FDR was Cautious Compared to Obama

Back when I worked for Sen. Gordon Humphrey (R-NH) in the 1980s, there was a saying among members of the Budget Committee he served on and the staff: "A million here and a million there, and eventually you are talking about serious money." Those now appear to be the "good old days" compared to the fiscal mayhem we see today.

Last week President Obama signed a law authorizing the United States Treasury to borrow an additional $1.9 trillion, during that time he did another one of his favorite paradoxical quips in a speech in which he discussed his commitment to frugality. Terrence P. Jeffrey of Human Events, suggests we all review the White House website and review the President's Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) own figures.

I love the title on the top of the OMB page: "A new era of responsibility." This from a budget that is adding to the deficit annually, what was the entire national debt for the first 180 plus years of this republic. The propagandists at the White House have nothing over the advocates of "newspeak" in Orwell's 1984.

Jeffrey observes that:

When calculated by the average annual percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) that Obama will spend during his presidency, he is on track to become the biggest-spending president since 1930, the first year reported on the OMB's historical chart of spending as a percentage of GDP.

When calculated by the average annual percentage of GDP that Obama will borrow during his presidency, he is on track to become the greatest spender and debtor since Franklin D. Roosevelt in terms of real spending.

Thought George Bush was bad? Obama will outspend and out-borrow the man that the Obama Administration routinely uses as a punching bag because of Bush's fiscal irresponsibility and who, when in office, was often seen by friends and foes alike as a "Big Government Republican."

Obama does not enjoy the excuses that FDR had for his dramatic expansion of government. After all, we do recall the Great Depression and World War II. In spite of this, Obama will even out spend this icon of big government.

Spending as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product is the gold standard for determining real spending. Under FDR (from 1933 to 1945), federal spending averaged 19.35 percent of the GDP. Under Obama, the estimates from the President's own Office of Management and Budget is 24.13 percent of the GDP. That is about 25 percent more than FDR's expenditure during the two greatest challenges of the 20th century -- worldwide war and global depression.

What may be most startling is the unique distinction that both Obama and FDR share. According to the OMB's calculations, they are the only two presidents since 1930 to have annual deficits that reached double figures as a percentage of GDP.

In the same vein, Obama will have a deficit this year of 10.6 percent of the Gross Domestic Product; the last time the deficit hit double digits as a percentage of GDP was 1945 -- at the end of World War II.

Jeffrey's most profound observation in the article was in regards to comparing our current challenges with those of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s in the latter's efforts to end the Cold War. Without firing a shot and without having a budget that exceed 6 percent of our GDP, Reagan put the Soviets into bankruptcy and ended the Cold War. Obama is going to have a difficult time explaining the fiscal mess he has created for us.

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

The Debt Ceiling and Political Cowards

Fox News recently reported that "The House of Representatives ... voted to raise the debt limit by $1.9 trillion. That vote raises the debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion, a new high for the amount of debt the U.S. has ever carried." It goes on to say that "As recently as 2001, the U.S. debt was only at $5.7 trillion. But exploded throughout the past decade after Sept. 11, 2001, amid record spending by the Bush and Obama administrations." Furthermore, it noted that "If Congress doesn't hike the debt ceiling, the U.S. would be unable make good on Social Security and Medicare payments.

"It certainly makes sense to be opposed to raising the debt ceiling. The vast majority of it was in areas that the government has no business being in. Yet, I'm disgusted to see where some of the "nay" votes came from. The Senate approved the debt limit increase in mid-January on a 60-40 party-line vote. Meanwhile, the House vote was much closer, 217-212. All Republicans and more than 30 Democrats voted against raising the debt ceiling. I have heard our Congress be described as a "parliament of whores." At the very least it is a club of spoiled brats that believes it should be allowed to have its cake and eat it too. The two "stimulus" packages that added over $1 trillion to the national debt in one year alone could not have passed without the help of some (if not many) of those who voted against raising the debt ceiling. Grow up members of Congress. Be responsible on the front end so you do not have to pretend to be a victim on the back end.

The Fox article also stated that "moderate and fiscally-conscious Democrats were suspect of voting to hike the debt" and since the whole House is facing hostile voters in 2010, they all collectively voted to cover themselves.

On the one hand, it would have been a wonderful thing to witness the Congress voting against the debt ceiling. Such an act would force everyone to roll up their sleeves and get to work on a sustainable -- and maybe even Constitutional -- budget. But it is ridiculous to witness these politicians vote as though they are drunk with power when bills come before them and cannot own the results of their voting when the time calls for it. If a member fueled the debt, they should confess up to it. I believe you should ask your member of Congress -- if he or she voted for TARP and similar packages, but against raising the ceiling -- to explain how such was going to be paid for? Those are the type of tough questions that demand honest answers today.

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

Republicans and the Health Care Summit

President Barack Obama's health care bill is on the fast track to no where. He made a radical, socialized medicine, health care bill the center piece of his legislative agenda in 2009, even though unemployment had reached a high we have not seen in a quarter of century. Those who opposed a bill that would lead to higher unemployment, higher taxes, health care rationing, and injury to innovation have won the battle. This was seen in the rapidly falling approval ratings of many moderate Democrats who voted for the bill the first time around. This was also clear as the state of Massachusetts, which is 3 to 1 Democrat, voted Republican on a Senate seat held by a Kennedy for a half of a century. What is the connection? Massachusetts had a government health care program very similar to the President's plan for five years now and it has failed in virtually all of its policy objectives. The special election became a referendum on Obamacare and that agenda failed.

President Obama, with the determination and single focus of the Energizer battery bunny, keeps "going and going." In the last month we have had over 200,000 more jobs lost and almost 2,000 massive layoffs (sizable layoffs of 50 or more employees at one time), and instead of focusing on the important issue of jobs, he goes back to his socialized medicine agenda. He needs the Republicans involved in the discussion to give it legitimacy. He is providing the forum for the opposition's input, we are told, at a health care summit. The big question is, what should the GOP do?

I have been watching the GOP leaders on the news and in lockstep they are declaring that they will show up at the President's summit. They plan to pack the Blair House (across the street from the White House) and sit politely as the President lectures them again. After all, that is what they have been doing for years. The debate is ranging as to an appropriate GOP response and those arguments include:

• There are those who believe the GOP should show up to the event and demand equal time for their views. Unfortunately, many Republicans are only offering a lighter version of the Democrats' fast track program. Essentially they are saying, "we know we are all heading to socialism, but we would rather stroll than run."


• There are some who are actually saying they should go there but be silent. This would represent the voices of millions of Americans that have not been heard to this point. Unfortunately, I believe the media will simply interpret this as though the GOP has nothing to contribute to the debate.


• Some are arguing that he GOP might like to learn that the definition of insanity is to "do the same thing over and over again, expecting different results." Congressional Republicans should simply say that "enough is enough" and stay on the floor of their respective Houses and argue for free market and other approaches that honor our federal system based on the powers reserved for the states. This, in my opinion, would send the strongest message to those who are advocating socialism in our health care system, both in and out of government. To not show up would lead to an instant reaction from the media and constituents who will want to know why they did not attend. That would lead to the type of debate that those opposed to socialized health care can win.

To simply show up would be interpreted as "business as usual" and I believe that would be a fair assessment. It is time for Republicans to make the loudest statement of all...the statement of silence in the Blair House halls.

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

Why Detroit and the Rest of the Nation suffers

I grew up in a suburb of Detroit, Michigan and thought it was a great place to live at the time. We had four seasons, beautiful trees, and it was a wonderful place to be a kid. However, it was also a place in significant economic decline and, by the time we left in the mid 1970s, Detroit was a place on the ropes. Like the many "Michiganders" that flew south to escape the economy of Detroit, we often joked, "would the last person to leave Detroit, please turn off the lights." With many economists indicating that real unemployment in the Motor City is around 50 percent, the day this city dies seems to be drawing near.

Detroit has reached such a dire status that its own demise has become a description for the decline of other economies. The Michigan based Mackinac Center discusses "Detroitification," which is defined as the "hollowing out of the private economy to prop up unsustainable (and often unresponsive) government establishments." That is a perfect explanation of what is going on in our nation's capitol today.

The federal budget is expanding at a breakneck pace, with the deficit growing annually at an amount our entire national debt was just two decades ago. The US already has the second highest tax rates of any industrialized country in the world. Our fiscal policies are going to make the government demand more. Every dollar the government takes is money that would go to an expanding economy and job creation.

What is the government doing with its expanding expenditures? According to USA Today, during the current recession, the number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has grown at a rapid rate. While Americans struggle with economic decline that is demonstrated in higher unemployment, falling wages, businesses going under and housing foreclosures; federal employees are flourishing at the expense of taxpayers.

USA Today provides an example of this growth in government employment, at the beginning of the recession, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Today there are 1,690 employees with salaries above $170,000. The growth in six-figure salaries has made the average federal worker's pay climb to $71,206, compared with $40,331 in the private sector. Furthermore, government jobs usually include many benefits that are not typical in the private sector, making the public jobs even more expensive. One can easily see how the costly nature of the government and private sector trade off.

Michael Jar of the Mackinac Center rightly notes, "So much for shared sacrifice." The same tragic policies that have economically wiped out the city of Detroit are now being applied on a national level. Such policies keep certain political parties in power, and certain bureaucrats happy, but create ruin for the rest of the population.

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

The Senate races to watch in 2010

There is a major shift going on in American politics. In November of 2008, following elections that brought Obama to the White House and significant majorities for the Democrats in the House and Senate, it seemed likely that the Democrats would dominate the Executive and Legislative branches for years to come. Republicans hoped that there was a chance they could take back the House, but the Senate, in the near future, was a pipe dream. In recent weeks, that dream has become a nightmare for the Democrats.

It became very scary for Democrats when a Senate seat held by a Kennedy for almost 50 years found itself in Republican hands. Scott Brown won a race, in spite of the fact that the state is 3 to 1 Democrat. Even before this upset, Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) announced he would not seek reelection. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), one of the most influential and longest serving members of the Senate, decided not to run after a year of accusations of political improprieties rocked his campaign. Now we have Evan Bayh (D-IN) announcing, essentially, that he is no longer "in love" with the Senate and is planning on moving on. His decision was so sudden, he gave his party less than a week to find someone to file for his seat. The "filibuster proof" Senate is already history and there are now thirteen races that looked very much in the hands of the Democrats that could be in the GOPs'.

Arkansas. Sen. Blanche Lincoln has been on political life support for months. Her approval numbers are in the tank. She has sheepishly supported Obama's agenda and, now that her numbers are in serious trouble, she is lecturing Majority Leader Harry Reid for doing too much, too quick. In spite of the fact she has only attracted "B team" talent in Rep. John Boozman (R), she finds herself behind in a recent poll by 23 points.

Colorado. Michael Bennet (D) faces a tough race since he began from the position as an appointee (replacing Ken Salazar who joined he Obama Administration). He has no elective office experience, which is always dangerous. Furthermore, his nomination is anything but a shoe in, facing a tough primary challenge in the Colorado's Speaker of the House (Andrew Romanoff). Worse still for Democrats, the GOP seems behind Lt. Governor Jane Norton, whose numbers appear stronger than either Bennet or Romanoff).

Delaware. New England has been a safe haven for the Democrats for years and the seat that is up for grabs is one that was once in the hands of the sitting Vice President, Joe Biden. Beau Biden, the Vice President's son and Attorney General, has already declined a run, leaving this a very safe race for former Republican governor and current Congressman-at-large, Michael Castle.

Illinois. The President's own Senate Seat is ripe for the GOP, according to many political pundits and Mark Kirk (R) may be the perfect candidate to replace Roland Burris. Kirk is a moderate from suburban Chicago, conservative on economic and defense issues and with moderate social views. In this open seat he will take on Alexi Giannoulias, the state treasurer, who could be a strong candidate, but has serious problems due to his relationship with former Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich. It appears that Kirk has, at least, an even chance of winning.

Indiana. This sate has been largely "red" for years but has been held solidly by Evan Bayh, a moderate Democrat hat learned to fit the state well. The race could have been tough ffor Bayh, acing former Senator Dan Coates (R), with Bayh pulling out, it now looks like a state that is solidly in the GOP column.

Kentucky. This open Republican seat is full of intrigue. This seat is currently in the hands of Jim Bunning who has considered his low poll numbers and has concluded that he is one of the most vulnerable candidates in the country. This caught the attention of Secretary of State Trey Grayson who was endorsed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Grayson is strong, leading both Democrats battling in their primary in the polls. However, Rand Paul (son of Rep. Ron Paul), whom I knew as we were both activists in politics in college, is providing a tough primary challenge. Fortunately for the GOP, his numbers are better than the Democrats also.

Missouri. Kit Bond is giving up his seat and this could be the Democrats' best chance to get a Senate office that is in the GOPs' hands. However, the political environment has changed significantly and could fall either way. The Democrats offer a very strong candidate in Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (daughter of the late former Governor Mel Carnahan and Senator Jean Carnahan). Meanwhile, the GOP is running former Republican House Whip Roy Blunt. Carnahan has a slight lead, but pundits on both sides see this as a toss up.

Nevada. Harry Reid is poised to join a club that I do not think he wants membership. Like former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD), he could find himself a leader of his party in the Senate that becomes unemployed running for reelection. Nevada is considered the best chance for a GOP pick up. His numbers are in the very low range (20s). Potential Republican opponents included Lt. Governor Brian Krolicki. Although Reid has serious money (an important element in winning such a race), this seat should be in the GOP column in 2011.

New Hampshire. This is another rare opportunity for Democrats to pick up a seat that is currently in the GOPs' hands. Judd Gregg is retiring and the Democrats have an impressive candidate with Rep. Paul Hodes. Fortunately for Republicans they have a top-tier candidate of their own in former Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, who leads in the polls. Money and polls are on the Democrats side at this time, but the political winds could change everything.

There are several other "hot" seats to watch in 2010. New York provides an usually safe seat for Democrats, but the change in the political environment and a strong GOP candidate could even change this situation. In North Dakota, the retirement of Byron Dorgan (D) and the addition of Governor John Hoeven (R) into the race have made a Republican pickup almost certain. In Pennsylvania, Democrat "convert" Arlen Spector faces a tough reelection campaign since members of his own party does not trust him (remembering him as a Republican) and the GOP rank and file seems to have disdain for him. Former Congressman Pat Tooney (R) seems poised to create an upset in the Keystone state.

If you like politics, 2010 will be an interesting year to watch, its implications on public policy will be most profound.

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

Robert Reich Sounds Sci-Fi on Health Care

Opponents of Obama's health care proposal are often described as "alarmists," as they discuss rationed health care, the death of innovation, and the devastating effects it will have on the budget. However, what really angers proponents of government health care is when people discuss economic euthanasia. That is, allowing people to die or even encouraging people to die because prolonging their lives would only provide a drain on the economy. In Europe, people often hear, "I am sorry sir, but your wife is rather old and has been retired for years, it really does not make sense to spend the type of money necessary to prolong her life." My own family heard a similar tale when my grandfather passed away back in the 1970s in England. I remember hearing my family say that they had no recourse, since "we have no way to sue the government." That, too, is another problem with socialized health care.

Those who support Obama's plans say that such arguments in our health care debate are unfair. "The US would not create a sci-fi environment of people being eliminated on economic grounds," we are told. Only the most extreme personalities support such a position.

I wonder if they would consider Robert Reich such an extremist? Reich was the 22nd Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton and is an adviser on economic issues for President Obama. He holds a BA from Dartmouth and a JD from Yale University.

Recently Reich spoke at the University of California and painted a picture of what an "honest" politician would say when running for President, if "that candidate did not care about becoming president. In other words, this is what the truth is and a candidate will never say, but what a candidate should say if we were in the kind of democracy where citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship and they were educated in terms of what the issues were and they could separate myth from reality in terms of what candidates would tell them." An "honest" politician, that does sound scary. This is all the more so when you get Reich's perception of such in giving a hypothetical speech.

Reich, acting as the "sound" leader stated, "Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I'm so glad to see you and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. And that's true and what I'm going to do is that I am going try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people but that means you, particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people...you're going to have to pay more." This is definitely the case, especially if the government is going to be the one behind the "reorganization." This is also true if it is going to be a government run system, because the only hope for price containment is in competition and there will be none of that in a national health care program.

This model candidate goes on to say, "Thank you. And by the way, we're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die." By the way, the radical Berkeley crowd loved this remark and applauded.

Could the speech get much worse? The "candidate" goes on, "Also I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid---we already have a lot of bargaining leverage---to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. What that means, less innovation and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market which means you are probably not going to live much longer than your parents. Thank you."

It is interesting how opponents of Obamacare have made these claims about the future about such government programs for years and the media has dismissed them as being extreme in their descriptions. I have yet to read anything from anyone on the right any more frightening than the words of Obama's apologist, Robert Reich.

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

Discussing economic prosperity and more on Fox News

One of my favorite programs is Fox News' Strategy Room and I enjoy spending time on that program almost as much as my own, the Price of Business. The host of the hour I was on, Eric Bolling, has this unique knack of focusing on the consequences of government policies in a manner that is uncommon among many media personalities today. This may be due to the fact that his knowledge does not end with a traditional journalist education, but years of experience of working in the business world in general and the rough and tumble world of commodities in particular.

The "Biz Hour," which Bolling hosts, is also referred to as the "ADD Hour," because he covers a plethora topics. It is a true "strap on your seat belt experience" as we travel the world of the day's headlines.

Some of the issues we covered:

• Tax cuts vs. tax credits. The President has been emphasizing short term and often politically convenient "tax credits," when what is actually needed are deep and across the board tax cuts, if we are serious about creating more jobs. There are, of course, various types of tax cuts. "Demand side" or "consumer driven" tax cuts are geared towards the middle class. They are designed to increase consumer demand, but in an economy such as this, they are used to pay bills and little else. This is why they have little or no impact. Supply-side tax cuts, made famous by Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan, are across the board and proportional in their reach. These cuts lead to significant wealth (and job creation).
• Banking regulation. Many liberals are complaining that lending has become too difficult for poorer Americans. I know, it sounds like the banking crisis all over again. These same individuals who believe that those who do not deserve a loan should get one are typically hyper critical of entrepreneurs who seek one, even if they are credit worthy.
• Government attitudes towards small business owners. This Administration seems to pity the poor and wants more of them and it desires mega corporations because they are easier to control. What the Obama Administration seems to despise are the small businesses and entrepreneurs that drive the vast majority of job creation in this country.

Strategy Room combines the best of traditional TV and online programing. It provides nationally known media personalities, such as Eric Bolling, but allows the public to serve as a "co-host" by driving questions via email, Twitter, and other online sources. Strategy Room may very well be the future of talk show programming.

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

Toyota Recall Raises Question about Conflict of Interest

Recently I had Cody Willard of the Fox Business Network on my program and we discussed the incredible expansion of the federal government for several years and the fact that the end is no where in sight. Willard attributes the problem to the "Republican" and "Democrat" financial machine that pays for an ever expansive government. In addition of leading to questionable priorities, expansive government can also lead to some very serious questions about conflict of interest. He points to the recent recall of automobiles on the behalf of several automobile companies.

Willard noted that, what was historically done for safety reasons (recalls) leads one to think could be done for business reasons. Think about it, if the US owns a company (it is majority owner of GM), recalls could be a very powerful tool to undermine the competition. In recent weeks there has been a huge increase in the number of cars being recalled. More importantly, the government has brought an unusual level of attention to these some what common events.

The big story has been Toyota with recalls covering numerous models. This is a huge blow on a company that has had a reputation of providing great value through reasonable pricing and high quality. Another company that has seen a more limited recall is Toyota's chief competitor, Honda. Than there is Volvo's SUV problem. The list of companies in a recall covers a huge number of makes and models and there appears to be no end in sight.

Willard is not the only one noting the hype behind the recalls in general and Toyota in particular. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has spoken out about the subject as well. "Let's recall. Let's fix it - the cars," Daniels said. "If a fine is in order, then fine, but they have gone so far beyond that. It's very very suspicious in view of the government conflict of interest." He goes on to note, "This is why you don't want government in the car business, for instance. There you have a company doing more than others have done with regard to a recall. There were 600 recalls last year alone and they didn't go so hysterical as this," Daniels said. "These congressmen running this committee (investigating the Toyota recall) have their own agenda and it is a discriminating agenda in this case. They didn't do this the last several hundred recalls."

WHTR in Indianaoplis is now reporting that Daniels is part of "a bipartisan group of other governors around the nation have joined together to send a letter to the Obama administration, complaining about the handling of the Toyota recall investigation... The governor said the letter was written up without influence from Toyota."

Our federal government has very limited and specific powers, when they do not exercise them properly or if they go beyond that role, the impact can be damaging to everyone in the economy. The people who could suffer from a government abusing its recall powers are the consumers who want safe, but affordable, cars.

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

Ronald Reagan Articulated Economic Freedom

This weekend we celebrated the birthday of Ronald Reagan. There is no question that "the Gipper" had his flaws. Government grew under his administration as it has under every other, but Reagan went far in significantly changing the debate over economic freedom.

One of my biggest frustrations is the reckless abandonment by politicians when it comes to articulating the importance of that freedom. In fact, I haven't heard a Presidential candidate build a message on this theme since Ronald Reagan and I believe that Gov. Sarah Palin may be the first national candidate to do such in her Vice Presidential bid in 2008.

On the eve of the Fourth of July, 1987, President Ronald Reagan delivered an address entitled "America's Economic Bill of Rights." This was an important time for our Republic, because in addition to celebrating the birthday of the Declaration of Independence at this time, we were also commemorating the 200th Anniversary of the United States Constitution on that year. I cannot think of a better time to make such a speech and the need for that message is as strong today as in any time in our history..

Reagan stated right from the beginning what he believed about the Founding Fathers view of economics and noted that the American Revolution had a central theme against "No taxation without representation" and that they "knew that the right to earn your own keep and keep what you earn is central to America's understanding of what it means to be free. This country was built by people seeking to support themselves and their families by their own labor, people who treasured the right to work and dispose of their earnings as they saw fit, people who were willing to take economic risks." In making his case, Reagan focused on "four fundamental freedoms" and he bolstered these with several guiding principles.

Those four freedoms are, according to Reagan:

The freedom to work.

The freedom to enjoy the fruits of one's labor.

The freedom to own and control one's property.

The freedom to participate in a free market.

These four principles were fundamental in the building of this country and they have been under attack long before Reagan went into office and are all the more so today.

In order to secure these rights, Reagan advocated ten different initiatives to reach these objectives that included:

"Reduce subsidized government competition with private citizens." Whenever government could use private companies to do government functions, it should, in order to foster real job creation and to reduce bureaucracy on a state level. There should be no need for such concern on the federal level because of the confines of our Constitution.

"The Freedom to Enjoy the Fruits of Your Labor: You have the right to keep what you earn, free from excessive government taxing, spending, and borrowing." The government is waging a war on this right. Some states, such as Michigan, essentially have 50 percent unemployment. The government would rather have that level of suffering than afford people the right to work.

"To protect you from overtaxing by the Government, I will propose as part of the balanced budget amendment submitted to Congress, a requirement for a super majority vote by Congress before your taxes can be raised." I think this was one of the most bold and creative initiatives ever proposed by a President. This strikes at the heart of how our Founding Fathers saw government being conducted. They desired every legislation designed to expand the government to have as much difficulty of passage as possible (this is why they wanted all tax bills to start in the House and not the Senate), this would assist in that effort.

"To protect your right to own and use your property, my administration will pursue our successful efforts in the courts to restore your constitutional rights when the government at any level attempts to take your property through regulation or other means." I don't think Reagan even fully realized how far the reach of government would go in this area. Today, malls are developed in the name of "imminent domain" and people are removed from their property because of birds and "wetlands."

Reagan went on to address welfare reform years before Clinton, the need to strengthen intellectual property rights, and more. The entire speech deserves to be read in its entirety. In our current times, all of our freedoms are endangered in a way we had not seen historically. In a time such as this, we need to be reminded that our economic still freedoms matter.

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

Areas of Waste in Obama Budget

It is that time of the year when Presidents rant and rave about the problem of government spending being out of control and they produce budgets that only add to the waste. Barack Obama is no different; in fact, his budgets are the largest seen in US history. Furthermore, his annual deficits are higher than the national debt was just a couple of decades ago. Rhetoric aside, Obama is operating as if it is business as usual.

Peter Morici's article title at FoxNews.com says it all, "Obama's Budget -- Straight From La La Land." In it, Morici notes that "Today, President Obama released his proposed 2011 budget, which forecasts the federal deficit will fall to $706 billion by 2014 or just 3.9 percent of GDP before rising again in 2015." The fantasy continues by noting that "To accomplish this feat, he proposes letting the Bush tax cuts expire and other spending cuts the Congress has rejected in the past. More extraordinary, though, the document assumes that real GDP grows at better than 4 percent a year over the four years from 2011 to 2014, and the economy does not encounter a serious recession." What is particularly interesting is that we have yet to recover from the economic down turn that we are currently in, yet Obama's forecast is filled with optimism.

The truth of the matter is there are plenty of areas to cut spending. In a perfect world, the Congress would be obliged to abide by its oath of office in which members agree to defend the US Constitution. If they did such, they would find they are allowed to spend in seventeen different areas according to Article I, Section 8 of that document. If they did that, budgets would always be balanced and our economic freedom would be vast. Unfortunately, our world is anything but perfect.

There are numerous "real world" ways in which we can seriously cut the deficit and Elizabeth MacDonald points out some of them in a recent article at FoxBusiness.com. The title will certainly get your attention: "$1.5 Trillion Ways to Cut the Deficit." The suggestions make sense, even if they do not have much hope in the political environment we live in today. Here are some examples:

An estimated $1.2 trillion in unused federal property. She notes that "The government owns and leases 3.87 billion square feet of property, and 55.7 million acres of land-meaning, one out of every forty acres. Real property asset value for all these holdings is estimated to be $1.2 trillion, says Citizens Against Government Waste, based on data from the Federal Real Property Profile created by the Bush administration, which helps federal agencies manage and dispose of their excess property." The examples that follow are numerous, and include Chicago's Old Main Post Office, which is a 2.5 million square foot structure that costs over $2 million annually to maintain. Than there is the John Murtha Airport in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. This airport cost over $200 million in government subsidies, even though the place has fewer passengers than security guards. The list continues and it would be very easy to get to $1.2 trillion with little or no impact on any of our lives.

Than she notes "there is the $123.5 billion on government programs that have consistently failed." She may be a little kind with such a low number, but she covers makes perfect sense. The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Program Assessment Rating Tool found 218 government programs that were either "inadequate" or "ineffective" virtually throughout the entire government. The OMB may be generous too, but there seems to be plenty of areas begging to be cut.

Than there is $98 billion in agency over payments that MacDonald notes. The following are only a few examples:

--Health and Human Services: $55.1 billion, or 9.4%. Includes overpayment rates of 7.8% and 15.4% in the Medicare fee for service and Advantage programs, respectively.

--Labor: $12.3 billion, or 9.9%. Most of the overpayments were in the unemployment insurance program.

--Treasury: $12.3 billion, or 25.5%. These are attributed to overpayments in the earned income tax credit.

--Social Security Administration: $8 billion, or 1.2%, in overpayments.

--Agriculture: $4.3 billion in overpayments, or 5.9% of total department spending. Much of the waste was found in food stamp, school meals and federal crop programs.

--Transportation: $1.5 billion, or 3%. This waste was primarily found in the Federal Highway Administration planning and construction program.

--Veterans Affairs: $1.2 billion, or 2.7%. Waste here includes overpayments in the pension and other compensation programs.

--Housing and Urban Development: $1 billion, or 3.5%. All of the waste in this department was found in public housing and rental assistance.

--Defense: $849 million, or 0.5%.

--Homeland Security: $644.5 million, or 3.7%. The Homeland Security grant program as well as Disaster Relief Fund Vendor Payments were the primary guilty parties at this agency.

--Education: $599 million, or 2.1%.

One of my favorite issues to attack is corporate welfare. What that means any more has changed significantly after the bailouts of Bush and Obama, but MacDonald's article (referring to the research of the Cato Institute) points out $92 billion of easily identifiable spending. "The figure includes direct cash payments, to farmers and research funds to high-tech companies, as well as indirect subsidies, such as funding for overseas promotion of specific U.S. products and industries. The cash payments come from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, HUD, and State."

Than there are the earmarks, which we seem to all love to hate more than any other area of government expenditures. Although they only come in at $19.6 billion (on over 10,000 earmarks), they are despised because they are part of a government approach to funding that is filled with deception. The list, again, is impressive and here are a few examples:

$75,000 for Wayne Gomes Youth Baseball Diversity Foundation

$381,000 for Jazz at Lincoln Center, New York, NY

$254,000 for Wool Research, Montana Sheep Institute

$2.2 million for Center for Grape Genetics, Geneva, NY

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

$4.4 million for the Army Center of Excellence in Acoustics

This, again is only the obvious...$1.5 trillion. Imagine what we could accomplish if we were willing to suffer a little pain for the better of our Republic?

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

Obama's Pay Czar goes on the Defensive

President Barack Obama's TARP Executive Compensation Master (also known as the "Pay Czar") was on the defensive in an interview with Neil Cavuto of the Fox Business Network. The latest trend in the administration is to place the President in the role of seeing no evil, speaking no evil, and hearing no evil. First, it was Attorney General Eric Holder stating that the President had nothing to do with the decision to place Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab with criminal charges rather than to treat him as a military combatant. Now Fienbert tells Cavuto that he "never, ever" spoke to President Obama or anyone in the White House about AIG. This defensive tone was heard through out the interview.

On the AIG bonus controversy

"First of all, understand these contracts that are being honored occurred years ago before the top law was even implemented-not on our watch. These are valid, binding contracts."

"Under the law that I'm administering, I will do what I can in 2010 compensation where I do have jurisdiction to try and make sure that these retention payments are taken into account when I set prospective pay in 2010, but I'm not prepared to challenge valid contracts entered into years ago.""This is the end of the retention contract problem."

It is interesting how he speaks so casually about taking "into account when I set prospective pay in 2010." The financial destiny of individuals is in the hands of a bureaucrat. It reads like an Ayn Rand novel. His distancing himself from autocratic action when it comes to the bonus situation is only in the present tense. He gives every impression that he plans to expand the government's role at his first opportunity.

On whether his jurisdiction should be expanded to include companies who pay back TARP

"Absolutely not. Not only do I believe my purview should not be expanded, I think the administration has made it very clear-Secretary Geithner repeatedly has made it very clear-we are not here to micromanage these companies. I think it is fair to assume there will be no effort to expand my jurisdiction." Incongruence seems to be a hallmark of the Obama administration. The more the Administration claims that it plans no harm to business, the more companies feel threatened.

On whether what he is doing will chase talent out of the industry

"I think it's vital. I am not trying to be vindictive or revengeful-that's not what I'm here to do…I'm trying to get these companies to reign in their pay and repay the taxpayer."

Major companies should not had participated in TARP and the government had no business in allocating funds in such a way. But the government spent the money and it appears they forced many institutions to participate in the program. However, to argue that the majority of these businesses are dragging their feet in paying back this program is to ignore the headlines. The Christian Science Monitor asks, "Why are big banks like Citigroup rushing to pay back TARP funds?" It goes on to note that Citigroup is "joining the likes of Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. Why are they in such a hurry?" The "rush" is due to the fact that these businesses have faced the kind of scrutiny discussed in this interview. The penalties have been huge and the government reach has been expansive, there should be no surprise that these businesses want to move on.

The Obama Administration has become famous for its "double speak." It is shocking since Obama claimed to have championed the idea of "transparency" in government. It is time for the public to hold this government accountable.

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.

Not all Blacks Support the Obama Message

A black that opposes the Obama agenda? If you view the mainstream media and read your daily news, such a thing does not seem possible? Fortunately, the good people of Project 21 and the National Center for Public Policy Research decided to do a little homework of their own and to size up the opinion of those black Americans we don't often hear about following the President's State of the Union address.

Bishop Council Nedd II of the Chesapeake and the Northeast for the Episcopal Missionary Church and a member of the Project 21 national advisory council noted that "After virtually walking away from the gay community after the election, President Obama is all of a sudden taking up their cause again? Last week's election (in Massachusetts) shows he has problems with Americans of all political stripes, but he appears to be focusing most intently on quelling the civil war rising against him in the left-wing of his party. One would think that -- as his approach to national security is being questioning in the wake of the underwear bomber and his dithering on Afghanistan -- that he would think of some other military-related issue to champion than one that could fracture his 2008 base even further. And then there is his post-Obamacare pivot to jobs that seems to be uneducated and aimless. Is 2010 to be consumed with 'don't ask, don't tell' for the military and 'don't ask, don't know' on jobs?"

Mychal Massie, who is the chairman of Project 21 stated that "It is time that President Obama realized his job is more than giving speeches and blaming former President Bush. Instead, from his performance tonight, he continues to show his disconnect with what the American people want and need. With record numbers of people unemployed and home ownership at risk or lost for so many, to point out just two problems, we needed to hear more from him than blaming others. It is time for Obama to own up to this malaise as his own."

Kevin L. Martin, also with Project 21's national advisory council argues that while "Watching President Obama's State of the Union Address, it felt like he was back on the campaign trail. Like on the trail, tonight's rhetoric tends to differ from reality. What was on display was a bait-and-switch in which broken promises were rehashed and more pandering was thrown at the middle class as he pledged tax cuts, tax credits and job creation."

R. Dozier Gray, a combat veteran and also a Project 21 member stated that "The President reminds us that one in ten Americans still cannot find work. Hard as I try, I simply cannot think of anything he has done to truly mitigate the problem. Mr. President, if you hated the bank bailouts why did you support them. Own it, sir."

In addition to her work with Project 21 Lisa Fritsch is a writer and talk show host from Austin, Texas. She observed that "President Obama wonders why there is so much 'cynicism' out there. While his speech was full of ironies and folly, this is the worst. It is President Obama who is the cynic, because he doesn't seem to believe in anything but the government. Though President Obama worked hard to try to connect with Americans, it is clear that his position on some of Americans' top concerns -- taxes, terrorism and health care reform -- remain the same. And his idea of change is at odds with the average voter..."

Ellis Washington who is a member of the national advisory council for the Project 21 black leadership network and a former editor of the Michigan Law Review noted that "Obama in his first year raised the spending limit to unsustainable levels ($1.35 trillion); more than GWB did in 8 years and now Obama is championing a freeze on spending? President Obama's first State of the Union Address painfully exemplifies that this clear and present danger to America is not Mr. Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man of this ilk with the presidency. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us -- lack of common sense and good judgment."

You will not typically find these opinions among black Americans in the mainstream media. The reason for this is simple, there is a disdain by the media and by the left in general when it comes to a "diversity of opinion" among minorities and women. Liberals have "fought" for the freedoms of the "down trodden" for years we are told. One of the freedoms they did not fight for, it appears is freedom of thought.

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.