Business Network provided this interview. However, I want to remind the reader that his commentary is colored by his significant investment on alternative fuels. His predictions almost certainly must come true for his investments to pay off accordingly.

In July 2008, Pickens announced his ambitious Pickens Plan which focuses on alternatives such as natural gas, wind, and solar energy. His multi-media efforts to get the US government behind these alternatives are predicted to cost $58 million. This doesn't include the considerable investment that is going to be necessary to create the economy of scale required to make the goal of energy independence possible.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

The Stanford Financial Group Web Begins to Spread

As someone who lives in Houston and monitors financial articles, I have been particularly interested in the Stanford Financial story. Today, the Fox Business Channel has taken the lead on providing information on this hot topic.

Today I read that "Laura Pendergest-Holt, Stanford Financial Group’s chief investment officer, is likely to be indicted on Tuesday on criminal charges" at FoxBusiness.com. The total scope of the indictment is unknown at the time of this writing, but the article points out that "At minimum, the indictment will be on a charge of obstruction of justice, though her legal team thinks there could be a number of other charges brought against her as well." Knowing the way the government has pursued these type of cases, we can expect more, maybe many more. It is through the leveraging of these charges that the government gets pleas and information on others involved.

Pendergest-Holt is joining the firm’s founder, Chairman and CEO Robert Allen Stanford in the brewing hot water. Stanford, and three of his companies, have been charged by the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) of orchestrating an $8 billion fraud related to a Certificate of Deposit program. Although he has not yet been charged with any crime at this point, accusations are flying and it seems to be a question of "when" and not "if" he will be facing charges. The indictment of Pendergest-Hold cannot bode well for Stanford.

In fact, the focus on Pendergest-Holt first, could be a part of the government's efforts to make sure that the bigger penalties fall on Stanford. It is not at all unusual for the government to go after the underlings in criminal cases first in order to assure a conviction and to get a heavy sentence for the ring leader.

Pendergest-Holt is the youngest of the Stanford senior executives and, at 35, may seem to be an unlikely central character in this story, but her knowledge of the inner workings of the firm and the relationships that drive it, makes her a very connected personality in this drama and a potentially attractive target to the government indeed.

Historically, an $8 billion fraud case would be considered massive and virtually unheard of; but thanks to the era of Bernie Madoff and his $50 billion Ponzi scheme, the Stanford story has largely been under the radar screen. Fortunately, Fox Business is being serious in its due diligence. Fox's prowess is a story in itself. Increasingly the new cable business network is becoming the leading network and is putting its older competitors (CNBC and Bloomberg) on notice, on the importance of being first.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

So What Could we Lose in Health Care Savings?

The Los Angeles Times reported today that "President Obama, joined by an array of groups pledging to cut the cost of health care, said today the commitment that insurers, hospitals, doctors and others have made to saving money will help him achieve the health care reform he is pursuing on Capitol Hill."

The Washington Times has taken a rather dismissive tone to the actions, stating "The pledge provided few specifics on how the costs savings would be achieved or monitored. And many industry groups remain fiercely opposed to a central plank of the Obama health reform plan — the creation of a publicly funded health insurance plan to compete with private insurers and ensure universal health coverage."

Many will argue, including this writer, that any such pledges by the health care industry will likely be more verbal than monetary. This is all the more the case when you factor in the huge amounts of money the industry will have to spend to fight the Administration's socialized medicine program.

This government-private "collaboration" has problems on several levels:

• Where does an administration that has spent more in 100 days than any Administration up to Ronald Reagan spent in their entire terms, have the right to lecture anyone on fiscal responsibility?


• These dollars are being spent on something and there are always trade offs. Will the proposed $2 trillion come from cutting waste and bureaucracy? Or will it come from innovation, salaries, patient care, and other legitimate functions of health care.


• The fundamental question of the "role of government" is again, completely ignored in this "agreement."

Right now this agreement is little more than another example of Obama attempting to do "something," even if it results in little or nothing. It is an example of rhetoric without substance. The solution to America's health care problems will be found in the market place. At some point, that is where Obama needs to seriously search. What works in our economy are things like competition, reasonable risk, innovation, and economies of scale. These are found in the market, not in the government.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

To Win the War of Ideas, the Focus Should be on Results and not Intent

People can argue until the end of time why people do certain things and support certain policies. Such actions are wildly speculative and create interesting gossip, but do little in helping one's cause. We live in a society that naturally assumes the best in others and are cynical about those who are quick to harshly judge. Furthermore, we get very uncomfortable when people begin to discuss "conspiracy" theories and invariably, discussions about "intent," always lead down that path.

I have to admit, after decades of working in the public policy debate, I am having a harder time myself now more than ever in avoiding the temptation to discuss "intent" rather than results. This is due to several reasons and most of them have to do with the unusual story of Barack Obama:

• His far reaching economic policies had him spend more money in 100 days than Ronald Reagan spent in 8 years


• His radical reversal of policies of containment in dealing with rogue nations


• His associations, that include a domestic terrorist that actually bombed the Pentagon and a minister who baptized him that clearly demonstrates anti-American sentiments

The list goes on and in spite of how impressive this is, history has shown that those who focus on intent that leads to conspiracy theories are discredited, isolated, and marginalized. They find themselves "whispering" about what all these policies are actually about rather than proclaiming with boldness their disastrous results and providing meaningful alternatives.

One of my favorite examples of this is the John Birch Society. One of the most influential people in my early political life was a fellow student in college who was raised in a "Bircher" family, as he liked to say. From him, I learned about the US Constitution, rule by law, the importance of free market economics, and national sovereignty. Unfortunately, the organization is only known in popular culture for its alarm about one world government as seen in the relationships among policy leaders who are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group, and the Trilateral Commission. Over time it became know only for what it opposed. Ayn Rand may have hit the nail on the head when she said that the group had become "futile," because it didn't stand for anything, but merely opposed Communism. Its years of work in promoting sound ideas were washed away in conspiracy theories.

If Obama's policies are harmful, tell people why. Discuss how the US debt ratio is now comparable to third world countries and not the President's plans to make us into a rather large Venezuela. Talk about how we are pumping money into the economy at a rate comparable to countries similar to Zimbabwe and the inflation that will produce. But to say that is part of an effort to bring down the government in order to raise up a dictatorship makes for interesting conversation, but it only "wins" those who are already alarmed. Obama won by ten million votes more than McCain. The "fallacy of the mob" makes it difficult for people to accept such an alarmist thesis. Don't make them do such, the results of the policies are bad enough to seriously consider our views.

Our goal should be to effectively win the war of ideas. Focusing on the results of bad public policy is a much better vehicle towards that goal than discussing the conspiracy theories that can surround such bad legislation.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

FBN Breaks the Story of Peregrine@Weeden

In October of 2007, the Fox Business Network came on the air and made the case that there was a need for competition against Bloomberg and CNBC. They continued to make that case yesterday with breaking news that should have been seen on every financial network on cable.

On yesterday's Fox Business Network, the CEOs of Weeden & Co and Peregrine came on FOX Business Network to announce that they are merging to form Peregrine@Weeden, a fixed-income sales, trading, and research firm. Their goal is to become a company with the size and reach of a Goldman Sachs.

“I believe that an equity trading firm today must not only understand the dynamics of the credit markets, but must also offer trading and research services across the entire array of fixed-income products,” said Barry Small, CEO of Weeden & Co., L.P. “In today’s markets, debt becomes tomorrow’s equity through restructuring. It is imperative that a broker offer integrated equity and fixed income trading services to its institutional clients.”

The company's own press release noted: Peregrine@Weeden will be led by Peregrine CEO, Evan Wein and will have offices in Greenwich, CT and Summit, NJ. Peregrine’s leadership team has vast experience in building and managing premier fixed-income platforms at major buy and sell side firms. Peregrine’s Founding Partners are Rick Fuscone, Evan Wein, Martyn Ball, Fred Fiddle, Jin Ho, Fady Rizk, Ron Rosenberg and Michael Temple.

“"We are very excited about our affiliation with Weeden and their extraordinary professionals,' stated Mr. Wein. 'We are committed to providing clients with exceptional service across our respective fixed-income and equity product specialties, in an expanding and sustainable partnership.' The management teams of Weeden and Peregrine have noted that the compatibility and synergies of their alliance are especially critical in today’s volatile market environment."

In my opinion, this type of story is important on so many levels. In a time when so many companies are failing and taking TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) money, here comes a new and private company that does not have any government or taxpayer involvement. Furthermore, financial decision makers are going to want to know about a new firm such as this as competition or as a way of growing one's own income.

A year ago this should have popped up on CNBC's radar screen and Bloomberg's as well. This indicates a real hunger by the rising leader in the business news front. This isn't a surprise though, Fox parent company News Corp has put considerable resources into the business news arena, with one of its highlights being the purchase of the Wall Street Journal.

This move on the part of FBN only heightens the competition among business news outlets. The beneficiaries of this competition are individuals who are serious about their business news and information.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Is Obama Forcing Businesses to Leave the US?

Before Obama was even elected, the United States had the dubious distinction of having the second highest tax rate on business of any industrialized country in the world. Since being elected, the President has waged economic genocide on the US economy and industry.

Barack Obama has decided to declare war on U.S. companies that are allowed to defer paying U.S. taxes on the profits they make on their overseas investments and enjoy a provision that allows companies to make foreign subsidiaries disappear for tax purposes. These provisions exist in order to protect companies from the threat of double taxation and keeps them more competitive.

According to International Business Times (IBT), businesses that are subject to the changes "argue that Obama's plan will leave U.S.-based companies vulnerable overseas because foreign rivals won't have to pay the 35% U.S. corporate tax rate—instead paying the tax rates, in effect, overseas, where they are generally considerably lower." Much lower, as indicated, since the US is ranked near the top in this category and with Obama's recent commitment to raise taxes for those who make over $250,000, I think it is safe to say that the US will be taking the number one spot. I was visiting with my wife about this in our car and I laid out the scenario. I basically pointed out that, thanks to the Laws of Comparative Advantage, some countries offer things that certain businesses need to make competitive products or services. For US companies it is certain types of labor. As a result, companies often stay corporately located in this country, but have other parts of their business in other places.

So, I asked my wife, "what do you think these companies will do when they are double taxed by the US and the other countries where they have businesses?" She answered, "they would likely move to those other countries with lower tax rates, DUH!" She thought it was a stupid question. It wasn't my fault, Obama raised it, not me. So in an effort to keep businesses from exporting jobs overseas, Obama will actually export the entire companies.

I asked my wife, "so where did you get your degree in economics?" She said, "a degree in economics? Who needs that, all you need is a little common sense." Now that is something we need in public policy today.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on CNN 650 (M-F at 11 am), AOL Radio, and CBS Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

I Remember Jack Kemp

The Jack Kemp I was Fortunate to Know

In 1979 I started getting interested in politics. I had every intention to cast my first vote, at the age of 18 in November of 1980. My interest in the ideas of free enterprise and the importance of a free society flourished when I stumbled on a recently released book entitled An American Renaissance. The book, by a former professional football player turned politician named Jack Kemp, plotted the future of the Republican party for years to come and described with prophetic clarity what would become know later as "Reaganomics."

After that book I moved from "interested" to "committed" and found myself an outsider in a family which had a FDR dad and a socialist (right off the boat from England) mom. My life has never been the same. I knew of Kemp from his book and the news, I received the privilege of actually knowing him shortly thereafter.

In 1980 I found myself in the role as a regional coordinator in the Students for Reagan campaign in Texas. It was "heady" times for an 18 year old because our efforts (including our region) were enjoying national media attention. Unfortunately for me, it also drew attention from Abilene Christian University where I was a student. As a group we decided to have a demonstration at a Jimmy Carter rally coming soon and we told the media, which in turn asked questions at my school.

During class one day someone walked in and handed my professor a note from Dean Beauchamp, who was the Vice President of Student Affairs. The professor was a friend of mine as well as my teacher and he turned slightly pale and looked at me. "Kevin, Dean Beauchamp would like to see you immediately after class." If he was slightly pale, I turned white as a sheet. Mr. Beauchamp was the enforcer on campus, the equivalent of the assistant principal in a middle school. Visits with him often preceded departures from the school.

I said, "May I go now?" He shook his head yes and said, "See me after your meeting" with genuine concern or morbid curiosity. When I got to his office there was little wait (thank God) and was quickly in his office. He cut straight to the chase, "Kevin, this is a Christian university and we expect our students to not embarrass us, we don't like the idea of you protesting our President." I said, "Oh no Dean Beauchamp, we are having a pro-Reagan rally." He stared at me and didn't smile. He said, "It is a free country, I can't stop you, and although I like Reagan, I will not tolerate this school being embarrassed, understand?" I understood.

On the day of the event we had media coverage from TV, radio, and newspapers and the local Republican Party publicly criticized my efforts because they were independent and drew far more attention than the establishment party received. Congressman Jack Kemp came the day after that event and got his hands on one of those newspapers. At a party for Reagan that night which included Kemp, I got an invitation from the Congressman to attend. When I got there, it was awkward. The party regulars had wished I chose to not attend. Kemp arrived fashionably late and he immediately asked "who is Kevin Price?" I sheepishly looked up and he motioned me to come over to him where he patted me on the back and shook my hand. He turned to the GOP county chair and said "we need more heroes like this to save the future of this country. If anyone is not happy with his efforts, they need to answer to me. Any questions?" Now the poor county chair turned white and was completely silent. Kemp turned and whispered to me, "I heard you were having problems at school too, do you need me to make a call?" I pulled my jaw up and whispered "no." I think he may have made a call because Dean Beauchamp later grabbed me in the hall and told me how proud he was of what I was doing for our country.

That was the kind of person Kemp was. I grew to disagree with him on some issues, but he entirely changed the debate in Washington and we went from a country that saw high taxes as "patriotic" to one in which individuals should fight for lower rates. In fact, I think he was the most influential American in the 20th Century to never get elected President. But as in the case of his conversation with me, Kemp was very real and interested in every day people, like me.

Football player, Congressman, Secretary of HUD, Vice President nominee of the GOP. He was a great American. He will be missed.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on CNN 650 (M-F at 11 am), AOL Radio, and CBS Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Democrats are Candid in goal to Destroy Private Health Insurance

In recent months, the Obama Administration has been placing increased pressure on private health insurance, while building momentum for nationalized health care. The government is increasing mandates on health insurance companies, while failing to cover the additional cost.

Furthermore, they are giving business owners every incentive to not have health insurance for their employees. One of the best examples is the recent mandate on businesses to pay 65 percent of COBRA coverage to individuals who were laid off due to the economic downturn. These companies are forced to pay for this unplanned expense are expected to be "reimbursed" through a specific tax credit. But like most credits, the devil is in the details, they may not be able to enjoy them immediately and those savings will likely be devoured through the other tax increases being placed on businesses.

The Heritage Foundation points out that "established research shows that a public health plan will 'crowd out' private insurance, forcing millions of Americans off their current plans, and away from their family doctors." It goes on to say that the last few months of bailouts and SCHIP (Children Health Insurance Program) were designed to make "a substantial down payment on major expansion of government run health programs."

For those who think that people are exaggerating about the Democrats intentions, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) has practically ended that debate all together in a recent speech in which she made it clear that it was the intention of Democrats is to destroy private health insurance. These objectives were seen in the President's so-called stimulus package, which included:

• Bailing Out State Medicaid Programs.


• Health Care for the Unemployed.


• An Infrastructure for Rationing.


• Billions of dollars would be spent on a health IT information "architecture" for exchanging information and training health care professionals.

These priorities show a government's preponderance towards rations, unfair competition, and the crowding out of private health insurance companies.

The media is beginning to report that a national health care package could be passed in just a few months. The US is the last bastion of innovation in health care with a system (warts and all) that has made us the leader in medicines and treatments. If the Democrats have their way, it will be replaced by one of rationing and a lack of choices. Is that the change that the American people can believe in?

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on CNN 650 (M-F at 11 am), AOL Radio, and CBS Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.