Disscussing why States Prosper on Fox News Strategy Room

I always enjoy the opportunity to join the panel on FoxNews.com Strategy Room. This being the week of its first year anniversary of that program made it all the more special. On the show we covered many things, including why certain states prosper and why others do not. I knew exactly where the conversation was going when the Host, Eric Bolling started discussing the decline of Detroit and other historically industrialized cities and out of no where he started naming states (mainly in the South) that seem to be enjoying economic growth. He asked, "what do these have in common?' The answer was simple; they are Right to Work states.

Right to Work states allow employees to choose whether they join a union, while closed union shop states make union membership compulsory. How significant of an impact does such have an economy? A report by Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal and best selling author Arthur Laffer, published by the American Legislative Council, indicates that it is huge. The authors do a thorough investigation of why the ten richest states have prospered and why the ten poorest have struggled. The report covers ten years, 1997 to 2007.

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 witnessed 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.

On the opposite end of the economic spectrum you have Hawaii, Pennsylvania, California, Illinois, Ohio, New Jersey, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, and New York. These unfortunate states have only seen a 59.3% increase in the states' gross state product growth, a 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.

There are several similar characteristics between the rich and poor states in one area in particular, which is in the policies they pursue. 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, which leads businesses to businesses moving to more business friendly states.

It doesn't stop with unions. The ten losers are noted for having excessively high taxes on businesses and high income earners. When these income earners feel such pressure, they know they cannot always "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 examining several "principles" of effective taxation and shows huge disparity between the winners and losers. The bottom line is that some states create an environment that is more business friendly. As a result, those states enjoy lower unemployment and higher economic growth.

The results of the states that ignore the ability of businesses and the affluent to flee such policies have 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. 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.

FDR's NRA tried to Transform Economy

There is a great deal of shock over the aggressive and even radical agenda of President Barack Obama. In spite of this, he is not the first to attempt such a radical transformation of government. Franklin Roosevelt tackled the depression that he inherited upon taking office in 1933 by making it into a Great Depression that has become the subject of songs, movies, and books. This happened by choosing an approach to problem solving that attempted to violate human behavior and by creating disruptions in the economy that lasted for years.

FDR created an "alphabet soup" list of proposals that included the NRA, AAA, WPA, FERA, and many others. All of them were ostensibly designed to benefit "the little guy" who was hardest hit by the depression. The reality is, his programs were particularly harsh on the "person on the streets" and those striving to pursue the American Dream. An example of this was his National Recovery Act (NRA) of 1933. In the early years of the Depression, America's demand for goods had reached an all time low, which led to prices plummeting. In order to stabilize prices, FDR fixed the prices of all goods made in the United States. These price controls were not artificially low, but too high. The effects of this legislation had were far reaching:

• Already hampered by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (which prevented foreign goods from coming into the US and led to worldwide retaliation), artificially high prices made it impossible for the US to compete with foreign countries. Not only did it make US goods unattractive to other countries, the US could not compete with cheaper goods from foreign lands that made it in.


• One of the only advantages small businesses have against large companies is their ability to sell things at a lower price since they cannot afford to advertise at the same level of their larger competition. The government guaranteed a huge advantage for larger companies because they had the larger advertising budgets when the NRA became law. Some desperate CEOs who refused to participate in this program actually went to jail for resisting the government's mandate.


• NRA was a bureaucratic nightmare, Journalist Raymond Clapper noted that between 4,000 and 5,000 business activities were deemed illegal by NRA orders that carried the force of law, which were found in approximately 3,000 administrative orders with over 10,000,000 pages, and supplemented by what Clapper said were "innumerable opinions and directions from national, regional and code boards interpreting and enforcing provisions of the act." There were also "the rules of the code authorities, themselves, each having the force of law and affecting the lives and conduct of millions of persons." Clapper stated: "It requires no imagination to appreciate the difficulty the business man has in keeping informed of these codes, supplemental codes, code amendments, executive orders, administrative orders, office orders, interpretations, rules, regulations"... This proved very difficult to the new entrepreneur who was trying to participate in the economy and made it next to impossible for new players to pursue economic success.

Fortunately the US Supreme Court brought this bizarre legislation to an end in an unanimous decision in 1935. The Court didn't hesitate to stop the policy, not only because it was harmful to business, but more importantly it went well beyond the Constitutional limits of government. We can only hope that the courts of our day will take a similar view of the Constitution when they tackle Obama's bizarre experimentation in government because the legal challenges will come.

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.

Political Success without Compromising Principles

I have been watching the political landscape for a long time and got involved in the process at the young age of 17 as someone campaigning for Ronald Reagan and casted my first vote ever for him in 1980 at 18. Over the years I found myself supporting candidates in general elections that I would never support in primaries. I bit into the idea of "the lesser of two evils" which was feeding a movement towards political parties being built on patronage and compromise and not on principle. The current mess we are in today is built on years of good intended people like myself backing candidates who were only taking a slower path to totalitarianism, when we should have been investing in a new political paradigm (not a new party).




The Democratic and Republican parties are merely vehicles. They are recognized organizations with a built-in political apparatus that can get candidates elected. The Democratic Party has become, in my opinion, socialistic. It's principles are so extreme that Barack Obama received the nomination of the Communist Party USA in the 2008 elections (a fact largely ignored by the mainstream media). We might be able to learn a lesson from the Communists. Libertarian and Constitutional parties certainly do not have the luggage of the Communists, but they also lack the legs to make a difference on a large scale. A Republican Party, taken back by those who truly believe in the Constitution could, on the other hand, have value. For that to be the case, however, those of us who support liberty will have to shy away from the sick, co-dependent role that I believe we have been guilty of for years and take a more aggressive and strategic approach.





This approach will take time to see a lasting impact, but not the decades that a new political party will require. Friends of liberty every where will have to take the following steps:

• In this new political paradigm, "party discipline" should be about abiding by the Constitution, not towing a party line that undermines freedom.
• Ask candidates what it means to "defend the Constitution?" If the conversation does not include a discussion of Article I, Section 8 (which lists the very limited powers of the Federal government) and the Tenth Amendment (which restricts the government to those powers listed in Article I, Section 8), the conversation should be over. Certainly educate people about the Constitution, but don't believe that Congress is suitable for "on the job training."
• Become very familiar with the Constitution yourself. How can we hold candidates accountable if we do not know the limits of government?
• Remind the candidate often of what the Constitution allows.
• Work aggressively in the primaries for candidates who support the US Constitution literally and not in word alone.
• This is particularly true in the US House of Representatives which is far easier to get people elected and those who are conservative are far more in number than their colleagues in the Senate.
• If the candidates in your district do not understand their Constitutional obligations, work for candidates outside of your district. Don't let any candidate take you or your vote for granted. If your candidate loses in the primary, support a candidate elsewhere, in time or money, who is a believer in the Constitution.

This approach will produce winners both politically and philosophically, which is greatly needed in our time. It allows those who support liberty to do so without becoming Don Quixotes, merely chasing windmills.

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.

Lessons Obama Should learn from FDR

We are familiar with the various quotes about the lessons of history. Bottom line, if we do not learn them, we will find ourselves reliving them. Since the election of Barack Obama to the President of the United States, we have seen this Administration try an approach to government that we have seen before and we have plenty of evidence as to how effective it is.

During the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt moved to have the government take over huge amounts of the economy after the nation experienced a meltdown.. The man he hired to over see that project was Secretary of Treasury Henry Morgenthou, Jr. Morgenthou was both a trusted adviser to Roosevelt and one of his very close friends.

Morgenthou was called on to take an ambitious approach to the nation's economic problems with a primary objective of relieving the pain of unemployment caused by the protracted decline in the economy. That approach was centered on massive increases in government spending and intervention in a manner never seen in our nation's year. After eight years of this expansion, the Secretary had the following to say to Congressional leaders: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"

During the Great Depression, the government assumed a larger role in "helping" people with their poverty through politically driven programs that rewarded battle ground states that money could influence into the Democrat column. Furthermore, by taking away the personal accountability that came from state run agencies and private organizations, the government's approach led to chronic unemployment and the crushing of the spirit of people who simply wanted a job. Most disheartingly in the end, it didn't work. After a decade of throwing money at the problem, nothing had fundamentally changed.

Albert Einstein is credited with saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. People are the same now as they were back in the 1930s. Human nature hasn't changed. Free markets and individual responsibility works and government does not. Let's hope we learn that lesson sooner than Henry Morgenthau.

For additional lessons from the Great Depression, consider New Deal or Raw Deal? by economic historian Burt Folsom.

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.

Sizing up the Glenn Beck, Katie Couric Interview

Part of the brilliance of the man known as Glenn Beck is his capacity to stay in the headlines. With that, it was not a surprise that the first interview that CBS aired of Katie Couric's new online series was with the controversial talk show personality. At the opening of the show you see a visual of Couric with photos of many personalities that we can expect on future shows behind her. I believe that many, if not most, of those interviews have already taken place. She chose Beck in order to attract viewers and she knew from that interview that he brought something that would catch viewers attention: his controversial remarks about Sen. John McCain. During the program he said he preferred Hillary Clinton over Obama (no surprise) and Barack Obama over John McCain. This raised more than a few eyebrows.

Republican Presidential candidate John McCain was never a conservative darling. The Arizona Senator has long been a rogue and has his name on more bills with liberal darlings like Kennedy and Feingold, than of Republican standard bearers. Be it his controversial views on immigration or his opposition to free speech in an effort to curtail the ability of individuals to support candidates, McCain was always more loved by the media than by the rank and file of the party. He won his party's nomination because of the huge number of independent voters and a media continuously singing his praises.

I'm among the many who has criticized Senator McCain, although I greatly admire his service to his country, I was always troubled by the radical directions he was willing to take this nation. Fundamentally, McCain was no more willing to defend the principles of the Constitution than Obama, he just had different priorities in regards to his desire for change. In spite of this, I would find it very difficult to say I supported Obama over McCain.

Radio host Mark Levin has immediately gone on the attack and John McCain has treated the remark as a compliment. I wanted to make a couple of observations of my own on the subject:

• Electing John McCain would mean more "wilderness wanderings" for the GOP. The Republican Party is in desperate need of reform. A candidate like McCain would only slow down that goal.


• Remember Jimmy Carter? There were two people that made me leave my family's strong liberal and Democrat roots. The most obvious one was Ronald Reagan, who is one of my favorite modern presidents. The second, was Jimmy Carter who could not have demonstrated more clearly how great the need was for our nation to go in another direction. Obama is going to likely have the exact same effect, except he is Jimmy Carter on Steroids.

The problem many observers are having is can we survive Obama's term? Worse still, could we survive an Obama reelection? The damage he has done, the numerous battle fronts he pursues, and his desire to create a paradigm shift in the way we govern are making us all concerned about the nation's future. On the other hand, many feel as though we are on the eve of a second American Revolution. This stage was set by the radical policies of the Obama Administration.

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

The Plight of the Protesters

The Tea Party and its many allies are leaving their mark on the political landscape. Approximately two million subdued the nation's Capitol on the weekend of September 11th and tens of thousands have attended events nationwide. Their list of grievances are long, ranging from excessive spending, pork barrel programs, high and counterproductive taxes, bureaucracy, abandonment of common sense when it comes to the environment, and more. Underneath all of these issues, there is the fundamental belief that it is time for the government to do what it is suppose to do. Nothing more or less.

I believe that this group, however, is more sophisticated than those activists of 1994 that led to the US House and Senate being ruled by Republicans for the first time in decades. Millions of Americans were mad at a liberal President (Bill Clinton) and an irresponsible Congress, and found the answer in electing a large number of Republicans. Many of those Republicans went back to work on a slower road to serfdom than their colleagues across the aisle. One in which there was more "thought" in the process, a frequency of detours, but definitely on course towards a command economy.

In 2009 it appears that voters have truly had "enough" and their anger transcends parties. After years of being abused by Democrats and neglected by Republicans, those who consider themselves friends of liberty have grown tired of the "lesser of two evils" and have concluded they are merely the "evil of two lessers." This leads to a serious problem in 2010 because of the temptation to do nothing, since there seems to be very few candidates who are serious about their Constitutional mandate or equally impotent to vote for pure principle candidates outside of the poor choices provided by the "Republicrats." The argument is simple: voting for someone other than the Republicans or Democrats is an investment into a new, viable, third option. Maybe, but our entire political system makes it very difficult for viable third parties. Furthermore, how much time do we have to spare in light of the current regime and members of Congress? The options for those who believe in limited government, free enterprise, a strong defense, and traditional values are fairly limited:

• Not participate and attempt to blame the left for the direction this country is going. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" quote by Edmund Burke rings true here. Criticism alone is not an option.


• Vote for the most conservative among the two main parties. Again, this tends to feel futile since the vast majorities of these "lesser of two evils" fail to fulfill their constitutional obligations. There has to be a better way.


• I think we should aggressively support the best (AKA constitutionally sound) candidates in primaries and if they fail to get the nomination than support candidates outside of our district monetarily and/or voluntarily if they are close enough geographically.

This approach would have a profound impact on the best candidates, would attract better candidates to run, would provide desperately needed discipline to the GOP, and would have more immediate gain then the approaches above. Unfortunately, in the short run, we may be a political minority, but we will be a minority that matters and one much more politically pure. Instead of trying to make a third party that hasn't work, constitutionally minded people could profoundly impact the GOP and make it relevant again to the majority of voters by simply forcing candidates to obey the constitution they swear to defend. It will be interesting to see what happens in 2010, but those who are concerned about our future do not have the luxury of doing anything that amounts to nothing.

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.

GOP needs to Realize that Protests are about them too

The Associated Press is reporting that "House Republican leader John Boehner says nationwide protests known as 'tea parties' are the result of push back against Democrats' spending." Yes, this is true, but equally guilty are Republican members of Congress who have supported a gradual approach to socialism. This is the same type of spending that has no support in the Constitution and gives the left its justification for going all the more further in its agenda. The rationale is simple...illegal spending is illegal spending, regardless of the amount. You might as well go for the gusto if you are going to pursue it at all.

The AP goes on to note that "Boehner says his Democratic colleagues are 'bankrupting' the country." This is true and there is no doubt about that reality. The GOP's problem with the situation, however, isn't the bankruptcy, but the fact that they are no longer over seeing it. Much of Republican complaints seem to be about who is in charge and not the damage being done.

The Minority leader also notes that "People are demonstrating and attending town hall meetings because...'we're in the midst of a political rebellion in America.'" I know the Congressman would love to put himself in the "us" side of the classic "us vs. them" conflict. Sorry Mr. Boehner, you are "them." You supported President Bush's bailout in September and am a convert of convenience when it comes to the proper role of government today.

It should not be a surprise that the Congressman gave these remarks at an event like the annual gathering of the the Values Voter Summit in Washington. These were, in his mind, "his type of people." These are among those who are the loudest about the dramatic decline in America's moral and economic standing.

Boehner indicated that he attended a tea party over Labor Day weekend near his West Chester, Ohio home that that drew 18,000 people. He says the crowd told members of Congress that "enough is enough." The thing I do not think that he and many of his GOP colleagues understand is that the comments are directed to both sides of the aisle in Congress. If the shoe fits, Mr. Boehner, by all means wear it.

Ironically, this article that discusses John Boehner's view of the Tea Party still sticks with the story of "tens of thousands of protesters fed up with government spending" that "marched to the Capitol." The media ignores the real numbers because they are afraid that acknowledging them will have an adverse effect on the political establishment they are devoted to. The media is guilty of under estimating the number of people in this movement. I am afraid the GOP under estimates how far this movement's anger reaches.

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.

George Orwell's 1984 is alive and well in Obama's Rhetoric

It appears a major part of Barack Obama and his administration's effort to promote his agenda is to create as much confusion as possible in the message. This is particularly true when you review his economic agenda.

• The problems that led to the financial meltdown of 2008 were rooted in too much debt. The solution, we are told, is more debt.


• If we are guilty of generations of wasted money on excessive spending and borrowing, let us pursue more of it as an answer to the problem.


• Are artificially low interest rates cheapening the value of money and creating instability? The simple response to that would be to lower the rates further.


• If the market is not confident because of volatile spending and monetary irresponsibility, create more of both.


• If a company is "too big to fail," force weakened businesses to merge making them large, weak, businesses.

This theme is pervasive through out the Obama government. Economist Hunter Lewis points out in his book "Where Keynes Went Wrong" that the President's first budget, entitled "A New Era of Responsibility" (you have to love the irony) claims that it moves us "from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest," but creates additions to the national debt of approximately $1 trillion a year.

This odd approach to government responsibility is seen in the healthcare debate in which we are told that, in order to reduce government spending we have to have more spending by government for health care. In the same vein we are told by government that we need to artificially increase demand through bailouts in order to boost the economy in general, but that same type of spending on health care will not lead to high prices. This ignores one of the basic tenants of economics that prices are predicated on demand. According to the left there are around 45 million people waiting for "free" health care. Conservative estimates put it at around 15 million. Either way, that will be a huge demand that will result in higher prices.

One does not need to be a conspiracy theorist to be alarmed by the rhetorical tools used by Obama and his staff to promote the President's agenda. The parallels to Orwell's 1984 are eerie, in which the people in that novel were told that "War is Peace," "Freedom is Slavery," "Ignorance is Strength." Unfortunately, our story is not fiction, but real and in this "newspeak" world we are told that debt equals fiscal responsibility. George Orwell's warnings have, sadly, fallen on deaf ears.

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.

Is Baucus Using a Reversed Approach to a Public Option?

Max Baucus (D-MT), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has tabled the idea of public option and is proposing an approach that will ostensibly allow people to keep their private insurance, but have public insurance available. The reality appears, however, is that the Baucus approach promises to make private insurance simply too expensive for most people and will likely crowd people out of traditional coverage. This is due to the fact that it has the same flaws as the proposal promoted by President Obama. The problems can be found on several levels:

Taxes will go up.

While candidate Obama promised that the vast majority of Americans would see a reduction in their health care costs from his proposed reforms (at approximately $2,500 a year), reality is looking much different and this is even more the case with the Baucus proposal. The Heritage Foundation has pointed out that the "Baucus bill would, however, impose new fees on drugs and medical devices. Also, beginning in 2013, the bill would impose a new federal excise tax on high-value health insurance plans. The tax would be applied to health plans valued at $8,000 for single policies and $21,000 for family policies. Because not all workers in such plans are high income, many will likely be on the receiving end of a middle class income tax increase..." This stands in complete contrast to Obama's promise of not raising taxes on those who make less than $250,000 a year.

An Individual Mandate.

Regardless if you take the exaggerated number of 45 million uninsured that the left loves or the more conservative estimate of 15 million, many of those are uninsured by choice. Under the Baucus plan, virtually everyone will no longer be allowed to opt out of coverage after 2013. The plan doesn't specify how much the specific premium will be, which is further proof that the devil is in the details.

Oddly, a plan designed to increase coverage will actually force many people to abandon private plans. The Heritage Foundation notes that the tax penalty for those with private coverage would be based on two bands and would "be $750 per person, with a maximum of $1,500 per family. This penalty could apply to individuals with incomes as low as $10,831 a year. For those with incomes above that level, it would be $950 per person with a maximum of $3,800 per family."

Oddly, and in direct opposition to one of the fundamental ideas the Democrats claim to value highly, the Baucus bill would undermine privacy rights. His proposal would force bureaucracies like the IRS to inform government health agencies how much individuals earn. In addition to undermining our personal freedoms and privacy, this proposal promises to be very expensive due to bureaucracy.

New Taxes for Employers.

It is interesting that, in an environment with the highest unemployment in a quarter of a century, proponents of the Baucus plan wants to penalize employers for not offering health care benefits. The Heritage Foundation notes that "Employers with more than 50 employees that do not offer health coverage would have to pay a tax for each employee whose family income is low enough to qualify for a premium credit."

Those who will be penalized by this will be low skilled workers who are in desperate need of income. Furthermore, the proposal more harshly targets those that are the sole income earners of the family. For example, if one family member already has benefits from another source, the tax will not be applied to the employer of the other family member. It does not take much imagination to see the many problems such an approach will provide and there should be little doubt about the results: higher taxes, lower incomes, and job losses for those who need employment most.

This is only the beginning of the problems that plagues the Baucus proposal. While the American people are still looking for relief on the employment front and more opportunity to get health insurance coverage, Baucus and the Obama Administration seem to be making it more difficult to reach either of these objectives.

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.

ACORN is on the Run

Child prostitution, voter fraud, tax evasion, and financial support for prostitutes and pimps are among the many headlines that have plagued the controversial Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). The timing of these stories could not be worse for the controversial organization. We are a little more than a year away from the next election cycle and there are many members of Congress in both Houses, including the Senate Majority Leader (Harry Reid) who are fighting for their political lives. In spite of President Obama's love and admiration for ACORN (he, in fact, actually worked for it and with it for many years), the Congress wants to distance itself from an organization that has received millions of taxpayer dollars because it continuously finds itself in the news for all the wrong reasons.

The US Senate has taken the action to deny ACORN's funding. This was surprising to many. I was not very shocked, because this was exactly in line with the survival instincts of those who serve in Congress. This is not moral indignation on the part of most of these members, but raw fear that their days in power are numbered.

I was surprised, however, by the number of people who voted for this reform. The Associated Press stated that "The 83-7 vote would deny housing and community grant funding to ACORN, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now." The numbers of those who stayed in ACORN's camp was few indeed. Politico.com notes that "Only a handful of Democrats sided with Acorn on the vote: Illinois Sen. Roland Burris, Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, and Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse."


The Associated Press notes that ACORN's crash has been fairly fast and furious:

• Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb), noted that ACORN received $53 million in taxpayer funds since 1994 and that the group was eligible for increased funding in the pending legislation, which funds housing and transportation programs (part of the hundreds of millions mentioned before). The organization's behavior has led to it being in its current situation of being cut off from funding.


• To make matters worse, the Census Bureau severed its ties with ACORN, saying it does not want the group's assistance on efforts on the decennial count. This was one of the more important functions for the organization.


• In recent months, Republicans have become increasingly critical of the group, which "advocates for poor people," because conducted a massive voter registration effort last year and became a target of conservatives when some employees were accused of creating false registrations with names like "Mickey Mouse." In the past week prosecutors in Miami, Fla., arrested 11 people for falsifying hundreds of voter applications during a voter registration drive last year. The organization face similar legal problems in half of the states nationwide.

In the end I must conclude that the huge number of votes against ACORN does not make the Congress a "Hall of Courage" but a nest of cowards who have seen the writing on the wall. The American people are angry and those who find themselves supporting this kind of organization will be held accountable.

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.

Tea Parties will not be Ignored

It wasn't hardly mentioned on Google News. In fact, you had to work your way down the page to find it, but the Tea Party enjoyed a bash to remember in our nation's capital this weekend. It is the kind of event that the mainstream media has tried desperately to avoid. The numbers on how many that showed up are fuzzy, at best:

• A reporter for the Examiner said around 30,000 showed up



• ABC news reported over 60,000



• NPR called it "tens of thousands"



• CNN is even more non-committal, merely describing the numbers in the thousands



• Ironically, the closest number came from a British newspaper, the Daily Mail, which put it at approximately 2 million (actually citing Capitol Hill police)
  

I guess the British didn't have a vested interest in the numbers like the US media. American news sources are so vested in this Administration (after all, the news made history in the way it handled Obama, it didn't merely witness it). Not only has the media dramatically underestimated the numbers of those who attended, but has also presented the story with rather harsh headlines:

• The Kansas City Star notes "Angry Tea Party protesters flood D.C."


• The CNN, in its classically cynical fashion says "Health care reform critics converge on Capitol." I don't know anyone, including those in the tea party movement, who don't want to see health care reform. However, if you oppose the President's approach, you oppose reform according to the news. There is nothing like objective media.


• Another Examiner writer argues about "The Hypocrisy of Tea Party Conservatives."


• One writer finds one of the protests' more crude protesters with "Tea Party protest: 'Bury Obama Care with Kennedy.'"

The media is committed to marginalizing and dismissing the tea party movement as a very temporary fad. Ironically, that seems to be only driving the tea party movement further. As the numbers continue to be measured in terms of fractions by the media , the Tea Party provides one of the largest protests on the Capitol in our nation's history. For the Tea Party, the best days are yet to come.

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.

Major Coups at Fox Business

As the Fox Business Channel nears its second anniversary, big things appear to be happening tothe still largely new network. The news media has largely discredited the channel and has even treated it as the ugly step child of the widely successful News Corp family. Network news has often second guessed the decision making of the network's chairman, Rupert Murdoch. In the last few weeks Murdoch and Fox have taken decisive actions designed to put Fox Business on the media map.

First there is the announcement of Don Imus joining the Fox News team. In a press release from the network earlier this month we read "FOX Business Network (FBN) has signed a multi-year deal with legendary radio personality Don Imus in which his nationally syndicated program Imus in the Morning will be simulcast on the channel, announced Kevin Magee, Executive Vice President. Beginning October 5th, the program will be presented in High Definition (HD) Monday through Friday from 6-9 AM ET on FOX Business and continue to be syndicated on the radio by Citadel Media. " Imus reaches millions of listeners every day whom he will drive to the Fox Business Network as they prepare for their day before getting into their cars. Meanwhile, those who love their hard business information will get plenty of reports during Imus' broadcast. Furthermore, Imus will be in a corner screen surrounded by news stories thorough out the broadcast. People will get plenty of business news. This is a huge victory for Imus as he departs the largely limited RFD network and a win for Fox Business who will have its brand promoted to the large audience Imus enjoys.

Shortly after the Imus announcement we are now hearing that one of the country's premier broadcast journalists, John Stossel, is leaving ABC to become a part of the Fox Business and Fox News family. In a statement Fox Business reports that "Award-winning journalist John Stossel has signed a multi-year deal with FOX Business Network and the Fox News Channel. Stossel, who is best known for his work on ABC’s '20/20,' will anchor a one-hour, weekly program on FOX Business, entitled 'Stossel.'" According to Fox, the "program will look at consumer-focused topics, such as civil liberties, the business of health care and free trade." Stossel's activities will not be limited to Fox Business, as he "will also appear regularly on the Fox News Channel, and will produce a series of one-hour specials for FOX News. His blog, “Stossel’s Take,” will be published on both FOXBusiness.com and FOXNews.com."

Separately, the journalist has said “I’m thrilled to join Fox News and look forward to inventing a new show for Fox Business." Fox is thrilled too, I am sure. For those in the news media who have questioned the wisdom in creating another business network, Murdoch may just be a little crazy. Crazy as a fox.

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.

What does the Constitution say the Federal Government can do?

People are coming out in droves to respond to a government out of control. Their anger is correct, but their solutions to the problems we face are often often off the target. The problem is not that the federal government subsidizes certain businesses, it is their "choice of businesses that is the problem." It is not the income tax, we are told, but who we tax and at what amount. Frankly, we have millions of Americans who are enraged at the current state of affairs, but most of them don't offer solutions per se, just a different and new list of problems.

In my view, the federal government should merely do what is explicitly stated in the US Constitution. Any more than that, it is breaking the law. With that, here are the seventeen enumerated powers to the Congress according to Article I, section 8 of the Constitution:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;"

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

"To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;"

"To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;"

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

"To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;"

"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;"

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

"To provide and maintain a Navy;"

"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;"

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"

"And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

As one can see, the list is very short and specific, except for that some what open ended last clause. The Founding Fathers were concerned how this would be interpreted, which led them to modify the Constitution with the Tenth Amendment, which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The debate about what the government can and cannot do is pretty simple and can be found in your US Constitution. Hold your elected officials accountable on what they can and cannot do.

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.

"Gradualism" works Better for Socialism than Freedom

The United States today is a mere shadow of the once free republic that was known as a beacon of freedom through out the work and economic power house that was without comparison. This happened because our federal government deferred to the states and the citizens on the vast majority of decisions that had to be made. We seem to have a very different country today.

Much of the world is rapidly moving away from command economies while the US pursues such at a now rapid pace. This didn't happen over night, but has happened gradually over many generations. Frankly, the US of 50 years ago was not as free as it was a century before; the "good old days" are becoming a distant memory. From the early days of the republic until the early 20th century, state and even local government officials had more real power than those who held most federal offices. Those in Congress -- and the White House -- had their hands tied by a constitution that put firm limits on them.

We can look at historic Supreme Court decisions and even major events (like some of the effects of the Civil War) and see the power shift from a federalist system with sovereign states to the strong national government system we are experiencing today. The court decisions were driven by policies that were designed to make the federal government stronger. These policies included a redefining of welfare (which historically meant had to be beneficial to everyone or was not welfare), how people were taxed, the expansion of regulation, and much more. There was not a massive change over night, but the change has indeed been huge.

These changes happened because people want more things (or money) paid for by others. The late Russell B. Long may have put it best, stating "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax the guy behind the tree." People want "free" schools, unemployment benefits, subsidy programs, etc., as long as they don't have to pay for them. This natural inclination makes it easy for government to expand. This isn't the case with reducing the size of government. Cutting a program even slightly is seen as Draconian -- even cruel. This is logical, if a benefit or program is justified at all, shouldn't it be justified in abundance? This goes back to the federal system that we were talking about earlier. This is why the Founding Fathers so greatly limited the government’s activities to around 17 items in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

The only answer to our current situation is to challenge those who want government to grow at a slower speed (the vast majority of Republicans it appears), to begin to demand that those who take the oath of office take it seriously (regardless of how odd their platform seems compared to the many politicians who have trampled over this oath), and to begin using the language of "restoration" and not conservatism. What is there, after all, left to conserve? Bloated budgets, the decline of freedom, and the confiscation of wealth? Conservatism now means only slowing down our trek down the "road to serfdom." We should instead pursue a different path.

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.

"A Republic, if you can keep It"

Benjamin Franklin, shortly after the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, was asked by a Mrs. Powel, "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" Franklin was quick to reply, "A republic, if you can keep it." Well, if you haven't received the memo before now, we have not "kept it." The US has wandered from the powerful and sound document that unleashed human freedom and kept government at bay.

Recently, on the Price of Business show, I interviewed Renee Herath, who is one of the millions of people who have simply become tired of seeing her government grow out of control. She has gotten involved with the local Tea Parties (both Katy and Houston, Texas) and in Glenn Beck's 9-12 Project and was on my program to discuss some up coming events that may be of interest to my audience. I innocently asked "what got you inspired to be involved in these organizations?" She listed many things, but when we got to the question of the type of government taught in schools today (democracy) versus the one the Founders intended for us (republic), both of us lit up. Very few these days even care about the subject and it has long left the curriculum of government run schools. Those schools have concluded that our country is a democracy, regardless of what our Constitution or the Founders have stated.


So that leads to the question, "does it matter?" This, in turn, makes you ask "what is a republican form of government?" Let me begin by stating that these names have nothing to do with partisan politics, but political freedom. Republic is actually a small "r" and Article IV of the Constitution defines and guarantees this form of government by the federal government for the states. 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. " This form of government is characterized by the idea of 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 a minority, people still feel oppressed. Under a republic, the government limits itself to a "referee" and not a parental role.



The Founding Fathers believed in checks and balances. It should not surprise us that there were no state departments of education for the first 50 years of our republic. They believed that things like what government can and cannot do are too important to be taught by the government. It would be considered a conflict of interst. We have a generation that largely can't identify the differences between a republic and a democracy, because the vast majority of those people were taught by individuals with a political agenda. We have lost our schools and, as a result, the minds of most Americans. This battle isn't merely about advocating economic freedom, but restoring personal freedom found in the Constitution.

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.

Constitution was about Protecting the States

When one looks at the state of affairs today and the leviathan that we have called the federal government, it is hard to believe that our national government was actually quite small and was designed to keep the states sovereign. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention had the overriding objective to keep the states strong and the federal government very weak. You see this in some of the most important themes in the US Constitution. These same themes are among those that the left and the media are most hostile towards today.

• Electoral College. The Electoral College, which gives each state a certain number of votes based on the number of House members and Senate, is among the most hated of US institutions among liberals and the media because it is "undemocratic." It was designed, for the explicit purpose of making sure every state, regardless of its size, mattered when the federal government made decisions. Without an Electoral College, the ten largest cities (or less) could determine the next President of the United States because of their population. All the many states in between those cities would be completely dismissed and we would have a White House that would only -- and always -- look out for urban interests and not the interests of the rest of the nation.


• The Bicameral legislature. The founders chose a system with two houses of Congress, one to represent the populations in the states (House of Representatives) and one to represent each state equally regardless of population (the Senate) in order to make sure, again, that each state received equal representation.


• The unique nature of the US Senate. The US Senate was not designed for any other purpose but to represent the interests of the state governments that chose to send them to Washington. Historically, Senators were appointed by Governors and approved by the legislatures to look after the states' business. This was the single biggest check against a federal government growing out of control and the strongest guard of states rights. Senators had powers not granted to any other federal officials. Their offices included legislative (in the bills they proposed and voted on), executive (in the approval of treaties and Presidential appointments), and judicial (in its unique impeachment role). In 1913 the 17th Amendment was passed to make Senators directly elected like members of the House. This was done because political activists at that time grew tired of how long it took the Senate to move on legislation. By the early 20th century one of the Senate's greatest virtues (its ability and desire to deliberate slowly) became seen as its biggest vice.


• The Tenth Amendment. There were ten major areas that stood between the newly written US Constitution and ratification. Those issues were addressed in the Bill of Rights. One of those, the Tenth Amendment, reminded the federal government who was actually the main seat of power by stating "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Simply put, whatever implied powers existed in the Constitution had to be clearly delegated to the federal government or it was left to the states.

Those people who founded this republic were men on a mission. They were passionate crusaders for the dispersion of power and believed the best way for that to be accomplished was to have the power in the states they represented. The delegates from Virginia, for example, saw themselves as Virginia delegates to the Constitutional Convention and not US delegates from Virginia. They had a different mindset from those who governed today. They knew that freedom was found closer to home and not from an increasingly assertive federal 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. 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.

"Stimulus" will fail to create long term Job Growth

Both last year and in the early part of this year there was great enthusiasm by some (mainly in government) about the prospects of huge numbers of jobs that were going to be created by "stimulus" packages. Furthermore, voters were warned that, failure to provide such would lead to significant job loses and an unemployment rate as high as 8.5 percent. We were even told about police departments that would lose personnel short of serious government action.

Fox News reported of just such an example, but also provided the "rest of the story." "One hundred days ago President Obama signed his $787 billion stimulus package into law. On February 17 in Denver, Colorado he said the plan, 'includes aid to state and local governments to prevent layoffs of firefighters or police recruits — recruits like the ones in Columbus, Ohio, who were told that instead of being sworn in as officers, they would be let go.' On March 6, the president traveled to Columbus, Ohio to watch the recruits being sworn in as officers. He said jobs, 'all across Ohio will now be saved because of this recovery plan.' But it appears he spoke too soon. The Columbus Dispatch reports if voters turn down a proposed income tax hike in August, nearly 300 police officers would lose their jobs. The 25 new officers who shook the president's hand would be among the first to go. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs acknowledged the Columbus situation during today's briefing, admitting the recovery plan is temporary."

This strikes at the heart of the problem. Every job created by government "bailouts" and "stimulus packages" are all temporary without continuous funding. This is the beauty of market created jobs. Employment created by profit is typically long term employment and self-generated. Jobs that creates profits for the ones that created them, gives those employers an incentive to create more jobs. It is simple economics. The debate on stimulus should have focused on the real source of jobs. That would lead to the passage of competitive tax rates that would make the US the most attractive country in the world for job creation and not through excessive government programs that would lead to burdensome taxes on wealth (and thus job) creation.

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.

Ten Ways to Improve Health Care Without Increasing Government

I have to preface this by pointing out that I remain convinced that the US Constitution -- that nifty document that politicians swear to defend -- is the first obligation to the health care debate. According to that document, the issue of health care is to be left to the states and the citizens. Health care is simply too important for the federal government to pursue. It requires many approaches to find a plan that would work. However, the reality is, the federal government already plays a huge role in health care. It has long been my contention that any discussion on reform should begin with the damage that government has already done.

Dr. John Goodman, President of the National Center for Policy Analysis, has written a report that addresses the government impact well and should be part of the debate. He examines ten different areas that should be addressed in any health care discussion.

1. Free the Doctor. "Medicare pays for more than 7,000 specific tasks, and only for those tasks. Blue Cross, employer plans and most other insurers pay the same way. Notably absent from this list are such important items as talking to patients by telephone or e-mail, or teaching patients how to manage their own care or helping them become better consumers in the market for drugs. Further, as third-party payers suppress reimbursement fees, doctors find it increasingly difficult to spend any time on unbillable services. This is unfortunate, since it means that doctors cannot provide the type of low-cost, high-quality services that are normal in other professions." Instead of merely behaving as repair providers, medical doctors should have incentives to restore their role of health care advisor.

Goodman goes on to point out that, in order to "change these perverse incentives, Medicare should be willing to pay for innovative improvements that save taxpayers money. And doctors and hospitals should be able to repackage and reprice their services (the way other professionals do), provided that the total cost to government does not increase and the quality of care does not decrease. This change in Medicare would almost certainly be followed by similar changes in the private sector."

2. Free the Patient. Goodman states that "many patients have difficulty seeing primary care physicians. All too often, they turn to hospital emergency rooms, where there are long waits and the cost of care is high. Part of the reason is that third-party payer (insurance) bureaucracies decide what services patients can obtain from doctors and what doctors will be paid. To correct this problem, patients should be able to purchase services not paid for by traditional health insurance, including telephone and e-mail consultations and patient education services. This can be done by allowing them to manage more of their own health care dollars in a completely flexible Health Savings Account." Some of these things seem very obvious to me. The health care system is plagued by a "penny wise, dollar foolish" approach to medicine.

3. Free the Employee. It is imperative to move the selling of health insurance from a "one size fits all" group approach to one in which people can buy want they want and, more importantly, take it with them when they leave.

4. Free the Employer. In the same vein, Goodman notes that employers should be allowed to be in a system where they can "make a fixed-dollar contribution to each employee's health insurance each pay period. Like 401(k) accounts, the health plans would be owned by employees and travel with them as they move from job to job and in and out of the labor market."

5. Free the Workplace. The system needs to be changed to allow greater flexibility in the purchase of insurance, which would encourage more people to get covered. For example, if an employee has a spouse with health coverage, it would be helpful if the employer could give another benefit. But, Goodman points out, "the law does not allow her employer to pay higher wages instead. On the other hand, a part-time employee might be willing to accept lower wages in return for the opportunity to enroll in the employer's health plan. The law does not allow that either." The answer is pretty simple, companies "should be free to give employees the option to choose between benefits and wages, where appropriate."

6. Free the Uninsured. People who must purchase their own insurance should receive the same tax relief as employees who obtain insurance through an employer. The way pre-taxing works is simple. The amount that is paid for health insurance is simply subtracted from gross wages for tax purposes. This would be a huge and cost effective benefit to individuals seeking coverage.

7. Free the Kids. The increase in the States Child Health Insurance Plan (S-Chip) will actually move 4 million kids into government health care programs where, as Goodman notes, "children have access to fewer doctors and medical facilities than children in private plans."

He argues that these limitations alone means that "incentives should be reversed. S-CHIP money should be used to encourage parents to enroll their children in their employer's plan or another plan of the parents' choosing."

8. Free the Parents. Goodman points out that, "Under the current system, a child could be enrolled in S-CHIP, a mother could be enrolled in Medicaid and a father could be enrolled in an employer's plan. However, medical outcomes are likely to be better with a single insurer." Instead, the system should be designed to support a single insurer. Therefore the government programs "should be used to subsidize private health insurance, so that low-and moderate-income families are able to see the same doctors."

9. Free the Chronically Ill. For this particular issue, Goodman provides a comprehensive approach: "Under current regulations, insurers are not allowed to adjust premiums to reflect higher expected health care costs. This encourages insurers to seek the healthy and avoid the sick before enrollment. After enrollment, insurers have an incentive to over-provide care to the healthy and under-provide to the sick. These incentives need to be reversed. For example, in the Medicare Advantage program, the government pays higher premiums for seniors with more expensive health needs. This encourages insurance companies to create specialized plans - especially for chronic illnesses - that compete with each other." The solution? "Chronic patients also need to be able to manage more of their health care dollars directly. For example, 'Cash and Counsel' programs in many states allow home bound, disabled Medicaid patients to hire and fire the vendors who provide them with services." Programs such as this provide almost 100 percent patient satisfaction.

10. Free the Early Retiree. "Most baby boomers will retire early, before eligibility for Medicare. Two-thirds will not get health insurance from their former employer and even those who have been promised employer coverage may see those promises broken, since there is almost no prefunding of benefits. Under current law, an employer can include early retirees in its regular health plan, but cannot contribute to more economical, individually owned plans." In the spirit of the portability argument mentioned before, the government should make it easier for individuals to have many options and to take them with them wherever they go. This would enhance competition and drive down prices.

Ten simple steps that would expand the availability of coverage and actually lower the costs for all concerned. This is simple common sense, which is why the government is not seriously weighing these type of reforms.

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.