"Give me Liberty or Give me Death" Rings True Today

March 2010 marks the 235th anniversary of one of the most important speeches delivered in US history as the colonies prepared to shed its chains from the British tyrants. The rhetoric used by the great statesman, Patrick Henry, resonates very well today as this nation faces tyrants of its own.

The atmosphere in 1775 was tense. The colonists, who were outraged by a British government that was drunk with power, responded by dumping 342 containers of tea into the Boston harbor in 1773. This became known at the Boston Tea Party. The British Parliament responded with a series of laws known as the "Intolerable Acts."

By early 1774, the British backed up its harsh taxation with military action, sending General Thomas Gage and, after that, four regiments of British troops. In response to these growing hostilities, the first Continental Congress met in the fall of 1774 in Philadelphia, with 56 American delegates, representing every colony, except Georgia. On September 17 this Congress not only made it clear they had no intention to follow these law and took the important steps to form local militias to prepare to fight.

By early 1775, economic and military tensions reached an all time high and a provincial congress was held in Massachusetts. At this event, John Hancock and Joseph Waren began to prepare the state to go to war. Meanwhile, in Britain, the English Parliament declared war on Massachusetts for its rebellion. With only one state on England's list, the war should be an easy victory for the British. Other colonists became increasingly aware that the only way the colony of Massachusetts could win its war is if it became all of the colonists' war. Enter Patrick Henry.

The largest colony in America, Virginia, held an important meeting on March 23 for the colony's delegates. It was held in St. John's church in Richmond. Resolutions were presented by Patrick Henry putting the colony of Virginia "into a posture of defense...embodying, arming, and disciplining such a number of men as may be sufficient for that purpose." Before the vote was taken on his resolutions, Henry delivered one of the most important speeches in the history of our republic and one of its most important lines became a battle cry for the colonists.

In spite of his eloquence and the words he chose, it came very natural as he did not use a single note. As the speech went on, he became louder and louder and by the end, a measured and some what timid group of delegates took the major step of supporting Henry's resolutions by a narrow margin, placing Virginia in the Revolutionary War.

The speech should be read by every American in its entirety. However, the following lines alone should stir even the most complacent of Americans to appreciate the great country we have enjoyed and that we certainly need to restore. It should be no surprise that even Time Magazine ranks this speech among the ten greatest in human history.

"For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings."

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth -- to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves..."

"Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation -- the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?"

"They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing. "

"If we wish to be free -- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending -- if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!"

"Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?"

"Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us."

"Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!"

"Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

I have watched politics and the trends of this nation for three decades and I have never seen a message such as this ring more true as it does towards our own government. Americans are angry and I think their capacity to restore liberty is greater now than we have seen in generations.


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.

A Look at Obamacare by the Numbers

Critics of the President's health care agenda are always looking for the "right words" to convince others about the danger that will come with Obama's radical agenda. Maybe the most effective rebuttal is not in words, but in numbers. It is through reviewing the impact, in numbers, that Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) is tackling this sweeping and far reaching legislation.

One of the major promises of the Obama campaign during his run for President was to show "restraint" when it came to taxes. No one making less than $250,000 would see an increase at all, we were told. The vast majority who made more than that would see very few tax increases of their own, we were assured. According to ATR, the number of new tax increases in the health care bill is 19.

I guess it would not be too bad, if you felt campaign promises (and not the Constitution) is all that mattered and all of these tax increases were directed towards the "super rich" who make more than $250,000. Unfortunately, the number of tax increases that "unquestionably violate President Obama's 'firm pledge' not to raise 'any form' of taxes on families making less than $250,000" is a significant number at 7. In fact, people making as little as five digits a year will find themselves subject to new tax increases.

The number of new taxes is disconcerting and the disregard to promises made by the President in getting elected is enough to make a person's blood boil, but the amount that will be collected through the health care bill is enough to strike fear in even the most liberal tax lover. According to Americans for Tax Reform, "the tax increase over the first decade if the health care bill becomes law" will be "$497 billion."

Two of the weaker countries in the industrialized world -- when it comes to jobs, GDP growth, and other indicators of economic expansion -- are Japan and the United States. They also have the highest top tax rates. This is no coincidence, but the natural consequence of excessively taxing those who create jobs. Number one has been Japan, but when Obamacare becomes law, we will have the dubious distinction of being the "leader" in high tax rates. According to Americans for Tax Reform, "the top federal tax rate on wages and self-employment earnings under this bill: 43.4%" This will translate into an "annual tax hike for every man, woman, and child in America" of $165.

Oddly, Obama's health care bill even takes damaging aim against those who are least able to defend themselves. According to Americans for Tax Reform, "the most parents of special-needs kids" will be able to "save tax-free for tuition in FSAs (currently, the amount is unlimited): $2500."

ATR does not discuss the rationing that will come with this sweeping move towards socializing medicine or the negative impact it will have on innovation, since over 80 percent of all new technologies and drugs come from the US due to our profit system. What it does provide, however, is some serious numbers that show that Obamacare will certainly cause enormous and far reaching damage to our nation's economic health.

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.

Health care debate leads to talk of impeachment

The health care debate has been a spectacle to watch. Democrat members of Congress that are opposed to the legislation are being threatened by the President and by leaders of the Senate and the House. Some of it is subtle, like President Obama telling members of his party that he has no plans to campaign for them unless they vote for the health care bill. These days, in light of the incredible low he is experiencing in the polls, that is probably good news for Democrats. Other threats are less subtle, including some being warned if they do not vote for the bill, they are going to face well funded primary challenges. The arm twisting that members are experiencing is unprecedented and the tactics being used by Democrat leaders is being described by some as unconstitutional.

"Unconstitutional" and "impeachment" are fighting words for members of Congress and are dangerous when you are talking about the Speaker of the House. That is the type of language Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is using in light of the actions going on in the Congress.

One of the primary responsibilities of the media, known as the "fourth estate," is to hold those in power accountable. Congresswoman Bachmann argues that the media has dropped the ball by ignoring the Constitutional violations that are taking place in DC today.

Bachmann had the media in its crosshairs recently when she was in on Sean Hannity's program, stating, "Where is the mainstream media in all of this not telling this story? This is a compelling story - that the Speaker of the House would even consider having us pass a bill that no one votes on?" When she says that, the thought is a little shocking. The Speaker of the House is using an illegal procedure to pass a bill that will move one-sixth of the economy to government control and the media is more interested about whether the bill will become law than in the tactics being used to make it happen.

The procedures being used by Speaker Pelosi are so horrible, Bachmann says, that they alone serve as grounds for impeachment. Of particular concern is the "Slaughter Rule" or "deem and pass." The Wall Street Journal describes the situation well: "We're not sure American schools teach civics any more, but once upon a time they taught that under the U.S. Constitution a bill had to pass both the House and Senate to become law. Until this week, that is, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi is moving to merely 'deem' that the House has passed the Senate health-care bill and then send it to President Obama to sign anyway... Under the 'reconciliation' process.. the House is supposed to approve the Senate's Christmas Eve bill and then use 'sidecar' amendments to fix the things it doesn't like. Those amendments would then go to the Senate under rules that would let Democrats pass them while avoiding the ordinary 60-vote threshold for passing major legislation. This alone is an abuse of traditional Senate process." So abusive are the tactics, in fact, that Bachmann is talking impeachment.

Bachmann goes on to say that members of Congress should "laugh her out of the House and there should be people that are calling for impeachment off of something like this," Bachmann continued. "That's how bad this is. I mean, trust me - (former Speaker of the House) Dennis Hastert could have never gotten away with this. President Bush never could have gotten away with it."

At the very least, Bachmann hopes that voters will receive an important civics lesson. She argues that this is the type of thing that happens when one party dominates the entire political process. In the case of the Democrats, it became a temptation to abuse Constitutional power at a level we have never seen in the history of our country.

How serious is the impeachment threat? Right now it is only one member of Congress that is part of a legislative body dominated with members with a rather casual view of the idea of rule of law. But elections are in November and the political landscape could change rather quickly. It seems very obvious that voters will be watching what unfolds closely.

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.

Quantifying the shift to government dependence

I love lists, indices, and other interesting compilations of information. However, a recent report by the Heritage Foundation called the Index of Dependence on Government was very disturbing indeed. The numbers numbers this report certainly makes one look and they should be most alarming to even the most casual observer.

The index looks at several indicators when it comes to the growth of dependence on government. For example, how much have federal social programs grown? To what degree have such programs "crowded out" what were once social obligations and services carried out by the family, community organizations (e.g., churches), and local governments? In sum, William Beach, Director of the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, asks, has the civil society yielded significant ground to the public sector? After all, problems are solved by friends, neighbors, family, and religious groups, they are simply maintained when they fall into the hands of government. Quantifying the size of the shift to dependence is exactly what the index attempts to do.

The index currently stands at 240, based on data running through 2008. That is up three points from the 237 points from 2007. The growth in the index has been astonishing since 2001, growing by 31.2 percent when it stood at 183. The growth is even more profound when you look at the orgins of the indes in 1980, in which the base year for the index started at a mere 100). This enormous growth has happened over 30 years.

The rapid increase in the number of dependents has been accompanied by a comparable increase in the number of people who do not pay taxes. That number has grown from 21.3 percent in 1980 to 34 percent in 2008. 20 million tax filers did not pay a penny in taxes, 48 million Americans paid nothing at all.

Beach believes this shift to government dependence should be alarming to Americans. In addition to providing a huge financial drain on social service programs and the probability of long term dependence without consequences or shame (after all, recipients are mere "numbers" in the bureaucratic game); this harms civil society of its traditional and necessary role in providing assistance and the path towards independence through relationships that are closer to home. These include the family, community groups, religious organizations, and local governments. Local governments are far more effective than the federal government in breaking dependence because of their much more limited budgets and greater accountability, because they are closer to voters. Although the focus of the index is on the shift from society to government, this study also indicates the decay of civil society itself as reflected in its declining role in this most important area of life.

The biggest concern of all that comes from this index, in my opinion, may be what is around the corner -- the huge number of Baby Boomers that will bring the largest retirement of people in the history of the world. This phenomenon is taking place at a time when the number of people who do not pay taxes is growing rapidly. America has been on the path towards economic ruin for years. Now it seems we are in the process of fast tracking that process.

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.

Government Chooses Green Policies over Job Creation

Every day we see news stories that discredit the hysteria of "Global Warming." Winters have been colder for the past five years and those of us who grew up in the 1960s and 1970s remember when the fear was another "ice age." To make matters worse for "green" advocates, thousands of discovered emails written by Global Warming scientists show the agenda was more about control and politics than improving the environment. Add to the fact that the barriers between people and jobs are so numerous, the last thing you would think that policy makers would want to do is add regulations and taxes in pursuit of a green economy, but that appears to be the priority of the Obama Administration.

President Obama has made the creation of green jobs one of the biggest priorities of his energy and environmental agenda. Becoming the "leader in developing the clean energy technologies that will lead to the industries and jobs of tomorrow"' is described by Obama and his Administration as "'critical to the future of our country." They are investing billions in pursuit of this goal, according to Carrie Lukas of the Independent Women's Forum.

The stimulus bill of 2008 and 2009 had huge amounts allocated to "'green"' enterprises, including:

• $6 billion for a loan program targeted for "green" industry.
• $5 billion for weatherization aid, and $11 billion for "'smart grid"' technology and modernized high-tech transmission lines
• $500 million to help train workers for "green-related" careers.
• The new budget doubles down with similar "'green"' investments.

In addition, the subsidies allocated hundreds of millions for the research and development of new technologies in the energy field. There are also billions of tax breaks for companies investing in projects that pursue clean energy. Finally, you will find $74 million for initiatives to encourage young people to pursue careers in clean energy.

Taxpayers should be warned that creating a "'green job"' is not affordable, says Lukas:

• State and local "green job" creation efforts have cost in excess of $100,000 per position.
• Instead of creating domestic "green job" industries, much of the dollars for such projects are actually being sent overseas. For example, ABC News has reported that nearly 80 percent of the almost $2 billion in the stimulus bill dedicated to wind power, went directly to foreign manufacturers for wind turbines.

In the end, what may be of greatest concern are policymakers who know that direct government spending alone will not usher in a new "'clean"' economy, so they are also pursuing a more deliberate path to "'green"' job creation -- driving up the costs of traditional energy sources either through regulation or a costly cap-and-trade system that acts as a carbon tax. Essentially, the government will try to force businesses to use "green" fuels at the expense of their international competitive edge. This will mean that average American families will find that these policies cost them thousands of dollars as the price of everything from food (transported by gas power vehicles) to fuel itself, rises. Something with this kind of cost should generate "green" jobs, but will likely do so at the lost of many traditional jobs. Businesses will be forced to put more resources into cutting energy costs rather than on business expansion or job creation. The US already has the highest unemployment it has experienced in a quarter of a century. One has to wonder what our economy will look like after the radical health care agenda and an environmental plan that is simply not needed.

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.

Obamacare will Harm Working Americans

There is something that is clearly seen in the policy changes that will come with Obama's radical health care agenda, but is largely being ignored by the mainstream media. It is being called by some health care watchers as "the President's dirty little secret." Essentially, Obama's policies will wage a war on America's labor markets, says Benjamin Domenech who was a political appointee at the Department of Health and Human Services and is now the managing editor of Health Care News.


The United States is suffering from the highest unemployment in a quarter of a century and in such an economic environment you would think the government would do everything in its power to soften or eliminate the barriers between people and jobs. Instead, Obama's health care legislation will place millions of American workers out of work or move them to contract employees. This, in turn, will only create turmoil for families that are already concerned about one of the weakest economies in US history.The President promised a health care bill that would allow one to keep their private insurance and give business owners some needed relief (such as in taxes and mandates) to make it more affordable. Thanks to record deficits and the largest percentage of government spending in the Gross Domestic Product since the Great Depression, there will not only be any additional relief, but there will be a dramatic increase on the costs for business owners when it comes to health care.


In fact, the President's legislation is full of pitfalls and paradoxes when it comes to the President's goal of making health care more available. These include:

• Obama's proposal actually punishes employers for not providing health insurance. These type of provisions will lead to layoffs or the shifting of employees to contract status.


• Meanwhile, the president will subsidize the health care of employers without employer-provided insurance. These dollars will largely come from employers, which will further create barriers between people and jobs.


• This strange series of policies will essentially allow workers to receive the same compensation package they have today (assuming they can keep their jobs), but with Uncle Sam paying the health benefits of the bill, employers will have neither the need or the incentive to make up the difference in cash.


• On paper, this proposal looks great for low income workers (those making less than $17,000 a year), but there is a terrible thing called reality, because the layoffs and other issues that will follow.

The heart of liberal policies is that they are filled with, what appears to be, good intentions, but are plagued with terrible consequences. Domenech notes that small businesses that employ lower-income workers will not find it sensible, economically, to offer health insurance. Any business that does so will virtually always fail because of the higher costs they will suffer compared to competitors.

Obama's health care agenda is full of paradoxes and odd agendas that, in the end, will make health care cost more, or lead to higher unemployment, or foster a less stable economic environment, or all the above. Solutions to health care problems continue to be found in the market and not in government.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is 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 Decline in US Economic Freedom

Since 1995 the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal have monitored the economic freedoms of countries around the world and have published their results in the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom. Ideas like "economic freedom" are a little subjective, but I like the stated view of the publication. According to the editors, economic freedom is defined as "the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please, with that freedom both protected by the state and unconstrained by the state. In economically free societies, governments allow labor, capital and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself."

As far as methodology, the editors "measure ten components of economic freedom, assigning a grade in each using a scale from 0 to 100, where 100 represents the maximum freedom. The ten component scores are then averaged to give an overall economic freedom score for each country. The ten components of economic freedom are: business freedom, trade freedom, fiscal freedom, government spending, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property rights, freedom from corruption, and Labor Freedom."

We Americans like to believe that we live in the "land of the free and the home of the brave." Yet, most Americans note that our country is in decline. The top ten list of the 183 considered in the survey, gives you an idea of how bad it has become.

The US does not appear in the top five. Using school standards and 90 plus is an "A," no country on the list meets that criteria. With that, number 1 goes to Hong Kong at 89.7, declining 0.3 percent from 2009. The country reached this high status because of its "competitive tax regime, respect for property rights, and flexible labor market, coupled with an educated and highly motivated workforce, have stimulated an innovative, prosperous economy. Hong Kong is one of the world’s leading financial and business centers, and its legal and regulatory framework for the financial sector is transparent and efficient. Business regulation is straightforward. Despite the global economic slowdown, Hong Kong has maintained its status as Asia’s second-largest destination for foreign direct investment, attracting over $60 billion in 2008."

The other countries in the top four are Singapore (number 2 at 86.1 percent, down .1 percent), Australia (number 3 at 82.6 percent, with no change), New Zealand (number 4 at 82.1 percent, up.1 percent), and Ireland (number 5 at 81.3 percent, down .9 percent). New Zealand is only one of two countries in the top ten list to go up. According to the editors, "New Zealand continues to be a global leader in economic freedom, performing well on most of the components measured in the Index. The economy has an impressive record of market reforms and benefits from its openness to global trade and investment. The banking sector is characterized by sound regulations and prudent lending practices, and well-implemented structural reforms have allowed the New Zealand economy to weather the recent global financial and economic crisis relatively unscathed."

Countries six and seven round up the top tier of economic freedom (those with a "B"). The US fails to show up again. Switzerland (number 6 at 81.1 percent, up 1.7 percent) and Canada (number 7 at 80.4 percent, down 0.1 percent) occupy those spots. Switzerland is the other in the top ten to actually go up over the last year.

The United States (number 8 at 78.0 percent, down 2.7 percent) is one of three countries that rounds up the top ten with Denmark (number 9 at 77.9 percent, down 1.7 percent) and Chile (number 10 at 77.2 percent, down 1.1 percent). These countries did not even make it to the top tier, being below 80 percent and the United States had the dubious distinction of seeing the biggest decline in the past year (2.7 percent) among the top ten. In the arena of economic freedom, the US has a low score of "C+" at 78.0 percent.

The study notes that the "U.S. government’s interventionist responses to the financial and economic crisis that began in 2008 have significantly undermined economic freedom and long-term prospects for economic growth. Economic freedom has declined in seven of the 10 categories measured in the Index." It also states that "Uncertainties caused by ongoing regulatory changes and politically influenced stimulus spending have discouraged entrepreneurship and job creation, slowing recovery. Leadership in free trade has been undercut by 'Buy American' provisions in stimulus legislation and failure to pursue previously agreed free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. Tax rates are increasingly uncompetitive, and massive stimulus spending is creating unprecedented deficits. Bailouts of financial and automotive firms have generated concerns about property rights."

Imagine, the US is a "second tier country" on the fast track of decline after only one year of one of the most anti-free market Administrations in US history. It will be interesting to see if the US is still in the top ten after the Obama presidency comes to an end.

Will the Real Robert Byrd Please Stand Up?

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) is the Liberal Lion of the US Senate. The longest serving member of that institution, he has been a champion of big government and spending programs for years. He is also a philosophical ally of President Obama, an ally who has been at odds with that President.

In addition to his love for big government, Byrd also has a history of demonstrating a great passion about the protocol of the US Senate. Few members of Congress understand the unique role that body plays in the legislative process and he is infuriated by an Administration that is so passionate about its policy agendas that it is disregarding legislative integrity.

About a year ago, in a statement, Byrd made it clear that he agrees with the President when it comes to policy, stating, "I like this budget. I support many of the policies that the President's budget embraces - including middle-class tax relief, and badly needed investments in our nation's infrastructure." In spite of his agreement with the President when it comes to policy, he has great concern when it come to tactics noting that he "cannot, and...will not, vote to authorize the use of the reconciliation process to expedite passage of health care reform legislation or any other legislative proposal that ought to be debated at length by this body."

His statement as to why members of the Senate should be opposed to this legislation is both eloquent and forceful. He notes that "Using reconciliation to ram through complicated, far-reaching legislation is an abuse of the budget process. The writers of the Budget Act, and I am one, never intended for its reconciliation's expedited procedures to be used this way. These procedures were narrowly tailored for deficit reduction. They were never intended to be used to pass tax cuts, or to create new Federal regimes. Additionally, reconciliation measures must comply with Section 313 of the Budget Act, known as the Byrd Rule, which means that whatever health legislation is reported from the Finance Committee or legislation from any other Committee that is shoe-horned into reconciliation will sunset after five years... This is a very messy way to achieve a goal like health care reform, and one that will make crafting the legislation more difficult" (emphasis added).

Many liberal members of the Senate or talking revenge. They believe the legislative process had been used to force legislation down "their throats" in the past. They are not getting much sympathy from Byrd, who said "Whatever abuses of the budget reconciliation process which have occurred in the past, or however many times the process has been twisted to achieve partisan ends does not justify the egregious violation done to the Senate's Constitutional purpose. The Senate has a unique institutional role."

Advocates of mob rule will also find little sympathy from the West Virginia Democrat. He notes that the US Senate "Is the one place in all of government where the rights of the numerical minority are protected." This is not by accident, but by design, stating that, "As long as the Senate preserves the right to debate and the right to amend we hold true to our role as the Framers envisioned. We were to be the cooling off place where proposals could be examined carefully and debated extensively, so that flaws might be discovered and changes might be made."

He has an ominous warning for myopic colleagues who would disregard the rules and ram this legislation through. "Remember, Democrats will not always control this chamber, the House of Representatives or the White House. The worm will turn. Some day the other party will again be in the majority, and we will want minority rights to be shielded from the bear trap of the reconciliation process."

Unfortunately, Byrd is back tracking on his convictions and is now coming out in support of reconciliation to finish the health care bill. This goes against the grain of Byrd's career, but is typical of the politics of the day. It does make one ask, will the real Robert Byrd please stand up?

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.

Liberals, the Super Rich, and Strange Allies

If you read the fairy tale weaved by the major media and our history books, we would believe that liberal policies are beneficial to everyone, whether if those policies are popular are not. The upper classes can complain all they want, but they sleep better at night knowing that the government is generous with their wealth, even if those wealthy are actually "quite greedy." The middle class who aspire to be rich might have to face tougher regulations and taxes that might prevent them from meeting their dream, but at least they know their "fundamental needs" are being met. This would never happen, we are told, without the benevolent hand of the government. Than there are those who are poor and they are obviously the biggest beneficiaries of a big and generous government. These people would surely be found lying dead in the street without the generosity of a redistributing government.

The reality is, the only ones who benefit at all from a government that is growing out of control are the super rich and, if you consider getting "something for nothing" a "good thing," the poor. The rest of us are squeezed by the pressures driven by the highest income groups.

Liberals want us to believe that conservatives are "for business" while they are for "the people." It is correct that, true conservatives, support bills that encourage economic freedom. But businesses support liberal candidates as well. Liberals want us to believe that Obama raised almost ten times more than McCain in the last Presidential campaign by getting coupons and food stamps from the homeless and the destitute. According to the FEC, the top 1 parent income group gave three to one more to Barack Obama than John McCain. How is that possible for a President who is bent on being the "Peoples' President?" The reason for this is simple, the mega rich are the only ones that can actually afford big government.

I worked for a member of the US Senate and learned how the super rich and the liberals work hand and hand. For example, major energy companies and environmental activists (yes, odd bedfellows) decide that it was time to upgrade the environmental quality of gas pumps in the early 1990s. So, they send their team of lobbyists upon Washington, DC to persuade members of Congress to pass legislation that would cost -- $10,000 per gas pump on average in order to bring them up to code.

Now, the liberal members of Congress are sitting in their office and the lobbyists visit them. They see a "business man" who represents an energy company saying that forcing the upgrade of gas pumps is a good thing for everyone -- including business. It will "create new jobs" for those who make these better pumps. More "important," this legislation will make a "cleaner and safer environment," because fewer gas fumes will be pumped into the environment. The liberal, who is inclined towards expanding government any way, loves this. It is "pro-business" and "pro-environment, what can we lose?" What was lost was thousands of jobs, untold numbers of "mom and pop" gas stations that could not afford the upgrades, and consumers lost choices for buying gas. This epitomizes government at its worse. Big business has partnered with big government to mug small businesses for years with regulation and tax laws the latter cannot afford.

There is a similar situation when it comes to excessive, progressive, taxation. The super rich find this to be a laughable situation, since most of these taxes only apply when money is being used in economic activities. A great example is the capital gains tax. When you look at history, and when this tax was very high or in the process of increasing (like now), the result is a dramatic drop in economic activity and the jobs they created. The rich would sit on the largess they enjoyed and accumulated, while those who want to be rich find themselves unable to afford to take risks because the rewards were so damaged by the tax. The super rich actually get a break from the upper middle class that aspires to be rich when all taxes are high. In a way, these high taxes are an actual insurance program against those who would want to displace them on the economic ladder.

Big government, and its proponents, have always been funded and supported by the super rich. Although more than 80 percent of all jobs are created by small business, major corporations and the people that benefit from them, dictate government policies that keep the wealthy on top and increases the numbers of the poor (by destroying job creation among small businesses and providing increased incentives for choosing a life of poverty). So, the next time you meet someone who says they are liberal, ask them why don't they give the "little guy" a break and support freedom instead.

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.

Who Loses from Minimum Wage Increases?

We have all heard the saying that "The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions." This saying could not be more true than when it comes to minimum wage. Liberals determine whether a policy is "good" entirely on what it should do, rather than what it actually does. Liberal policy makers decide they want to raise the incomes of individuals (salaries), when they should seek to increase the spending power of individuals (which would happen from increased productivity and the lower costs that follows).

Increasing the minimum wage, which is intended to raise the living standards of millions of Americans holding unskilled and entry level positions, finds itself playing a much different role. Instead of making individuals more financially well off, minimum wage increases always lead to massive layoffs. In fact, a new study from Ball State University suggests that the most recent minimum wage increase may have led to the elimination of 550,000 jobs. This level of lost jobs makes an eloquent case for opening up the possibility that such wage levels should be reconsidered.

Part-time workers monitored by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (from 1999 to 2009) found that raising the minimum wage to its current high of $7.25 during this recession, contributed to many businesses reducing the number of jobs they have available through attrition or to eliminate them entirely, according to Michael J. Hicks of Ball State's Center for Business and Economic Research (CBER).

The findings of the study did not end there:

• The youngest and least qualified Americans are those who suffer the most from minimum wage laws. Approximately 67 percent of teenagers and young adult minimum wage workers are members of households with incomes that are at least twice the poverty level (for example $44,000 for a family of four). This means that the vast majority of these jobs do not "make or break" a household's income, but are important ways for people to get the tools they need to get better jobs in the future. But if the job costs too much due to the government, the opportunity will never arrive.


• Adult workers working at minimum wage have limited skill. Raising the salary, in many cases, will force employers to consolidate many positions and eliminate many of these jobs. No one benefits from this kind of result.


• About two-thirds of all adult minimum wage workers have a high school degree or less. Frankly, the preparation of these workers are commiserate with their skill, training, and abilities.


• One benefit of a lower minimum wage is that it provides individuals the incenive to be more compeitive in the job market. Artificially high wages would reduce incentives to improve ones situation, would lead to higher prices for goods made, and leads to the elimination of many jobs. Minimum wage has many down sides, but not many causes for enthusiasm.

The study goes on to make several "real world" recommendations:

• The development of a "sub-minimum" wage that would lead to the creation of lower minimum wages for students and new hires would be assisted in keeping jobs.


• A student minimum wage would allow employers to hire seasonal workers without having to pay the full cost of adult employment.


• Introducing a tenure-scaled minimum wage would give employers an incentive to "take a chance" on less skilled and unskilled workers.

In addition, there are several aggressive steps that could be taken on the minimum wage front. The most important, in my opinion, is eliminating the current minimum wage entirely, but instead have he federal government mandate the states to have minimum wages of their own. This would allow states like Michigan, Ohio, and Nevada to be able to tackle their massive unemployment problem in creative ways that make sense to their particular circumstances. For example, they could have a different minimum wage for cities with disproportionately high unemployment, in order to make them more competitive.

Surveys show that unemployment is the most pressing issue facing voters today. Our current double digit unemployment puts us at a level we have not seen in a quarter of a century. The American people are looking for Congress to take serious steps to eliminate the barriers between people and jobs. Reforming minimum wage is an excellent place to start.

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 Massive Shift Towards Government Dependence

How much would the income of US households have dropped without being propped up by government benefits, welfare, and tax cuts last year? According to Patrice Hill of the Washington Times, it would have been a breathtaking $723 billion. This amount is more than five times the record $167 billion drop reported last month by the Commerce Department.

Most of the dependence is linked to the huge number of job losses in the last year. A major priority of government should be to eliminate the barriers between people and jobs. This should be done, not only in order to improve the situation of those who are unemployed, but to help provide relief for a government that finds itself supporting such people. The impact of unemployment is devastating in a way not found by other economic problems. The economists are claiming that we are in a recovery, but explain that to the close to ten percent of the population that has yet to find a job.

Hill cites the reports of economic analysts who find that:

• While wages and other job-related income fell by a record $206 billion last year to $7.84 trillion, government transfer payments (such as unemployment checks and Social Security) grew by $231 billion to $2.1 trillion.
• Wages have plunged at unprecedented levels, down to $256 billion in private wages, which was more than forty times larger than the last wage drop, during the recession of 2001.
• Unemployment not only means more money going from the government to individuals, but a significant drop of income going to the government (this seems obvious, but many policy makers do not seem to understand it). As a result, the amount of taxes paid by individuals dropped by $325 billion to $2.1 trillion due to middle-class tax cuts (which have none of the revenue generating effects of a supply-side tax cut across all income groups) and the fact that there are 6 million people who lost their jobs and are no longer paying payroll taxes.
  

Many in the Obama Administration believed that there would be a revival in consumer spending in the latter part of 2009. This would have led to more tax revenues and job growth, we were told. Instead, virtually all new spending was done by government and dollars that went to consumers were used to pay off debt, rather than jump start the economy.

The prospects do not look good in the immediate future, because virtually all opportunities for new spending appear to be on the government, rather than on the consumer, side. Such government funding cannot be sustained without continually raising taxes and will, at best, only produce temporary and expensive jobs.

If the administration is serious about reducing unemployment, it will have to be aggressive in its approach. Steps should include a dramatic reduction in capital gains and business taxes, making the minimum wage a state (rather than federal) issue so they can set such according to the unemployment situations in their particular areas, and curtailing ambitious programs (such as cap and trade, health care reform, and other major initiatives) that create an unpredictable environment for jobs to be created.

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.

Obama's Mentors included Hoover, as well as FDR

Calvin Coolidge oversaw one of the greatest expansions in the history of the US economy. When Coolidge took office, he believed tax rates were too high. With top rates at over 70% following World War I and facing a protracted recession, Coolidge believed it was time to take serious actions. The combined top marginal normal and surtax rate fell from 73 percent to 58 percent in 1922, and then to 50 percent in 1923 (for incomes over $200,000). In 1924, the top tax rate fell to 46 percent (for incomes over $500,000). The top rate was just 25 percent (for incomes over $100,000) from 1925 to 1928, and then fell to 24 percent in 1929.

The reduction in tax rates fueled the productivity engine of the US during these years, leading to inflation rates below 2 percent, unemployment below four percent, and the number of people who made over $100,000 a year actually quadrupling over his years in office. In addition to leading to economic expansion, these policies led to a dramatic increase in tax revenue. I call it the "Wal-Mart Principle" of taxation. Charge as little as possible per item (or activity) and you will make more than any of your competitors in your profits. Low tax rates lead to much greater economic activity and a huge increase in revenue.

Many historians perceived Coolidge's successor, Herbert Hoover, as one who continued his predecessors limited government policies. Coolidge was actually quite critical of Hoover, stating "That man has given me nothing but advice, and all of it bad." Hoover actually pursued several policies that remind one of Barack Obama, not Calvin Coolidge.

In fact, Hoover turned the depression into a "Great" one through several, government interventionist, policies:

• Supporting artificially high wages. When unemployment reaches approximately 25 percent, your objective should be eliminating the barriers between people and jobs. Wages are a huge barrier to employment The Hoover Administration pressured businesses to keep wages high and prices low. The Secretary of Labor at the time, James Davis said "There never has been a crisis such as we have had as the stock market crash that threw...millions out of employment that there wasn't a wholesale reduction in wages...If Hoover accomplishes nothing more in all of his service to the government, that one outstanding thing of his administration -- no reduction in wages -- will be a credit that will be forever remembered not by the working classes alone but by business men as well, because without money in the pay envelope business is the first to suffer" (The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal, by Robert P. Murphy, Ph.D.). What a legacy, backing a policy that forced widespread unemployment.


• Undermining international trade. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 unleashed a chain of events that was seen first in the stock market crash of that year and crippled any efforts towards recovery for years to come. The tariff act put a huge cost on all goods coming into the United States. Investors on Wall Street knew that this would lead to retaliation and would greatly devalue the companies and the stock that represents them. This led to massive sock selling and lit the fuse to the depression. It took until the 1940s before the barriers finally began to fall and economy recover.

In addition, Hoover raised taxes to levels not seen since Coolidge took office (when the country was in an other recession) and he implemented domestic programs that were precursors of the New Deal (including subsidies and loans similar to what we see today).

In the end, Hoover was a big government proponent who sounded similar to Barack Obama today. At the Republican National Convention of 1932, Herbert Hoover stated, when receiving his party's nomination that "We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put it into action." I'm sure advocates of free markets at the time find themselves asking, "how's that change working for you?" The differences between FDR and Hoover were simply in the scope of their activities, not in their nature. They both believed in massive government and they both failed miserably, placing this country into a decade and a half of despair. Obama is taking the US on a similar course and on a fast track that would be the envy of Hoover or FDR. We need to go back to what works -- less government and not more. We need to create a predictable economic environment that can only be created through less taxes and regulations. It is obvious that we need freedom and not government expansion.

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.