The Plight of the Protesters

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

Sarah Palin's Odd Move

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin shocked the political world by deciding to resign from office by the end of July. The blogosphere is making assessments about her decision based on their opinions of her. If they like her, it is some how "brilliant." If they don't, she is a "complete moron." I want to take this a little deeper.

For disclosure sake, I'm a fan of Gov. Palin. She is the first major political candidate to fully embrace and epitomize Reagan's "3 legged stool" of limited government, pro family, and national security since the Gipper himself. Furthermore, she is the only candidate in years who seems to understand the morality of economics. In fact, in her resignation speech she mentioned that the stimulus package was "immoral" because of its redistributive nature and control it placed on the states. You simply don't hear that from politicians today, but that message is desperately needed.

Now, with that disclosure, I simply don't understand her decision at all. I read her speech several times and watched it as well, and the more I studied it, the less I "got it." With the information I have before us today, I have to come to one of the following conclusions:

• She couldn't stand the heat of constant scrutiny on the family and her and simply needed to get out. This may be noble, but it likely spells the end of a powerful political career. Furthermore, if they can't handle the governorship, they certainly can't handle the White House or even the Senate, where they would deal with the constant questions by the much larger and more hostile cadre of journalists in DC. Than again, she could take a decade off and have her kids much older and she would certainly be young enough to run. She could rightly hope they will forget her resignation, but they will also likely forget her.


• A much bigger scandal that will "stick" is about to come upon her. Palin has been plagued with scandals since August of 2008, about the time she received the GOP nod for VP. None of them have had any staying power and they all appear to be trumped up to discredit her. You get the sense with this announcement, that "the other shoe" is going to drop and it is going to be big.


• She wants a fresh start. Tired of getting exonerated of one scandal to make room for another, she might think this is the best way to create a new beginning. She will be free to travel the country and make large amounts of money as a speaker, accumulate the financial largess to run for higher office and build a name around the country. Barack Obama and George W. Bush were the only Presidential candidates since John F. Kennedy to have a full time job while running for President and get elected. Furthermore, Reagan, Carter, and Clinton were former governors when they ran, making it a great springboard for office. The difference between Palin and these others, were the circumstances of which she left.
  

My concern is that no woman or minority is going to have a prayer dealing with the mainstream media if they are Conservative. The left tries to place these groups on a plantation, stating they would have nothing without liberal policies. This is a very narrow view indeed, but those who break it will suffer.

The jury will be deliberating on this for quite some time. However, she is going to have a difficult time distancing herself from accusations of being unable to finish things, or being scandal plagued, or not tough enough, or several other things that will do nothing to help her case as a GOP front runner.

See Kevin Price's new video commentary on the subject here.

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.

Robert Reich's Surprising Grade on Obamanomics

Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, has not been at all shy in his support of President Barack Obama. In a recent article on the President's economic agenda, he made his bias well known by stating plainly that he "is a big fan of this administration." Since he so clearly "showed his cards" in terms of his view of Obama, you would think his report card would be nothing short of glowing. You might want to think again.

Reich graded the Obama administration in three areas: the budget, the stimulus package, and the bank bailouts.

The Budget: A. Reich could not begin his commentary with a more syrupy assessment, stating that "It's an extraordinary vision of what America can and should become, including universal health insurance and environmental protections against climate change. And the budget takes a little bit more from the rich and gives a little bit more back to the poor and lower middle class, which seems appropriate given that the income gap is wider than it's been since the 1920s. I'd give the budget an A plus except for its far-too-rosy economic projections." He fails to point out that more companies are moving from the US than at any time in US history and one of the main reasons why is the fact that we have the second highest tax rates on business among the 16 industrialized countries. Furthermore, the top 50 percent pays 96 percent of all the revenues of the government. This "class conflict" approach is going to lead to the worse form of taxation of all, which is the the loss of jobs. Furthermore, this budget goes where no budget was intended to go before. It provides huge reach by the federal government in the most dangerous ways. I give it a F.

The Stimulus Package: B. Reich takes the rhetoric down some in this area, noting that this package is "Good as far as it goes but doesn't go nearly far enough. $787 billion over two years sounds like a lot of stimulus. But the economy is operating at about a trillion and a half dollars below its capacity this year alone. And considering that the states are cutting services and increasing taxes to the tune of $350 billion over this year and next, the stimulus is even smaller." The reality is, this stimulus package is so enormous it can only be funded with "funny money." That is, the mass production of currency that will only be able to compete with Monopoly money in value. This administration pumped $1.2 trillion dollars of worthless currency into the economy on one day alone, which will make our currency (and our debt) worthless to other countries and only push us further down the road towards economic depression. I would give Obama an "F" again.

The Bank Bailouts: F. Finally Reich and I find an area of agreement. Reich states that "The bailouts are failing. So far American taxpayers have shoveled out almost $600 billion. Yet the banks are lending less money than they did five months ago. Bank executives are still taking home princely sums, their toxic assets and non-performing loans are growing, and the banks are still cooking their books. And now the Treasury is talking about converting taxpayer dollars into bank equity, which exposes taxpayers to even greater losses." It is surprising to see someone as well educated as Reich to simply not realize (or seem to care) how far reaching Obama's failure is in this area. Yes, we both give the administration an "F," but there is more, so much more. All that Reich said was correct, but why would the administration want to continue to spend in this area at such prolific levels and why it is prohibiting these banks from paying back their loans is not even addressed. It seems fairly clear to me that the issue is not helping the banks, but increasing government control of them. The more the administration denies that nationalization is its objective, the more it does to move towards that objective, no matter how little that does to spur economic growth.

In the end, Reich says Obama deserves a "C+" (which is slightly generous based on the grades he gave, but I will leave the math to others). That is a sad mark to come from someone who describes himself as a "fan" of this administration.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on CNN 650 (M-F at 11 am), AOL Radio, and CBS Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” 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.

Ronald Reagan and Economic Freedom

One of my biggest frustrations is the reckless abandonment by politicians when it comes to articulating the importance of economic 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.

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 celebrating the 200th Anniversary of the United States Constitution on that year. I cannot think of a better time or make such an address.

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 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.



• "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." Now more than ever, this fundamental right is endangered.



• "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. Unfortunately, it never became a reality. It is needed now more than ever.



• "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 freedoms matter.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on CNN 650 (M-F at 11 am), AOL Radio, and CBS Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” 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 Wants to Restore Welfare "As we Knew It"

Hidden in the media coverage about Barack Obama is the eloquent argument being made by Republican Governors regarding their concerns over the stimulus package. The media believes that these politicians are jockeying for higher office. The truth is, most are opposed to the massive growth of the federal government and are particularly concerned about the bill's various "hitches" designed to force states to take positions that they are opposed to. Worse than being critical about these governors, many in the mainstream media are ignoring them entirely.

Robert Schlesinger has noted at US News and World Reports that the New York Times reviewed the views of GOP candidates and their thoughts on Obama's stimulus package and stated that "in terms of presidential politics, the most notable name in the Times piece is Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who campaigned with Obama for the stimulus package last week. Glaringly absent from the Times piece were governors like South Carolina's Mark Sanford, Louisiana's Bobby Jindal, Mississippi's Haley Barbour and Alaska's Sarah Palin—all governors recently named in the Washington Post's excellent 'The Fix' column as being among the five most influential and powerful voices in the Republican Party (the other person named was former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney). Palin and Jindal are often named as contenders in 2012, and Barbour gave 2008 a long look before passing on it. Sanford is chairman of the Republican Governor's Association."

Haley Barber has been particularly persuasive in discussing his concerns, stating on Fox News that the Obama measure would force states to allow people to receive welfare, even if they are not willing to work, if they want to enjoy the complete package. For example, Barbour notes, that if the state of Mississippi wants to receive $54 million in increased unemployment benefits, they will have to expand the benefits to those not actively looking for employment or willing to take it if offered. If Barbour doesn't take it, he will receive less than $4 million of the expanded benefits.

We haven't seen this kind of pressure on the restoration of the Welfare State since Bill Clinton and Republicans in Congress led the efforts to reverse many of the damaging policies that led to multi generational poverty. I consider that to be one of the the greatest policy achievement of the 1990s. This achievement is threatened as the Obama policies are implemented in the states.

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.

Only Barack Obama Could Pull this Off and it Would Cure Economic Woes

Every week we here of increasingly higher jobless numbers and policy makers are dumbfounded as to what to do about it. Approximately one year ago we had virtually full employment at around 5 percent unemployment. At current trends, it will likely be ten percent or higher by the end of the year, unless something miraculous happens.

However, we are not hearing about any stroke of genius, but rather traditional government "solutions" to economic problems. We are hearing about "make work" programs and "bailouts" that have government at the center of the solution. It is interesting that Barack Obama, who was marketed as an agent of change, would find his solutions in the waste bin of government created work, for answers. He needs to go deeper, he needs to pursue an entire paradigm shift.

Obama campaigned as a candidate who supported transparent government, but there is nothing more deceptive than our current tax system that discourages wealth creation and places businesses in the role as tax collector. Remember, businesses don't pay taxes, they are merely tax collectors. Taxes are a fixed cost of doing business. If taxes on businesses were eliminated, consumers would enjoy the savings over night because businesses couldn't afford to be reluctant to transfer the savings due to competition. These taxes on businesses are the single force undermining job creation today. They force businesses to find countries that are cheaper for doing business, be it in labor, taxes, or other factors. Currently, the US has the second highest tax rate of any industrialized country in the world and we do not even want to compete with cheap salaries (nor can we). Eliminating dishonest business taxes would restore some transparency to government and create many more jobs. It is as simple as that.

But those taxes would have to be replaced with others and the only honest place to raise those revenues are directly on the people and on their consumption (rather than income), however challenging to pursue. This is contrary to Obama and the Democrats class conflict philosophy, but it is the most honest, efficient, and the least damaging on all job creation (in fact, it would generate more jobs). Obama could make history with these realities.

No one, but an anti-Communist like Richard Nixon, could open relations with the Chinese. If any President who had a history of being "soft" on Communists open these doors, they would have been denounced and dismissed. Nixon brought an element of surprise that made the move possible. So, too, was the case with Bill Clinton who truly did end "welfare as we know it." It took a progressive Democrat to break the cycle of poverty that was holding the poor hostage. If a Republican President had proposed such a policy he would have been dismissed as being "cruel" and "heartless." To change our tax code towards a consumption system would require a similar element of surprise and would need to be done by someone who has promoted himself as a champion of the poor. That describes Obama very well.

With such a policy, the only serious challenge he would face is among his fellow Democrats in Congress. However, if he continues to pursue policies that destroy jobs, he will likely have a Republican Congress in 2011. This is a similar situation that Bill Clinton had in the 1990s in which a Republican Congress played a role in getting his reform passed. Clinton's welfare reform is one of the greatest policy achievements of the second half of the 20th century. A change in the way we collect taxes by Obama could be one of the greatest policy achievements of the 21st century and it is one many would love for him to seriously consider. Especially those facing unemployment.

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.

Jackson is Furious and Limbaugh is Confused by Obama's Choices

Barack Obama is about to announce the make up of his economic team as Wall Street, Main Street, and the media pundits hold their collective breath. His choices appear to be very surprising. This is not because they are very radical, but surprisingly conventional. They are the type of choices that will likely relieve Wall Street and infuriate the radical base that brought him to power. Furthermore, all of those who wished Clinton had gotten elected, don't worry, your favorite members of that team are showing up for an encore. What is most surprising of all is that Obama seems to be drawing on the more pragmatic and technocratic wing of the Democratic Party. Limbaugh and Hannity might go crazy over how boring these choices are.

Don't get me wrong, this team is liberal. But it is not the rampant ideologues that had many on the Right worried. On the other hand, they could also be the ultimate collective Trojan Horse, creating a sense of complacency that may make it possible for Obama to pursue the far reaching agenda he campaigned on.

The following is a breakdown of two of his most prominent team members:

• Timothy Geithner will be nominated as the new Secretary of Treasury. Geithner has worked in government almost his entire adult life with positions that have included Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Monetary and Financial Policy (1995-1996), Senior Deputy Assistant Secretary of Treasury for International Affairs (1996-1997), and Assistant Secretary of Treasury for International Affairs (1997–1998). In 2003 he was appointed the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He has been a foot soldier of Bush's recovery efforts on Wall Street and was there when the disaster happened, which should raise questions as to why he would be a good Secretary of Treasury. However, I think he is a safe bet, since Democrats will want to make Obama look as strong as possible and Republicans will be pleased by such a "moderate" choice.


• Lawrence Summers, who was Treasury Secretary under President Bill Clinton, will be appointed to head the National Economic Council. Summers is the poster child of technocrats. Under Obama, Summers will actually be the architect of the new administration's economic policies. Considering Summers' faux paux while President of Harvard in which he claimed that women were not as capable as men in performing the hard sciences, I was surprised to see him in politics again so soon. Not only did it leave to his quick departure as Ivy League administrator, I thought it would see him exit the political scene entirely. However, it appears Democrats can say things that are politically incorrect without consequence. Summers will be perceived moderate by the political powers that be and should enjoy confirmation without incidence.

In the end, what we learn, is that Obama is actually was quite impressed by the accomplishments of Bill Clinton, as we see the former President's influence in virtually every area of policy in the new President's appointments. It is safe to assume that the radicals that drove Obama to the White House are going to feel like they are in the out house, if the new President continues to make such safe appointments. They have to be patient for a while, but I am sure Jesse Jackson is already sharpening his verbal sword. Finally, conservative pundits must be at a lost trying to figure out what kind of President Obama will in fact be. I don't have any doubt what Obama would like to do. His radical up bringing and the course he took to power makes that obvious. However, he may be shrewed enough to know that his agenda will have to be pursued with caution and such is reflected in his team.

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.

Economist on the Media and Recession

For quite some time I have been telling readers of this blog and listeners of my show that the media has wanted a recession. Furthermore, the media has reported an economy in decline while it reflected numbers reminiscent of a strong economy. Now a serious leader in academia has recently validated this assessment.

Economist John Lott, Jr. of the University of Maryland was cited on Fox and Friends as quantifying the distorted views purported by the media about the economy. In an article by Lott on FoxNews.com, the scholar noted that:

A Nexis search on news stories during the three-month period from July 2000 through September 2000 using the keywords “economy recession US” produces 1,388. By contrast, the same search over just the last month finds 3,166. Or, even more telling, take the three months from July through September last year, when the GDP was growing at a phenomenal 4.9 percent. The same type of Google search shows 2,475 news stories.

Over 78 percent more negative news stories discussed a recession when the economy under a Republican was soaring than occurred under a Democrat when the economy was shrinking.
A little perspective on the economy would be helpful. The average unemployment rate during President Clinton was 5.2 percent. The average under President George W. Bush is just slightly below 5.2. The current unemployment rate is 4.8 percent, almost half a percentage point lower than these averages.

Therefore the economy was seen as healthy and vibrant under Clinton with higher unemployment than it is today under Bush at level that is .4 percent lower. The comparison doesn't stop with unemployment, however:

The average inflation rate under Clinton was 2.6 percent, under Bush it is 2.7 percent. Indeed, one has to go back to the Kennedy administration to find a lower average rate. True the inflation rate over the last year has gone up to 4 percent, but that is still lower than the average inflation rate under all the presidents from Nixon through Bush’s father.

Yet, again, the news tends to describe the economic situation in this economy as dire and you would think we were at the brink of economic ruin. Lott goes on to quantify other areas.

The issue I would love to see discussed more thoroughly are the reasons why this is happening. All I can do is speculate, based on approximately two decades of being involved with the media on several levels, but the causes could include:

* The liberal bias in the media. According to the Pew Research Center, there are five liberals for every one conservative in the media. This would certainly lead to the media giving Conservatives a negative spin.

* I personally believe that the media benefits from a bad economy. Much of what we have seen and heard has reflected "wishful" thinking. Why? When the economy is hot, businesses simply don't need as much advertising. A soft economy makes businesses more inclined to invest in marketing.

* Finally, bad news equals big ratings. There is a belief that if all news was good news, people would not be nearly as interested in watching TV, listening on the radio, or reading stories.

I'm impressed with Lott's work and am eager to find more who contribute to this debate.

For a copy of the free report, "Why Your Marketing Isn't Working," email Info@HoustonBusinessShow.com and put "marketing" in the subject line.

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.

Bob Barr Running for President?

Just when it appeared that we were thinning out the number of candidates in the race for the Presidency, it appears another might be jumping in. Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr of Georgia is poised to announce his candidacy.

Bob Barr, who lead the charge for impeachment against Bill Clinton, became the target of Democratic revenge and lost his seat in 2002. Barr eventually left the Republican Party and joined the Libertarian Party. This departure was due to Barr's opposition to the war in Iraq and the failure of Republicans to tackle fiscal problems.

He and Ron Paul are allies and the latter has yet to endorse McCain or even formally withdraw from the race. However, Paul has sacrificed his House seat before for a third party Presidential run and he is likely gun shy to pursue such again. Furthermore, the 71 year old might like to "pass the torch" to Barr after the long campaign. The two are old friends with very similar beliefs. Both Barr and Paul have been very critical of Senator McCain.

This has the potential to muddy the waters, although I think most Republicans will see that this race is too important for us to cast a protest vote.

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.

Democratic Leadership Council: Exit Stage Left?

The Democratic Leadership Council is having its annual convention in Nashville, Tennessee. The DLC was designed to provide a safe place for moderate and conservative Democrats to express their views and to be a force to help the Democratic Party.

A few years ago the DLC was a pretty big thing. President Bill Clinton said that the organization had everything to do with his election and believed that it should be a force to be reckoned with for years to come. Clinton, in fact, was one of the organization's founders.

The candidates for President in the Democratic party today have declared a war on conservatives and moderates today. Former Senator John Edwards likes to talk about "two Americas" in his message of class warfare. Sen. Barack Obama passionately promotes socialized medicine and has declared a war on capitalism with his threats of excessive taxation. And Hillary Clinton has been singing the praises of socialism and now declares herself a "progressive."

At the big DLC recent events, Democratic presidential candidates have always showed up. This year, not a single Democratic candidate for President is showing up. They did get Bill Clinton and Hillary may be using her man to hedge her bets, but none of the actual candidates are showing up. Not even second and third tier candidates are there. To me, this is good news for Republicans. The recent story of US politics is that Republicans run to the right in the primaries and behave more moderate in the general election. The opposite is the case for Democrats, who run left and try to shift moderate. But with the treatment they are giving the DLC, there will not likely be a moderate base waiting for them.

See How They Run: Why Are They Running So Early?

This is the earliest time in US history for candidates to declare they are running for President. The question many are asking, is why? I think this can be attributed to several reasons:

* Some candidates have never stopped running. John McCain (R-AZ) has been running since 2000 when he challenged George Bush. He has continuously raised money and organized and has been biting at the bit for years. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has been running for President since 1992 and many argue that she served many of the years her husband was in office. In order to appease their supporters and to try to deter potential competitors (this obviously didn't work), these candidates had to jump in early. Them jumping in early forced others to do the exact same thing.

* Others on the lower end of the electability scale jumped in early to build support and even an identity. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) (see photo, above), Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Mike Gravel (D-AK), and Ron Paul (R-TX), are just a few of the candidates that fill that bill. This group has different objectives. I'm sure all would love to be President, but they are also interested in merely seeing their perspectives out there, to push their opponents in their ideological direction, or to even run for a high level post once the election is over. For example, many believe Joe Biden (D-DE) is actually running for Secretary of State in a new administration or even the US Supreme Court. Others honestly believe that the big name people will actually fall on their face, creating opportunities for these lessor known candidates.

* Some have major name ID, but lack national experience. This includes Rudy Guiliani (R-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL), both of whom are major players, neither of whom have been tested on the national scene. Many are arguing that Obama is actually running for 2012 and is building momentum and working through his mistakes now. If he is lucky, he will have the same success as Bill Clinton who many said he was doing the same thing in 1992.

* Speaking of working out mistakes, all of the candidates would like to have as much time as possible, in order to be judged in the most favorable way.

The question I have is, will all this early running help improve or hurt the electoral process? Will it excite more people or bore them to tears? My guess is that most Americans are going to be so sick of the elections, they will simply want them over with by November 2008. On the other hand, I believe candidates will increasingly early in elections to come. In fact, don't be surprised if someone announces for 2012 (keep your eye on YouTube) any day now.

Rahm Emanuel...Accidental Genius?

I've enjoyed GQ Magazine for years. I'm not sure why, I rarely buy the clothes (they are too trendy), I never party where they suggest, and I generally hate their political perspectives. This continues to be true and was reinforced recently in the most recent issue in which they crown Rahm Emanuel as the new king maker of the Democratic Party. Who is Emanuel you ask? A former Clinton strategist who is the Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The article sings Emanuel's praises and points out several key races where he "made a difference." But giving him credit for Republicans losing the Congress is similar to giving Al Gore credit for creating the Internet. Okay, maybe not that outrageous, but I think you get the point.

Who is responsible for the change in Congress? Several factors. The first is history, incumbents in the White House that make it to two terms virtually always lose seats (many in fact) on the 6th year of their term. Secondly, there is the media, which told us the economy simply wasn't good enough with its less than 5 percent unemployment, ridiculously low inflation, and significant growth in the GDP. Finally, there was the negative affects of the war (thanks again to the media's negative depiction). This was probably the single biggest factor. However, any (and certainly all) of these factors were far more important than Emanuel or his strategies. He is an accidental genius, if a genius at all.

I don't envy Emanuel, because I believe that Americans will likely come to their senses and this "genius" will become just another victim of history. I just hope the Congressman doesn't figure out the formula I describe in the paragraph above, because he will likely be depressed, because those factors had nothing to do with him. It may be unfair to say Democrats won in spite of him, but it would certainly be more accurate.

GQ and other publications with a liberal bent need a "hero" for these elections. They need a person to make the "miracle" of another Democratic victory. Hey, I know its Christmas, but it is easier for me to believe in Santa Claus than Emanuel. Emanuel is just a fad, for which GQ is famous for finding.

Giving Clinton His Due

Most Presidents accomplish very little in the legacy department during their tenure. Policy changes are relatively common and usually changed again by someone else. Presidents are fortune to leave one major legacy and it usually requires two terms. Reagan left a few, which is why he is held in such high regards by others. He changed the debate on taxes from one of the patriotic position paying as much as possible without complaining to holding the government accountable by demanding they tax less. Further, he profoundly convinced people that tax increases not only hurt the economy, but often fail to actually increase revenues. On the foreign policy front, Reagan developed the concept of "peace through strength," convinced the Soviets of the rise of the strategic defense initiative (AKA "Star Wars") and largely ended the Cold War without a shot being fired. Before Reagan, "Mutual Assured Destruction" (MAD) was considered the wise position of strength. Reagan believed and convinced enough Americans that the acronym was a good name for this philosophy.

The first President Bush left virtually no long term legacy. Hampered by a single term (largely, in my opinion, for failing to keep his promise not to raise taxes), Bush was largely lucky to leave with minimal damage reputation wise.

The current President Bush has developed a policy of preemptive defense (e.g., in Iraq), but the jury is out on whether on not that will create a legacy. A legacy is noted by how it effects future policy, not just current governing. Also, he has made an articulate argument for Social Security reform that certainly had the potential of leaving a positive legacy. But right now that is a dream. Bush II, as legacy maker, is in question.

What about President Clinton? Any regular listener of my radio show or anyone who has read my articles or books know how I feel about Clinton. He was an embarrassment on several fronts. There is, however, one area I must give him his due and that is welform reform. A policy for which we are celebrating a 10th anniversary. I believe we can call it a legacy because it is still in tact and Congress is entertaining on how to build on it. When welform reform was pursued in 1996 it had three objectives: to reduce dependency on welfare and foster employment, to slow down and reduce child poverty, and to reduce out of weklock births and promote marriage. It clearly succeeded in all three fronts.

The following are a few facts:

• Following the passage of this bill in 1996, welfare caseloads declined in earnest and has fallen 56 percent since then.
• There has been a hundred percent increase in employment among young single mothers age 18 to 24 since passage of this bill.
• Between 1995 and 2003, overall unwed childbearing has increased very slowly, only 2.4 percentage points, a fourth of the pre-reform rate of increase of 7.7 percent annually (and at over 40 percent when the bill passed into law).

This bill has succeeded and the legacy continues to expand as Congress considers tackling other means tested programs besides AFDC, which was centerpiece in the 1996 act. I encourage everyone to review some of the events and papers surrounding the ten year anniversary of this important law by visiting the Heritage Foundation's site commemorating it. I also encourage people to contact their Member of Congress and encourage them to take further action towards ending welfare as we know it.

For the many cynics out there (I know, I'm often one of them) who believe Clinton was forced to pass this legislation by a Republican Congress, I disagree. In the early 1980s when I was a student at Abilene Christian University, I remember reading about a young governor who offered hope to conservatives who thought the Democratic Party was entirely liberal. This governor actually supported a pro-life position and spoke widely about "ending welfare as we know it" and "replacing welfare with workfare." That governor was Bill Clinton and he wasn't a "Johnny come lately" on the welfare issue. And although he clearly lost his conservative leanings in some (if not most) issues, he didn't on that one, and the results have been nothing short of profound. And what he has left in this one important area is a legacy we should build on.

I also believe it took a Clinton. More than likely if there had been a Republican President, the proposal would have been shot down as cold hearted, even with a Republican majority. It was the right bill, for the right Congress and, most importantly, the right President, at the right time.