Congress is bent on making "Public Option" Inevitable

The phrase "public option," when it comes to the health care debate, has become so poisonous that everyone who supports socialized medicine have distanced themselves from that language. No longer will the government mandate everyone to be on "public" insurance. Rather, the government is going to force everyone out of private options and to government care. It is not as "cut and dry" as the approach they prefer and some (the very rich) will still enjoy private coverage, but the vast majority will find themselves with no other practical option than the government.

Peter Landers of the Wall Street Journal reports that "Insurance companies have another made-to-order report saying that the Senate Finance Committee's health bill would drive up health costs." Citing a report from PriceWaterHouseCooper, Landers notes that "The Oliver Wyman report says that unless the Senate beefs up the proposed mandate on Americans to carry insurance, average annual medical claims five years after the overhaul takes effect would be 50% higher than today, not accounting for medical inflation. That would increase the premiums for family coverage by $3,300 in today's dollars, it says." Many families who are struggling to hold on to the health insurance they have will feel forced to give up that private option, especially if there is a government option in the wings and regardless of how poor of an alternative it is.

That is the other side of the two edged sword; not only will Obamacare drive up the prices of health insurance for all those who stay in the private option, it will also put taxes on virtually everyone to pay for it, including (or maybe, especially) those who are already paying for insurance of their own. Just like those individuals forced to pay property taxes while their own kids attend private schools, socialized health care will mandate every taxpayer to pay for the services, even if they are not using the programs themselves.

The demagogues that are currently driving the debate are telling those that have private insurance (approximately 85 percent of the population according to US News and World Reports) will continue to have such after a socialized medicine program becomes law. The truth is, they might have the right, but between being forced to pay for a service they do not want to use and having the cost of the insurance they want to use growing exponentially, they will find themselves "crowded out" of the private option and forced in to the public one.

Because of the same "crowding out" effect in education (people being forced to pay taxes for it, even if they prefer their children to go to private school), 90 percent of all children in the US are in public schools. In England, where public health care is financed in a similar way as we are moving, 90 percent of the population is under socialized medicine. This is not a mere coincidence, but a clear warning for us today.

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

Obama Declares war on Fox

We are all familiar with Obama's distaste for dissenting opinion when it comes to the media. Back in his 2008 campaign for President, the Obama campaign left reporters from The New York Post, The Dallas Morning News, and The Washington Times on an airport tarmac. The Post and Times are noted for their conservative bent and all three were guilty of endorsing John McCain. Once those endorsements were announced, reporters from each of these newspapers were left out in the cold.

ABC News reported at the time that "The campaign says that a limited number of seats forced it to make the tough decision of which journalists would be permitted to follow the Democratic presidential candidate in the last four days of the campaign, but the papers are calling foul, claiming they were targeted for their editorial-page positions and kicked off while nonpolitical publications like Glamour and Jet magazines remained on board." It would seem any news publication would have a stronger case to stay on board than Glamour.

Even before Obama was elected there was talk of restoring the "Fairness Doctrine" that had silenced conservative voices for decades until Ronald Reagan reversed the policy in the 1980s, leading to the rise of Rush Limbaugh and others. Obama says he favors consensus, the kind of consensus that only comes from controlling the media.

The Obama Administration is at it again and is now declaring war on the Fox News Channel and many in the media are weighing in.

The "war" against Fox came from pretty high sources in the Administration with White House communications director Anita Dunn describing a new, aggressive, press strategy regarding the network. PRNewser reports on, and has video of White House communications director Anita Dunn's strategy which "she explained in a straightforward slam of Fox News Channel during an appearance on CNN's 'Reliable Sources,'" stating "Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party," said Dunn. "Let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is." The senior aide added, "What I think is fair to say about Fox, and certainly the way we view it, is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party."

Reports of the White House attack is drawing comments from around the news industry. Time Magazine's James Poniewozik discusses what the Administration has to gain from such an approach, "Of course, it's possible that the Administration is simply making the case because it believes that it's right and Fox News is wrong. But politically, you would think that the White House seeks to gain something from a fight, since Fox News probably is." There is little doubt that Fox loves the attention, and many of my friends with the network have brought Obama's attack to my attention and the personalities themselves discuss it on the air. With Obama's rapidly shrinking numbers, why would not Fox want to be the place to go if you are unhappy with the Administration?

There is certainly a concern that the White House is going too far in its stance. The Orlando Sentinel's Hal Boedeker writes that "Maybe the White House should get out of the press-critiquing business. It's never been a wise move for any White House. The complaints come off as whining. The White House certainly should stop condescending to Fox News, which is a slap against that channel's fans. The smarter move would be for Obama to engage. Why doesn't he put his smooth, unflappable style to the test on Fox News?"

Even liberal publications have echoed a similar concern. The Nation's John Nichols thinks the strategy is weak from both a political and historical perspective: "Whether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is 'whining.' And nothing -- no attack by Glenn Beck, no blogger busting about Guantanamo -- does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."

With the other major news media being little more than a microphone for an increasingly unpopular Administration, voters are going to look for an alternative. Obama and his staff have made it easy to identify where to go to for that.

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

Major Coups at Fox Business

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

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

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

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

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

Poll Show Obama Wins by a Landslide

It's true that McCain and Palin should probably give up. Obama wins by a landslide. This is the story from BBC of a survey of the 22 countries they provide news service to. That list includes Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Panama, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Turkey, the UAE, Britain and the United States. Unfortunately for Obama, the United States is in the survey, but on its own now leans slightly towards McCain (at the time this was written). Also unfortunate for Obama, it is the only country that matters.

Here are a few results from the survey:

* At the time of the poll, all the countries surveyed wanted Obama over McCain. Again, the results have changed recently where it matters, with US surveys showing a dead heat or a slight lead for McCain.

* 17 of 22 countries expect improvements in US relations with the rest of the world under Obama.

* America's NATO allies and Australia were most optimistic about what an Obama Administration would do for US relations (61 percent).

The reasons for such results outside of the US may be attributed to several different reasons. He is the least American (in the traditional sense of the word) of any candidate in our country's history. Even he has discussed the contrasts between him and other Presidents (a tactic that has backfired). For quite some time the non-US world has often been hostile to Americans. Furthermore, he tends to demonstrate an elitism that is common among European politicians, but doesn't resonate very well in this country. His recent remarks about the inability of most Americans to speak any French may have went over well in Europe, but angered people here who wonder why he is concerned about our French, but not about the huge foreign population here that doesn't know English. It is that some what strange incongruity that has many here less excited than those around the planet.

Than there is the bad news for Obama found in the results. In addition to the fact that his weakest level of support is in the only place where surveys such as this matter, Obama isn't the only candidate to have had similar favor and less than satisfactory results. ABC notes that "a similar BBC/Globescan poll conducted ahead of the 2004 U.S presidential election found that, of 35 countries polled, 30 would have preferred to see Democratic nominee John Kerry, rather than the incumbent George Bush, who was elected." Isn't there a famous statement to the effect of "what does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose the Electoral College?" It is something like that.

Kevin Price accurately predicted that Joe Biden would be the VP candidate of Obama three days before the announcement. He predicted a woman would be McCain's VP days before as well. Get his commentaries in your email box by contacting Info@HoustonBusinessShow.com.

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 HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Eagerly Waiting Recession

I love the movie "The Matrix." It is smart and imaginative. Yes, it's violent, but even that seemed to have a purpose. I love the scene where Agent Smith tells Neo the truth about the world he has always known. He tells the hero that in earlier attempts the machines attempted to make a perfect virtual world so that humans would be happy while they waited to be batteries for the machines. Smith goes on to say that it made the humans miserable and they had to give us the current world plagued with challenges and problems in order to make us content. We lived for bad things, he argued, and the Matrix accomodates such.

I like to consider myself an optimist, but there is a part of this story rings true. One of my earliest posts was on the "Real Economy." Back in July of 2006, when the economy was booming, I wrote that "any way, the news isn't good, but the economy keeps on chugging along at excellent levels." In spite of the news today, we only have a very slight drop in the economy over the last month. According to economists, it takes six months of decline to be called a "receission." But believe me, we will keep hearing recession talk, even if February shows a dramatic up swing. The media business is actually the bad news business. They thrive as long as the media is bad, in their opinion.

I'm not ready to buy the recession rhetoric, regardless of how strongly it is pushed down my throat. A recession requires six month of economic decline. We have only seen a soft month. I believe we had years of recession rhetoric, yet continued prosperity. We should continue to determine our economic destiny.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Alex Frankel's Unique View of Brands

On yesterday's Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 on CNN 650), I had the opportunity to interview Alex Frankel, author of the popular book, Punching In. He provided interesting insights on the development of brands today and has appeared on ABC News, Wall Street Journal, and in USA Today. He applied for and served in entry level positions at UPS. Enterprise, Gap, Starbucks, and Apple. At those companies he got to see the relationship customers have with business at the most common meeting place -- through front line employees.

In it, he discusses the training experiences (all but Enterprise primarily had on the job training exclusively). On a personal level, he found Apple the most interesting (it is made up of people who are passionate and informed about the product) and Gap the least interesting (where he actually remembers the exact number of clothes he folded on a single day, which was the primary activity of the store's employees).

In it, he also assesses the value of the training employees received and the struggle each of these companies had keeping employees in the long term. I believe that this book's approach is one of the most valuable insights into the challenges in the way brands are developed. One would have to pay thousands to acquire this kind of information through traditional research. I suggest people save the money and pick up this interesting book online. If you are an employer looking for what works and what doesn't when it comes to your employees and branding, this book is excellent for you.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review.

Search Engine Friendly

I actually feel guilty that I, personally, only write around 10 or 11 articles a week (around 4 here and more at HoustonBusinessShow.com). I know, it sounds ridiculous, but when your blogs and web platforms have the reach we enjoy, I feel like I should be writing as long as I'm awake.

Articles on our web platform are found very high on Google searches and enjoy a very high response. In fact, dBusinessNews released information about the extent of our search engine optimization reach compared to other major media web sites such as the Houston Chronicle, the Houston Business Journal, and even national media sites.

Here is a comparison of the HoustonBusinessReview (which is media central on our sites) and other major websites:

Newspapers

Houston Chronicle. Chron.com has a Search Engine Optimization rating of 82%.
Houston Business Journal (HoustonBusinessJournal.com) has a Search Engine Optimization rating of 86%.

TV Stations

KPRC (Click2Houston.com) has a Search Engine Optimization rating of 87%.
KHOU (KHOU.TV) has a Search Engine Optimization rating of 57%.
KTRK (KTRK.com) has a Search Engine Optimization rating of 70%.

Radio

KTRH has a Search Engine Optimization rating of 59%.
KPRC has a Search Engine Optimization rating of 55%.
KSEV has a Search Engine Optimization rating of 80%.

News Websites

HoustonBusinessReview.com has a Search Engine Optimization rating of 92 percent.

HoustonBusinessReview.com is the only local website that has a DomainTools.com rating of an "A" (with 90% plus being an "A"). This rating is usually relegated to national media. For example:

Forbes.com has a Search Engine Optimization rating of 91%.
Fortune.com has a Search Engine Optimization rating of 92%.
CNNMoney.com has a Search Engine Optimization rating of 92%.

However, many prominent national media failed to reach the 90 percent threshold, including the Wall Street Journal, ABC News, MSNBC.com, and many others.

Combined with all of our experts and the content I provide, we have a massive reach. Learning how to have search engine friendly content is crucial in web marketing. That will be the focus of posts in the future.

California Fire Fuels TV Ratings

If I have said it once, I have said it a million times, the media is in the bad news business. Again, not news, bad news. If people merely saw news or good news, it appears interest would be at a minimum. In the words of Don Henley, we want "dirty laundry." Proof of the power of bad news can be found in one of yesterday's article in Media Bistro's TVNewser:

Last night's special edition of 20/20 posted the program's largest audience in more than a year and its highest A18-49 and A25-54 numbers in more than eight months.
The Charlie Gibson-anchored special brought in 10.9M total viewers. In the A18-49 demo the hour had a 2.8 rating/8 share; in A25-54 it had a 3.7/10.

So when the media has the opportunity to talk about the fact that we will have one of the best home selling years in history this year or focus on the 1.5 percent of home owners who are in forclosure, what route do you think they will take? Sadly, bad news is good news for the media.

Donald Trump Redefines "Intelligence"

Donald Trump was excited following the debate on ABC's "The View" between Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Rosie O'Donnell. In fact, Trump is convinced that Rosie is leaving early in humiliation because she was "beat up" by Hasselbeck.

On Fox News, Donald was looking punchy himself and it reminded me of a "post fight interview," in which a previous contender discussed how each round went. Trump filled the part perfectly, having had many rounds with Rosie himself. He tackled the subject like a middle school student "talking smack" about O'Donnell being everything from a "loser," to "fat," to "stupid," etc., etc., etc. My children are no longer allowed to watch Trump because he is a bad example.

When asked if he was impressed about Hasselbeck's performance, he was as or more harsh towards Elisabeth than Rosie, telling Fox News "Elisabeth is not a very smart person, she’s one of the dumber people in television. To see that she supports the war, and she’s solidly behind the war, give me a break.” At first, Trump said O'Donnell won because of her position on the war, but later he said she had to of lost or she wouldn't have quit like she did. This is quality television!

Donald Trump is now the protector and definer of intelligence. If you are against the war, you are stupid. I can't even begin to say how "stupid" that sounds. In my experience, intelligent people are not threatened by views that are different than theirs to the point of resulting in name calling. Intelligent people like passionate debate and counter it with sound argument, not insult.

It is hard to believe that a few years ago this guy was being mentioned as a possible Presidential candidate. Now the only people who would ever discuss such are the David Letterman's and Jay Leno's. But even comedy has to have a certain amount of plausibility, which is why we don't hear them joking about it any longer. That's good news, because a Trump presidency would be far more scary than humorous.

The Network News Mystique

It shouldn't surprise anyone that I'm a devoted viewer of news in general during the day and Fox News in particular. My posts at this blog reflect that fact. However, on those very rare days that I'm at home at 5:30 PM (Central), I begin looking for a network news channel like clockwork. In the past it was always NBC because I like the way Brian Williams presents. His liberal agenda, however, has me moving away from the network. Then, with the move of Katie Couric to CBS, I became very intrigued to watch that train wreck unfold. Now, more often than not, I'm tuning into Charlie Gibson (photo) of ABC News because it is slightly less biased than the other two.

The question is, with the several hours of news I see daily, why would I want to see the broadcast networks? It has come down to a few reasons:

* Creature of habit. Before there were so many cable news channels, people got their news from the networks at the end of the day. The younger a person is, the less likely this will be a factor.

* Entertainment quality. The networks spend significantly more on the 30 minutes of nightly news than the cable companies do on hours of their news programming. They use their best talent, with the best sets, and the finest graphics. If "good looking" broadcasts is important to you, than you probably still find yourself watching the network evening news.

* The "catch all" factor. When you cover the news 24/7 like they do on the cable channels and you find yourself watching them often, you often wonder if you are missing something because there is so much out there. That 30 minutes tells you all the major stories of the day (at least we hope).

* The major network "legitimacy." I think everyone wants to know what "the big networks" are saying. The stories they cover and the way they cover them often tells us the direction the news is going and the stories we can expect in the future.

In light of the fact that I'm typically disgusted by the liberal ideology pervasive in the "mainstream media" today, I'm surprised that I can still stomach it, let alone take extra steps to watch it. But through it all the major networks still have their own mystique.

NBC News and the Extended Broadcast

Tonight, NBC Nightly News made history when, in the first time in its history, one advertiser (Philips electronics) was the sole sponsor of the show and gave us one minute, 15 seconds in ads instead of 7 minutes. NBC then asked us to comment and let them know our thoughts. This is what I wrote:

Clearly NBC is countering the problems facing TV news more forcefully than its counterparts at CBS and ABC with the move towards extended newscasts and the more strategic use of podcasts. The networks are trying to reach the "Accumulators"; those between the ages of the mid 30s to the mid 50s who find time to be their greatest asset and who make every effort to protect such.

I wrote about the problems facing the networks in detail in my blog at http://houstonbusinessdaily.blogspot.com/2006/11/meet-accumulators-and-how-to-reach.html. With the extended newscast and the podcasts, NBC is clearly showing its intention to be around in the 21st century. I will be discussing this in more detail at www.bizplusblog.com. Congratulations on the move, I think it will be win for Philips, NBC, and us viewers.

What else do I wish to add?

First, NBC intentions are not altruistic, but a desperate attempt to recoup the huge number of viewers in the 30s, 40s, and 50s who want their news when and how they want it, and are going else where to get it. I wrote about such in the Accumulator entry mentioned above. The average age of the typical evening news viewer is still 60 (not the prime group advertisers desire), this action by NBC will not change that fact, in my opinion.

Second, it costs a lot of money to produce national nightly news broadcasts. MSNBC laid off over 700 people a few months ago, due greatly to this problem. If people continue to go to the web, rather than TV, they will eventually abandon the latter as a news source and fill that time with some reality show that costs virtually nothing to produce. We will then get virtually all our news online where it can be updated quickly and produced cheaply. TV news will likely be dead entirely except for niche stations (e.g., Fox News, CNBC, etc.) and for the occasional local news broadcast.

You can see why I relegated these comments to my blog, I'm afraid NBC may not have liked what I had to say and they could have failed to include my comments. (Yes, I'm guilty of a little blatant self promotion, the occupational hazard of bloggers).

Is "Head On" the Pet Rock of Health Care?

I was watching the news (ABC' Good Morning America) this morning and the topic of "Head On" came on the screen with the irritating commercial of the lady applying, what looks like lip baum, repeatedly to her forehead and the announcer telling us "Head On, apply directly to the forehead." He says it enough times that the typical viewer will get a headache.

I, like many others, wondered if it worked, especially since I noticed it recently removed the claim that it "cured headaches." It has over 6 million in sales, isn't that the necessary "proof in the pudding"? The news report was very inconclusive, finding some that said it helped, others who said it didn't, and others still who said it made their headaches worse.

In the end, the report noted that the number one ingredient to Head On was wax. That's certainly a little suspicious and it reminds me of the good old pet rock, which may have more therapeutic value for headaches than Head On. How? If you apply a pet rock "directly to the forehead" hard enough it might knock you out for a while and give you a break from your headache. I'm not recommending this, of course, but it is a thought.

My instincts are telling me that you might want to save your Head On and put on the shelf next to that pet rock you bought in 1975. They both could make excellent conversation pieces.

Ford Employees Learning Economics 101

I know this is going to sound harsh, but the economic realities that Ford employees are discovering are the same lessons everyone must learn in order to thrive in our current economy. During an interview on ABC News Nightline an employee was asked about the cause of the company's decline. She replied it was because Americans selfishly bought foreign cars at the expense of their fellow Americans. The interviewer asked a question that was shockingly perceptive in our current political environment, (paraphrase) "could it be that Americans don't want to pay for the amazing salaries and benefits that you boasted about earlier? Wouldn't they rather pay for the lower cost of buying a car made by Toyota with lower wages and benefits?" (One thing all the Ford employees discussed was how good it was for them financially).

The look on her face was amazing. It was like she had a "V-8" moment, but the negative type, not the one you see in the commercials. She said "the benefits are amazing, but I hate to think that is why they did it." But that is exactly why we -- all of us -- "did it." The economy is a lot of things, but it isn't personal. The invisible hand that Adam Smith discussed in the 18th century is alive and well today. People actively make self interested decisions daily, even as we criticize the ability of other countries in competing against us. The invisible hand, a force we can't see but is all so powerful, creates supply and demand, and controls our economy unless harassed by government.

A great example of this is Wal-Mart. If everyone I talk to about this "job exporting," "people exploiting," "made in the USA destroying" company is telling the truth, this company should be on the brink of bankruptcy and not, arguably, the most economically powerful company in the world. But people, even as they drive to the "hated" store, will decry the injustice of goods made by cheap labor and walk out with not a single item made in the USA (with the possible exception of a tag that was made in a US territory). In essence, they cry all the way to the bank in savings.
Is this a bad thing? Certainly not, in my opinion. Our country has an unemployment of only 4.7 percent, that is virtually zero unemployment when you consider the large number estimated who are voluntarily unemployed (seasonally employed, criminals, etc., equals around 4 percent). Because we are free to get what we want, largely from where we want, we are able to get Ford Escorts for only $14,000 (since they make much of their cars in "cheap labor" countries rather than $60,000 a year (which is what they would likely cost if made bumper to bumper in the US). I'm able to eliminate poverty voluntarily and long term in countries like China and India through my purchases (like we did in Japan 40 years ago) without the United Nations taking my money through redistribution as that organization is attempting to do (leading to corruption and international welfare dependency). We are able to truly take advantage of the law of comparative advantage (things being made were they most make sense economically) and the whole world benefits from it.

I believe people should give up the notion of stopping the imports and embrace them. They are making us richer, not poorer (by the way, our longest period of trade surpluses was during the Great Depression; trade deficits mean we can afford more than other countries; not a bad thing). Instead of grumbling about our imports, we should appreciate the good things we are doing for the world economy and simple common sense with our purchases. We don't make these purchase because they are bad, but because they are good for everyone.

What about the nice Americans who lost their jobs at Ford, GM and other companies? The reality is, most of them will quickly find themselves back on their feet, with either new jobs or created businesses as they pursue becoming their own boss. This loss, though sad, will be temporary, but the American resolve the prosper is permanent.

Katie Couric's Big Day

Today was Katie's big day as host of CBS Evening News. She made history by being the first female anchor of the most prestigious and important 30 minutes of news. Yes, I know, that is a lot of hyperbole, but that is the media's position on it, not mine. In reality, evening news is in desperate shape and Katie Couric wearing little to no clothes would not be able to likely save its staggering decline in viewership (by the way she was fully and appropriately dressed). Furthermore, the approach they took with Katie will likely contribute to this media's further decline.

First of all, the new approach is no longer the evening news. It is, instead, a mini version of a news magazine such as 20/20, Primetime Live, or 60 Minutes. Instead of making sure the major news stories were covered in less than 30 minutes, Katie gave Morgan Spurlock of "Supersize Me" fame an opportunity to trash our "divided nation" and to express his opinion that we need to stop operating in extremes in her new "Free Speech" segment. Furthermore she had Thomas Friedman of the New York Times on who discussed how we need to restore the friendly US that much of the world loved and appreciated (and often used as a doormat, but we won't go there). The new format was mildly entertaining, but it wasn't the "Evening News."

Second, it isn't the right approach to reach the typical Evening News viewer. That viewer is 60 years old and likes to hear from older sons (such as Brian Williams and Charlie Gibson) and not necessarily from that "chatty" Couric girl. I'm just talking the typical senior, in my opinion, not necessarily my view. I don't see her surviving long trying to reach the senior crowd. Further, the networks are actually trying to distance themselves from seniors and are trying to pursue the all important Accumulators -- 35 to 55 year olds who largely drive the economy today. Which is exactly why they pursued Katie, who falls in the age group and other parts of that key demographic.

Third, she won't likely reach the Accumulators either. Most of them are doing a lot of things at 5:30, but watching the evening news isn't one of them. They are picking up kids, making meals, taking care of parents, or several other things that have nothing to do with the smiling Katie. This audience is reached now, largely, through the Internet, which allows them to watch the footage they want to watch and see it when they care to see it. In no time the podcast version of the news will have a much larger audience then the TV broadcast, but with the rate evening news is going, that won't be saying much.

I hate to be negative. I actually like Katie and miss her on the Today Show, but I believe this experiment will fail and she will have an audience significantly smaller than she did early each morning on NBC. By the way, the morning shows like Today are about the only viable way to reach the all important Accumulators because they are busy multi tasking and find the background noise of information and the relaxed environment of the program a great way to launch a day. It is sad she left this viable place to reach an audience to go to the largely dead network news. But don't worry, we will likely see her on some other day time show in the not too distant future. Watch out The View!