Opposition to Obamacare Should be Unconditional

Recently I received a request from a very well intended and concerned individual about the health care debate. She wanted me to promote a provision that would have a "whistle blower" provision as a part of the socialized health care bill. It is a great measure that those who want to protect our health care system should support, but avoid like the plague at this time. Meanwhile it is the type of provision that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi hates and they hope and pray that conservatives pursue such with a passion. The reason for this is simple -- it legitimizes the role of the federal government in the health care debate. Once we concede to this type of discussion, there is no longer a question as to whether there will be a socialized health care program, but what it will look like.

I hear people say, "government spending needs to be lower before we pursue such an ambitious program," or "the number one priority is unemployment and until it is below a certain level, we should not be even discussing health care," or other conditions that some deem necessary before we begin a health care debate. Our view must be different. Our opposition to this health care proposal should be unconditional. There should be nothing the federal government can do to make it worthy of consideration. The reasons for this are numerous, here are just a few:

• Socialized medicine destroys innovation and will throw our health care into a new Dark Ages.


• The federal system our republic is built on intended for issues like this to be addressed exclusively by the states and not the federal government. To date states like California, Oregon, Massachusetts, and Hawaii have attempted such programs and they have all been complete failures. Hawaii's socialized health care program almost put the entire state into bankruptcy and had to be discontinued in seven months.


• Socialized medicine has not worked in other countries and, where applied, is noted for rationing and shortages. The average wait time to see a specialist in Canada after a general physician has noted a health care issue requiring further attention is 17 weeks (approximately four months). This is more than enough time to turn an early detected cancer into one that is inoperable. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, women with breast cancer have a 14 percent higher survival rate in the United States than in Europe. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Breast cancer mortality is also 9 percent higher in Canada than in the US. Less than 25 percent of US women die from breast cancer. In Great Britain, it's 46 percent; France, 35 percent; Germany, 31 percent; Canada, 28 percent; Australia, 28 percent, and New Zealand, 46 percent.


• Finally, and most important in my opinion, socialized health care is unconstitutional. Our constitution limits the federal government to 17 specific powers and none of them include health care. The argument that the government is already doing many things beyond the mandate of the Constitution does not justify further expansion. The line must be drawn some where. This is the time and this is the place.

If those who oppose socialize medicine engage in the debate by discussing provisions "necessary" to make it "work," the battle is over and we lose. We must stand opposed to socialized health care and do so without exceptions.

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

Thanksgiving was a Celebration of Freedom

This article originally appeared in 2008. The message will matter as long as we enjoy Thanksgiving days.

Thanksgiving has become my favorite holiday. As an adult with many children, Christmas has lost some of its charm and there are few things more enjoyable than getting fat and watching holiday specials. However, one of the things I do not enjoy is the propaganda my kids share with me about the meaning of Thanksgiving. They often tell me about how the Indians taught the Pilgrims how to grow food and that, in spite of a rough beginning, these early Americans enjoyed an abundant harvest. Essentially the Pilgrims were thanking the Indians for their generosity.

In reality, the colony's governor, William Bradford noted that "the experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them." People didn't want to work, because they were not individually rewarded for their efforts. Bradford knew there had to be a better way.

The governor stated that "All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression." It is interesting that the problems of welfarism was as great in the beginning of our country as it is today. A little incentive goes a long way.

As a result of those changes, the Pilgrims went from hunger and famine in 1621 and 1622 to widespread abundance. The only difference was a simple change in policy that increased incentives to work and not be slothful. When Washington and Obama discusses such today, they need this important reminder from history.

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

Public Funding of Elections Provide Predictable Results

Many have been crying for government funding of elections as a vehicle to make elected office more accessible for those who are not rich and to weaken the influence of money on the policy process. A new report by the Goldwater Institute indicates that may not be the case. The Goldwater Institute is a state public policy foundation for the state of Arizona and its recent report shows that public financing has empowered substantially more "big government believers" than supporters of smaller government to the process, according to the Director of its Center for Constitutional Government, Nick Dranias.

The report takes a rather objective look of the impact of public funding on candidates by grading and ranking state legislators based on their commitment to small government as demonstrated by the bills they supported. The institution's philosophy is best described as classical liberal, meaning that government simply should tax, spend, and regulate as little as possible. Like those report cards you received in school, the grading looks familiar -- an "A" for those who would vote like the organization's namesake (Barry Goldwater) and an F of those who reflect the views of the current sitting President, Mr. Obama.

Here are some of the facts from the study:

• As shown in the Institute's report, publicly-financed candidates in both the State Senate and House disproportionately receive failing grades.


• More publicly-financed candidates rank in the bottom half than in the top half.


• And publicly-financed candidates that rank in the bottom 10 are nearly double the number of publicly-financed candidates in the top 10.
  

The report went far and wide in its scope and its grading scale made the legislature's work very clear. The report was also quite thorough, going through over 1,200 bills, memorials, and resolutions introduced this pass session. It gives a solid framework for individuals to determine what work their elected officials are about: protecting taxpayers or exploiting them.
The National Center for Policy Analysis summarized the report by pointing out that, "Scores for the 49th Arizona Legislature remain around the 50 percent mark, indicating a near equal amount of votes that undermined liberty as upheld it. While legislators with the highest scores received a letter grade of A, it should be remembered that this rating represents a percentage score of 80, leaving much room for improvement. Likewise, these scores illustrate legislators' relative commitment to liberty. They are not absolute measures of a legislator's merit, and do not constitute any endorsement, says Dranias."

In my opinion, this study's findings should not surprise anyone. If one uses welfare to get elected (public funding), how can one expect them to hold a tough line on welfare for the general population once elected. That would be the epitome of hypocrisy. The moral legs necessary for supporting smaller government are wiped out by the power of government subsidies for these candidates. Like virtually every other area of discussion, more government in election funding is not the solution to our problems.

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.

Obamacare will Destroy Innovation

In addition to costing (on the low end) approximately $1 trillion simply to launch President Obama's ambitious move towards socialized medicine, this proposal will also have a devastating effect on the nation's health care. In fact, I believe the passage of this bill will pave the way for a new Dark Ages in health care.

The entire debate on health care seems to be focusing on costs and covering the uninsured. The latter group is almost a misnomer because one can argue that our "uninsured" are better protected than many under socialized medicine in Europe and the former cannot be contained through government controls without sacrificing quality and fostering rationing health care system.

The United States is the only major nation with health care that is still (to some extent) market driven. There is an impetus in US health care towards innovation that other countries simply do not enjoy. The Cato Institute noted in a recent study that innovation should be the number one concern in the health care debate, according to Glen Whitman, an associate professor of economics at California State University, Northridge and Raymond Raad, a resident in psychiatry at New York Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center.

They make this case by examining four categories of innovation -- basic science, diagnostics, therapeutics, and business models. They found:

• In the areas of basic science diagnostics, and therapeutics, the United States has contributed more than any other country, and in some cases, more than all other countries combined.
  
• In the last category, business models, the researchers lack the data to say whether the United States has performed better. What is interesting is that other countries have their own problems in this area. Government bureaucracy has replaced business bureaucracy, how can that be better? "Government" is the common thread in all of these inefficient systems (including our own) and one should argue that should be the point of focus. We should look at reducing the role of government and increasing the role of the market.

The US approach, with all of its costs and inefficiencies, has provided the greatest innovations in health care for its patients, according to the authors. These include:

• The quick adoption and broad use of new treatments and technologies, which in turn create an incentive to develop those techniques in the first place.
• When the American people "subsidizes" medical innovation through higher costs, the whole world benefits; that is a virtue of the American system that is not reflected in comparative life expectancy and mortality statistics. It is almost humorous that the rest of the world is not denouncing the US for moving away from a system that other countries are benefiting from.
• Medical treatments must be invented before costs can be reduced and its use extended to everyone. Becuase of that, innovation remains critical. If the incentive for innovation is not there, everyone (including those who are suppose to benefit from socialized medicine) will suffer.
  

Innovation has had virtually no role in the current health care debate and this shows how myopic supporters of socialized health care are. They too will find themselves suffering from the lack of options that are common in systems that are not market driven.
For more information I suggest Glen Whitman and Raymond Raad, "Bending the Productivity Curve: Why America Leads the World in Medical Innovation," Cato Institute, November 18, 2009.

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 Senate Health Care bill is Actually Worse than House

In spite of the rocky road to date in the pursuit of socialized medicine, it seems that policy makers are bent on pursuing the most difficult course possible in making this bill become law. The costs exceed earlier expectations, it is picking up questionable policy additions along the way, and it is receiving criticisms from every sector. This trend in the US House is continuing in the Senate.

There is the sticky matter of abortion funding in the bill. Pro-life members of the Senate are convinced this bill will lead to federal funding of abortions. Fox News quotes Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb) stating "Citizens get charged a premium that includes abortion coverage. The taxpayers pay a percent of the premium. Who can determine what dollar went here or what dollar went there?"Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., concurs and is threatening to filibuster the bill, under which the so-called "public option" health insurance plan and subsidized plans would allow for abortions, if covered with private money.

Even Obama himself admits the proposal does not have the proper balance to appease all the forces in the debate. "Not yet," Obama told Fox News' Major Garrett in a recent interview.

Abortion is just the beginning of the problems facing the legislation.

Union members, a strong part of Obama's constituency and of members of Congress behind the bill, could find themselves paying a tax on the part of family health insurance plans that exceed $23,000 in value.

The bill takes aim at those who can afford elective procedures by charging an additional tax on aesthetic procedures. It is being affectionately referred to as the "botox tax."

Than there is the Medicare tax which would rise for people making more than $250,000 a year from nearly 1 1/2 to nearly 2 percent, in the Senate bill. "Tax" is a popular theme through out the bill. In fact, the group Americans for Tax Reform notes the bill uses the term "tax" 183 times. This should not be a surprise, since the bill is more than 2,000 pages long and its enormity has become a prop for its critics during debates.

As is the case in every legislation, the Devil is in the details. With more than 2,000 pages, there are plenty of those to be sorted out. For example, one popular idea among "nanny minded" members was a proposal to tax sugary drinks that did not make it to either the House or Senate bill. However, to hedge their bets, the food industry is still running ads critical of it. One such advertisement points out that "They say it's only pennies, well those pennies add up when you're trying to feed a family."

In my opinion, the only thing that will allow this awkward bill to pass, in light of its many targets for critics to attack, is to use fear. Essentially they are going to try and convince the American people that doing nothing will be far more harmful than passing a bill that is riddled with social agendas, outrageous taxes, and prolific spending. This does not even begin to discuss the problem of rationing that will follow the addition of tens of millions of individuals added to the health care system. In spite of significant majorities in both Houses of Congress, this bill likely is "dead on arrival."

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.

Sarah Palin's rise raises Questions about Conservative Women

Sarah Palin is all the rage as she promotes her new book, Going Rogue: An American Life. She was a conservative darling before she wrote the book and all the more so now that this book is being promoted by the former governor and GOP nominee for Vice President.

Columnist Jedediah Bila pointed out in a recent article that Palin's book conveys the qualities that made her a star in the 2008 Presidential campaign, noting "Palin almost immediately establishes herself as someone who reveres the ideals that she cherishes most — her faith, her family, and her liberty — but who also has a pungent distaste for the hypocrisy of the political machine: 'But it seemed that every level of government I encountered was paralyzed by the same politics-as-usual system. I wasn't wired to play that game' (5). She later echoes a kindred reflection: '...I had to live with my own conscience, so I voted according to my principles and let the chips fall where they may' (66). Palin pledges allegiance to her convictions and both the Alaska and United States constitutions, but not to her party, narrating several instances when she confronted GOP waste and corruption, choosing instead to side with her self-proclaimed 'commonsense conservatism': 'At the time, both parties, nationally and locally, were spending uncontrollably. No wonder voters couldn't tell Republicans from Democrats'" (146).

In spite of the fact her messaged resonated so clearly with many Americans and some could argue that she nearly pulled the McCain campaign out of the jaws of defeat, I believe that Palin and other women and minorities face a serious handicap when running for national office. That handicap is the mainstream media.

I have been arguing in my column, in interviews, and on my radio program, that the mainstream media will do everything in its power to prevent a conservative female or minority from being elected to national office. The left has believed that minorities and women would have no political power without the liberal agendas of the past. The left wants to keep these groups on an ideological plantation, with women and minorities marching in lockstep. I assume the progressives don't realize that the idea behind giving these groups their freedom was to empower them to be able to disagree with their agenda. That is, after all, what freedom is about.

Many on both the left and right disagree. They point out people like Bay Buchanan, who has enjoyed a successful career as a political consultant; yet she has never faced the scrutiny of the election process. To me, she is a weak argument.

Another popular example is Elizabeth Dole. There is no doubt about it; Dole has had an impressive career. Former Secretary of Labor, former Secretary of Transportation, and an US Senator, Dole has certainly had a career filled with accomplishments. Unfortunately, these individuals are missing the point. You can point to many successful conservative females in politics, but we only have one that was on a national ticket and that was Sarah Palin. Now Dole has run for national office, but had little to show for it. She was an interesting novelty, but not a serious candidate by any measure.

The only way to test my thesis is to apply it only to female candidates who have actually had the nomination for national office. Enter Sarah Palin. Palin was literally butchered by the mainstream media by every measure. The thought of Palin as Vice President provided nightmares to the left and to the media that largely supports a liberal agenda. Attention women and minorities, if you are serious about national office, you better be prepared to worship at the alter that "got you there." Other wise, we better be prepared to change the way the media looks at women and minorities.

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.

Capitalism and Morality

I am a fan of Glenn Beck. I like his shows, website, and enjoy his books. Recently I spent some time with his latest, Arguing with Idiots. The book is excellent, although I choose to not waste my time with idiots since there are so many "sincere undecideds" that I believe are open to a better way of thinking about policy issues. He tackles several of the key headline issues that we hear about daily and clearly shows the insanity on the left when it comes to approaching our national problems. However, I had a very difficult time with his view of capitalism.

Beck's book tackles the question of capitalism from a purely utilitarian perspective, in my opinion. Capitalism, he argues, is not right or wrong, but is simply the most efficient. He recognizes the role of human behavior and the fact that capitalism clearly leads to better results, but in the end he says it as neither bad nor good. I could not disagree more. Capitalism is the most moral economic system in the history of the world.

Command economies -- be they communist, socialist, democratic socialist, or whatever -- have the following immoral characteristics:

• The government is a common vehicle for theft, taking money from one group to give to another in pursuit of political, social or other objectives. The taking of money from some to give to others is little more than stealing. Just because it has taken the power to do it, it does not make it right. Government expenditures are only "moral" when they benefit everyone and show special interest to no one. Furthermore, it must be in areas that the government is the only one that can do it.


• These types of governments have monetary policies that print money to pay for government programs (inflation), which devalue all other money in an economy. When individuals or crime syndicates do this, we call it producing counterfeit money, when government does it we call it business as usual. A truly capitalistic economy would depoliticize the currency and link it to gold or other precious metals to preserve the currency's value.


• These economies create social distortions on a macro level that we would never want on a micro level. We would not want families to be subsidized in a manner that encourages divorce so the children would receive more money, we would not want to reward poverty and waste or discourage individuals from increasing their income. These type of distortions are common in these types of command economies, but are contrary to free markets.

Few can honesty argue against capitalism's power to produce jobs, new technology, better opportunities, and personal economic growth. But these are only part of a much more important system. I guess it is fine if one wants to reduce the virtues of capitalism to efficiency, but to me it is selling one of the most powerful -- and moral -- systems far too short. Capitalism embodies liberty, efficiency, and morality. The most important and persuasive, is its morality. That is a high ground that should be taken in the war of ideas.

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.

Earmarks Reflect a Bigger Problem

At the height of the 2008 Presidential campaign, John McCain finally began to make traction in one important area, which was earmarks. McCain, who was never a purist in the eyes of most conservatives when it came to government spending, did have an excellent track record in this area compared to Barack Obama. Generally, most Americans were more comfortable with McCain over Obama on this issue.

Although this issue gathered some stream for a short period of 2008, in 2009 it has fallen entirely off the radar screen, thanks to multi-trillion dollar bailouts and an exploding national debt. It simply does not seem that important to most policy makers.

This is too bad, because earmarks are an excellent indicator of the moral decay in the Congress and the total disregard of elected officials when it comes to taxpayer dollars. A few months ago, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) released its annual Congressional Pig Book, which went largely unnoticed by the media. In it, the book revealed over 10,000 earmarks, worth $19.6 billion from 11,610 in fiscal year 2008 to 10,160 in fiscal year 2009, the total tax dollars spent to fund them increased by 14 percent, from $17.2 billion to $19.6 billion.

Tom Schatz, the President of CAGW noted that "Everyone in Washington has promised a new era of transparency and restraint in earmarks, from President Obama to the leaders of both parties in Congress. Sadly, the hard numbers from the 2009 appropriations bills tell a different story. The current Democratic congressional majority is following the same trajectory as their Republican predecessors. They came into power promising to cut earmarks, and made a big show of it during their first two years. However, as the 2009 Pig Book amply illustrates, pork-barrel spending is growing fast." That is largely the story of pork. It is an excellent target of cowardly politicians fighting for the political life, but is no longer an issue when elected officials sit in decision making.

The new transparency rules were intended to get ridiculous bills out in the light, however CAGW uncovered over 220 earmarks worth over $7.8 billion that violated Congress's own rules. The book is only a "best of" the worst forms of government spending. There are many more not in the book that will certainly get you angry, but CAGW's examples are powerful and include:

• $3.8 million for the Old Tiger Stadium Conservancy in Detroit;


• $1.9 million for the Pleasure Beach water taxi service in Connecticut;


• $1.8 million for swine odor and manure management research in Ames, Iowa;


• $380,000 for a recreation and fairgrounds area in Kotzebue, Alaska;


• $143,000 for the Greater New Haven Labor History Association in Connecticut;


• $95,000 for the Canton Symphony Orchestra Association in Ohio; and$71,000 for Dance Theater Etcetera in Brooklyn for its Tolerance through Arts initiative.

A million here and a million there, and the next thing you know you are discussing real dollars.
The typical reaction to these type of bills is balance budget amendments and line item vetoes. These reforms are mere band aids that do not address the larger question of the areas that the government are allowed to spend. That would require a closer examination of the US Constitution and an adherence to Article I, Section 7 of that document. Doing such would not only cut into the billions of irresponsible pork, but attack the trillions in spending that threatens the future of our country. Now that would be change I would appreciate.

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.

Obamacare's war on the Poor

There are, in public policies, these inconvenient things called the "secondary effects." These are the unintended consequences of even the best intended laws. Critics of Obama's national health care program have questioned its intentions from day one. Few doubt the program will lead to a serious rationing of health care (adding 40 million on the system and allegedly lowering spending will have that impact) and will lead to increase taxes for millions of Americans.

According to public opinion surveys, the number one issue of most voters is unemployment. This sentiment is backed up by the hard fact that unemployment recently broke into double digits, increased employment is still dragging, and the numbers added to the dole are still in the hundreds of thousands each month. One of the main deterrents to the creation of jobs is taxes. Obamacare is nothing short of a direct tax on labor and the cheapest labor in particular.

Writer Eric Staib has spent some serious time with this massive legislation that will change health care and the economy forever. He points out that "According to pages 269-273 of the gargantuan bill, employers of full-time workers will be required to cover at least 72.5 percent of the premium of the least expensive health-insurance plan available that fulfills the bill's minimum criteria of 'acceptable coverage.' In cases in which family coverage is provided, 62.5 percent of the premium is to be borne by the employer. Depending on the specific plan and other variables such as location, this amounts to a direct labor tax of approximately $300 per month for an individual, or nearly $700 for family coverage." Simply put, that means an additional cost of $300 a month for adding an employee and more than twice that if he or she has a family. This, of course, leads to discrimination of potential employees if they have a family.

To make matters worse, if adding $300 or $700 to a preexistent employee and the return being given back to the company is worth less than that, he or she might be laid off or find themselves part time. That leads to another problem, Obama's bill leaves the definition of part-time in terms of the health care bill to Obama's Czar on the subject and not the Department of Labor. The lower the number of hours are used in defining part-time, the fewer the hours people will have at a job. It will create a devastating cycle.

The political left claims to hate regressive taxes (those that get higher as you make less income), but that is exactly what this bill promises to be. The less productive (lower paid) employee will be the one in the business decision makers' crosshairs. Instead of improving the lot of those who are in need of national health care, this legislation promises to do them more harm by also making them unemployed or under employed.

Another unintended consequence of this bill, but certainly tied in to it, will be the continued growth of outsourcing to foreign countries as a viable way of doing business. Cheap labor that is around the world will be a more attractive source for getting things done. Instead of helping the working poor and those who aspire to rise up the economic ladder, Obamacare promises to make the "working poor", simply "poor."

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 Road to Serfdom is Paved with Exceptions

For decades I have been sitting across the table from politicians, authors, business leaders, and economists as guests on one of the radio. There have been a few that believe that the government is the solution to virtually every problem. Government needs to solve health care, housing, poverty, and more. The vast majority believe that freedom works. They will be quick to say government does too much and that its role should be strictly limited.

These conversations tend to run a similar course. They will say the "free market is so amazing and powerful, it is able to create jobs and new industries. It is terrible that government seems to do everything in its power to undermine the economy's potential." However, you dig a little deeper and then you start finding exceptions. Most of the time those exceptions are based on what they do for a living. Attorneys who represent clients who have suffered property damage will say, "they support free enterprise, except when it comes to the regulations they place on insurance companies." The farmer will tell you, "I definitely support free enterprise, except when it comes to agriculture subsidies." Scientists definitely believe the economy is best left alone "except when it comes to research grants." You get the idea.

As a result, the United States is, largely, socialistic. We can argue to what extent, but there is no doubt what our country has become. The single biggest (and fastest growing) part of our GDP is government and it has evolved over the decades to accommodate exceptions like those above. Now we have millions of Americans who support free enterprise, "except." That "except" is bankrupting us and destroying our freedoms.

One of the most inspiring things I ever witnessed was the "Damn Right" campaign for President of Pete dupont in 1988. In that year, I actually voted for the former Delaware Governor while managing a Congressional race in West Texas. I have the feeling I was the only one who casted such a vote in that town. He lost big time in the ballot box, but his message is as potent today as it was then. Pete duPont had no problem telling farmers, seniors, scientists and anyone else that they were part of the problem and that everyone would have to sacrifice in order to restore our freedoms. It was "damn right" for people to carry their own weight and not seek government as a solution.

Those who founded this Republic were aware that it was the natural tendency of government to expand over time. That is why they believed in the dispersion of power and they wanted to make changes in policy hard to achieve. The states would not ratify the Constitution with its "necessary and proper clause" that could be used for all form of abuses, without a Tenth Amendment that makes it perfectly clear that "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."

Those who created this republic saw a nation of nations, with each state offering their own unique approaches to solving problems. They believed that each of these states served as a check to the others because people could leave that state to another that provided more freedom. The decline in our liberties and the increase in socialism, are all linked to the undermining of the political institutions in government designed to protect us from an authoritarian federal government. It is also indicative of a nation that is rapidly moving from "rule by law" to 'rule by mob." The fast track to socialism the US is taking is not driven nearly as much by philosophy as it is selfish want.

If we are interested in restoring individual freedoms and making a nation into one that has prosperity as a priority, it begins by leaving our personal preferences behind. That is a necessary part of the path to freedom to get us off the road to serfdom.

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 GOP may have a race of three

If you listen to the mainstream media, the race for the GOP nomination is pretty much a dead heat between three candidates: former governors Sarah Palin of Alaska, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. No one else needs to apply. Most would argue that John McCain was too old and certainly too moderate in 2008. Nothing has changed since then and, according to the pundits, these three are the only ones with the name identification, revenue sources, and organization to be taken seriously. Thanks to the media, they have done the vetting for us. Thank goodness, because I certainly did not want to do any of the heavy lifting.

Seriously though, is the race already history? Do we need to not get behind a candidate but simply wait for one of these three to rise to the top? I have seen several articles on the subject and although there are some times additional candidates are thrown in, the reoccurring theme includes these three candidates. Of the articles, one of the most interesting was by Paul Bedard in Washington Whispers from US News & World Reports.

Bedard recognizes there are other players in consideration for 2012, including one or two that are not on his top three lists and he already places them in the "also ran" department. These include Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. He points out that the Republican Party is not much for surprises and is big on those who have paid their dues being rewarded, noting that "In a party that allows for only a handful of big names in the primaries and favors those making a second try, the room is getting full." But this is not just the opinion of a journalist, but even among professional observers of the Party. GOP pollster Bill McInturff stated that "We already have a relatively mature field." Those that are considered most "mature" or established" include Palin, Huckabee, or Romney.

"I always talk about oxygen in a presidential primary race, with the amount of oxygen being finite, meaning attention and coverage," McInturff is quoted by Bedard. "If Governor Palin does run, it is difficult to imagine how a new candidate gets the oxygen needed for a breakout," he says. "In this way, it accrues to the advantage of already established candidates like Palin, Huckabee, and Romney."

The race is certainly not over, but the GOP is extremely cautious in its choices of candidates. I think the writer hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that "the Republican camp generally likes to nominate somebody who has run before." Call it what it is, but this is good old fashion due diligence, which is the type of approach that is common in the Republican Party. I think many, if not most, Democrats wish they had done a little more homework in its choice of a President in 2008.

The one thing that is not being included in this "conventional wisdom" is the role of the Tea Parties, which are maturing and demanding more on a daily basis. The "good old boy" network and the "get along gang" are not nearly as popular as they use to be. Of the three candidates considered in the top three, Palin is certainly the most interesting to those who consider themselves a part of the Tea Party movement. I, personally, am keeping an eye on Governors Daniel and Barbour as well as her. I think the Tea Party could change all of the rules on Presidential politics and 2012 could be an interesting year indeed.

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.

Before you vote for another candidate...

Examples of irresponsible governing can be found everywhere and transcend political party lines. Democrats are being held by a particularly high standard these days because they are in the driver's seat. Here is a reality check, Democrats have been fairly honest about their intentions to move rapidly to government control or ownership of the means of production (socialism) for years. Those quiet critics on the side, the GOP, have been equally cooperative in that effort. Their only concern is the pace towards massive government control. Republicans should actually be held to a higher standard.

There are certain bills that were passed that I am using as a litmus test for the next election. Every candidate who supported either bailout and candidates who support socialized medicine in any form are two good examples. Those who voted for such, need to be dealt with in a manner Horatio Bunce handled one of my favorite historical characters.

When Davy Crockett (also known as the "king of the wild frontier") served in the US House of Representatives and ran for reelection. He was handled rather firmly by one of his constituents named Horatio Bunce. Bunce told Crockett that he believed in the Constitution and that Crockett had, essentially violated his oath of office. This bothered Crcokett who strongly believed in the Constitution and limited government. He wanted to know exactly what he was talking about. Bunce told him "My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?" Crockett recognized the vote and the fact that the Constitution does not give him the right to allocate those dollars. He tried to justify it because the amount was so "small."

Bunce would have none of it, "It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.' "The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'

Crockett repented for his bad decision and pledged to not do such again. When an appropriation bill came forward that was not constitutional (aid for the widow of an Admiral), he offered his own salary for a week to help her if his colleagues would join him, and if they did, the sum to be given would be higher that the appropriation. That bill to provide aid was destined to be approved until Crockett took them to task. They voted against the bill, but also kept their week's pay. Crockett got back on the House floor after the vote and noted "You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

In 2010, if your member voted for bills that are unconstitutional, hold them accountable. If they are not willing to repent, you need to look else where for candidates. Kevin Brady (R-TX), on my show indicated that if TARP had been spent differently, there would have been better results. He had no regrets other than that. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) argued that he voted for TARP because "the best minds in the country argued that the economy would collapse without this spending." Those "best minds" did not swear to defend the Constitution. Candidates who have voted for bills like this need to denounce those decisions or we must decide to denounce them.

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.

Buffet is Bullish on Trains

There has been a great deal of buzz this week about Warren Buffet discussing a recent purchase by his company. Buffet is noted for his candor, which makes him one of the more credible voices when it comes to the status of the economy and Wall Street in particular.

Recently, Buffet was found on the Fox Business network visiting with anchor Liz Claman. In particular, he was discussing his Berkshire Hathaway's gamble into the railroad business. Just recently the company purchased Burlington Northern Santa Fe in a deal worth about $44 billion.

This is a bold move for Buffet in a shaky economy, but typical of a person who has learned to take advantage of sales that can be found when a business environment is in decline. Furthermore, with the move towards reducing energy costs in order to support the environment and save dollars, trains are a very smart form of transportation. Buffet does not buy things he is not comfortable with and had already owned 25 percent of the company before he acquire the rest of it in a recent meeting in Fort Worth, Texas.

Why trains versus trucks or other forms of transportation? Buffet told Claman that "the rails move a freight at a much more environmentally friendly way than the truckers do. And they also only use about a third of the fuel. So, it's helping...It helps in terms of the atmosphere. It is a very, very efficient, effective, environmentally friendly way of moving freight. And, you know, our rail system is a huge asset to the country."

Claman covered a topic that is extremely important to anyone concerned about transportation. She noted that trains are, in transportation, the "cheapest, best way. But then there's cap-and-trade, Warren. Some analysts are very skittish about coal and a possible backlash if cap-and-trade goes through. You mentioned now -- you said, we're going to see a diminishing of coal use. But what do you think cap-and-trade would do to the business if that went through?"

Buffet can not easily dismiss the topic, but noted "It won't change the composition of what utilities are doing tomorrow or next week or next year. The utilities over time are going to use less coal and probably more nuclear. Our own utility, for example, uses wind very substantially in Iowa. So, over time, coal is going to diminish somewhat. Now, I think that will hit Eastern coal more than Western coal, but that's a fact of life over a considerable period of time. And that's true whether there's cap-and-trade or not, yes."

One of the things that caught my eye in the interview was Buffet's discussion of his view of the dollar in this current economy, stating "You're seeing us get rid of a lot of dollars today in exchange for a lot of assets. So, I would rather own physical assets than own dollars." Why? Because of the rapid decline of the value of dollars through the printing of money. Those of us who cannot afford to purchase railroads, might want to consider precious metals as a part of an investment strategy.

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.

Wal-Mart Revisited

Wal-Mart has its detractors on the left and the right. Liberals lament the "artificially low wages" and the "disregard for the little guy," be that person an employee or a business owner. Conservatives tend to dislike the company's passion for cheap products, which translates into huge imports from other parts of the world. Its fans note that Wal-Mart is noted for its ability to drive down prices and generally lowers employment in the areas it moves in to.

With that, I was intrigued by a recent article in Foreign Policy that discussed the impact that India's first Wal-Mart had this past summer in Amristar. Those opposed to the major stores feared that Wal-Mart was going to destroy the country's traditional culture. Foreign Policy, on the other hand, sees it as an indicator of major things to come on the economic front.

The article points out that Wal-Mart has started operations in 15 countries since 1991, and 13 of them have seen their economies explode. The average annual growth was a substantial 4.4 percent. In fact, the article demonstrates that over the last five years, the economies of Wal-Mart countries outside the United States have grown 40 percent faster than the world average.

Is this mere coincidence or is there something more to it? Does Wal-Mart provide the spark plug for these countries to explode economically or are they simply effective at doing their homework and know where the next great economy will be?

Foreign Policy argues that it is more of the latter than the former. Wal-Mart is very selective of the country's it chooses. Without a middle class, people who have money to spend but it is scarce enough that value truly matters, a country easily removes itself from the selection process. Wal-Mart wisely selects places that has a very large middle class, which helps to guarantee the country's future profits.

According to the World Bank, the number of the middle class in the devolving world should increase from should increase from 56 percent in 2000 to 93 percent in 2030. Next on the Wal-Mart radar screen are Russia and the countries of Eastern Europe, according to Foreign Policy.

The economic indicators of countries before and after Wal-Mart are impressive:

• Brazil has 352 stores and went from an average annual GDP of 1.3% before Wal-Mart to 3.8 percent on average between 2003 through 2007 after the store entered the scene.


• Japan has 371 stores and went from an average annual GDP of 0.5% before Wal-Mart to 2.1 percent on average between 2003 through 2007 after the store entered the scene.


• Even Mexico has enjoyed the Wal-Mart years with 1,242 stores and went from an average annual GDP of 1.7% before Wal-Mart to 3.3 percent on average between 2003 through 2007 after the store entered the scene.

It appears that those who hat Wal-Mart and despise its arrival to their country will likely find themselves crying all the way to the bank. Maybe countries would serve themselves well by developing policies that mirror Wal-Mart's criteria for expansion.

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.

Federalist No. 10

Few people have read the Constitution and fewer still have read the documents designed to make the case for it. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay worked passionately to make the case for the states to ratify the US Constitution. The Federalist Papers were 85 essays (which were first written as articles and circulated as pamphlets and as articles in newspapers through out the states and they elaborated on the principles of the Constitution) and are considered a primary source for understanding the founding document.

The Founders called on three of the most powerful minds in government at the time to make the case for the new government. Alexander Hamilton, who would go on to become the first Secretary of the Treasury, was an advocate of a strong, but limited government. John Jay, who would go on to become the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court was like Hamilton in his convictions. Finally, there was James Madison, who was known as the Father of the Constitution since he scribed virtually every word of the proceedings leading to the founding document. It is Madison's Federalist Number 10 that I consider my favorite of these articles. The article first appeared in November 1787.

The consensus in American politics in these early years was decidedly anti-partisan. In this essay, Madison makes a remarkable case for this country to choose a uniquely American way of governing. I suggest reading the entire document, because of its powerful arguments and a message so alien from modern American politics today.

Madison argues that "The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected." "Popular governments" were, in a word, democracies. This document is a great warning to the people of France at that time who were about to break out in a revolution of their own. Where as the US Revolution was based on responsible freedom, limited government, and symbolized by the Liberty Bell. The French Revolution was known for its factions, revenge, and symbolized by the guillotine.

Madison goes on to point out that "There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests." In other words, Madison argues that you cannot accommodate the views of the majority without oppressing everyone who disagrees with that popular decision. Totalitarian regimes have no functional factions, because those who would disagree with the government are simply oppressed. On the other hand, if mobs rule, we are oppressed by majorities. Madison, argued that such is just another form of tyranny. He also argued for a third way, he believed that one of the virtues of the Constitution is that the federal government would be so limited in power, these type of battles should be fought in the states. If people were truly passionate about a certain issue, they could move their battle to a state that reflected their values. With a strict republic based on rule by law and limits on the federal governments, individuals would be able to enjoy a high level of freedom on a state and local level. This would not only make our nation more prosperous and financially sound, but also free. It is one more case for restoring the much neglected Tenth Amendment of 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.

People in New York are Voting with their Feet

Politicians keep telling us that the rich need to "suck it up" and throw in well beyond their share. They tried this in Maryland and it has resulted in a drop in revenue that is comparable in their tax rate increases. A recent study from the Empire Center for New York State Policy is showing that the state is suffering from a similar fate.

The authors of the studies -- E.J. McMahon and Wendell Cox -- point out that between the years 2000 and 2008, there was a departure of 1.5 million people, mostly from New York City, with destinations that were safer for finances. Proof that money was a major factor in the decision making is seen in the income groups that have been coming and going from the state and the impact it is having on the budget.

According to the study, the families that have been leaving have income levels that were 13 percent higher than those arriving to the Empire State. In Manhattan and the New York County area, the impact was even more profound. Those leaving the Big Apple had an average income of $93,264, which was approximately 28 percent higher than those who were arriving (which made $72,726 on average).

The real injury is not so much in people, but in revenue. According to the study, the trade off in the income groups of those arriving and those leaving translated in a lost $4.3 billion in taxpayer income. Add that to the other years in the study (2001 through 2008) and it adds up to a devastating $30 billion.

The authors of the study are some what cautious in their approach and do not attempt to single out a particular reason for the mass departure, but the Wall Street Journal places the state's and city's excessive tax rates. Citing the Tax Foundation, between the years of 1977 and 2008, New York was consistently ranked first or second for having the highest rates compared to the rest of the country. During the years covered in the Empire Center Study, New York's taxes ranged between 11 and 12 percent of income.

Taxes reach its highest level in 2004 saw a high in departures in 2005. That year, the state lost approximately 250,000 people who moved to other parts of the country. Meanwhile the state has passed another massive tax bill that likely lead to people leaving the state as they vote with their feet.

There is an old saying, "the more you tax something, the less you get of it. The more you subsidize something, the more you get of it." New York is committing economic genocide, through heavy taxation, on its most affluent residents. The result, ironically will be fewer tax dollars and a decidedly poorer state.

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.