Obama's Cap and Trade and Other Regulations will make Environment Worse

When I think of Cap and Trade and government efforts towards a better environment, I think of an interesting encounter I had while conducting seminars on Free Market economics. When I traveled Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, I was horrified by the pollution levels. Poland was particularly bad. I remember escaping to a large park because of the trees there actually made it easier to breathe. Much of the time my eyes simply watered and I coughed. It was miserable. I had a meeting with an economist in the Polish government and he noticed my distress. "What's wrong?" I said politely, "well, it seems I have caught something in your country." "Yes, we call it pollution, what do you call it in your country?" and smiled. I said, "why is it so bad?" He said, "well, it isn't because of the laws, we have the toughest environmental laws of any country in the world." Sure enough, I did my homework, and that was true at the time. He went on to say "the problem was recognized long ago by Aristotle who said 'What is common to the greatest number gets the least amount of care. Men pay most attention to what is their own; they care less for what is common; or at any rate they care for it only to the extent to which each is individually concerned. Even when there is no other cause for inattention, men are more prone to neglect their duty when they think that another is attending to it.'" He went on to say that he hoped that the moves the country was making towards free markets would lead to more ownership and better care of the environment.

Later, in another meeting he said, "the answer to these environmental problems are found in technology, not regulation." I liked the sound of that, so I asked him to elaborate, "as we recover economically, have more ownership, we will enjoy greater capital formation, which will lead to better and more efficient technology. That, more than anything else will reduce pollution." I casually responded, "I have never seen a poor country that wasn't polluted" and he responded back, "neither have I."

I have done further research on other government efforts to reduce pollution and found more stories that point to private, and not government, solutions. For example, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis, 90 percent of all dollars spent on the Super Fund has actually gone to lawyers and not clean ups.

The Obama Administration's multi tiered policies of Cap and Trade, CAFE Standards, and "Cash for Clunkers" (which largely benefits foreign auto makers, rather than domestic) while taxing wealth and job creation (which will only lead to more poverty), will actually contribute to more pollution in the years to come. One may be able to argue that one could pursue the aggressive regulations he desires in a strong economy, but in our current situation he is begging for immediate economic ruin and long term environmental disaster.

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.

Meet Obama's Czars

Barack Obama has pursued a radical change in the way our nation is governed in virtually every area. These changes have not only been in the area of policy -- such as the increase in the government's role on business, the pursuit of socialized medicine, and the restoration of the welfare state -- but in the way politics and governing are conducted. This includes the stated objective of moving the Census Bureau from the Commerce Department to the White House and the dramatic increase in what are called "Czars."

Czars are nothing new and have been seen by many Presidents over several decades. These individuals could be described as "super administrators" who work directly with the President and, in many previous Administrations, dictate policy to the various Departments. What is unique about the Obama's Czars is the number of them: 28. More than all previous Administrations combined and more than all the Czars of the Romanov family that covered a span of 300 years (18 over 3 centuries). The biggest concern is the lack of Congressional accountability that these Czars have.

One of President Barack Obama's most natural supporters, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) has been one of the most critical when it comes to the issue of Czars, sending a press release back in February about writing to President Barack Obama expressing his concerns over the increasing appointments of White House 'Czars,' and the relationship between these new White House positions and their executive branch counterparts, noting that 'too often, I have seen these lines of authority and responsibility become tangled and blurred, sometimes purposely, to shield information and to obscure the decision-making process."

It appears that Obama is trying to get as much accomplished as fast as possible, with as little Congressional oversight as possible, and this is reflected in the large number of Czars he has chosen.

• Herb Allison - TARP Czar (Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability)



• Alan Bersin - Border Czar (Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Special Representative for Border Affairs)



• Dennis Blair - Intelligence Czar (Director of National Intelligence)



• John Brennan - Terrorism Czar (Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security)



• Carol Browner - Energy Czar (Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change)



• Adolfo Carrion, Jr - Urban Affairs Czar (Director of the White House Office of Urban Affairs)



• Ashton Carter - Weapons Czar (Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics)



• Aneesh Chopra - Technology Czar (Chief Technology Officer)



• Jeffrey Crowley - AIDS Czar (Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy)



• Cameron Davis - Great Lakes Czar (Special advisor to the U.S. EPA overseeing its Great Lakes restoration plan)



• Nancy-Ann DeParle - Health Czar (Director of the White House Office of Health Reform)



• Earl Devaney -Stimulus Accountability Czar (Chair of the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board)



• Joshua DuBois - Faith-based Czar (Director of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships)



• Kenneth Feinberg - Pay Czar (Special Master on executive pay)



• Danny Fried Guantanamo Closure Czar Special envoy to oversee the closure of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay



• J. Scott Gration - Sudan Czar (Special Envoy to Sudan)



• Richard Holbrooke - Afghanistan Czar (Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan)



• John Holdren - Science Czar (Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology)



• Van Jones - Green Jobs Czar (Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality)



• Gil Kerlikowske - Drug Czar (Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy)



• Vivek Kundra - Information Czar (Federal Chief Information Officer)



• George Mitchell - Mideast Peace Czar (Special Envoy to the Middle East)



• Ed Montgomery - Car Czar (Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers)



• Dennis Ross - Mideast Policy Czar (Special Adviser for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia)



• Gary Samore - WMD Czar (Coordinator for the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism)



• Todd Stern - Climate Czar (Special Envoy for Climate Change)



• Cass Sunstein - Regulatory Czar (Director of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs)



• Paul Volcker - Economic Czar (Chairman of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board)

Who are these Czars that are dictating policy in the Obama Administration? More to follow.

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.

Ten Pillars of Economic Wisdom: Now More than Ever

During the Great Depression the size of government grew exponentially and many believed that the United States had lost those essential principles that made this country the most prosperous on the face of the earth. It was during this time that an organization was formed, called the American Economic Foundation (AEF), and they put together the following “Ten Pillars”* to remind Americans what works in an economy. If people wondered if a policy was good and beneficial to everyone concerned, than it would stand the test of these Pillars.

In the 1990s, I was a Senior Fellow at AEF and I conducted seminars in the former Soviet Union about these principles and how they could be a guiding light to that region that suffered from decades of Communist totalitarianism. Today, we are about to slip into a command economy of our own where the government will seek to be in charge of all things. Today, with the Obama Administration, this country needs to be reminded of these principles now more than ever. You are going to see these principles frequently in my blog, in the Price of Business pages, and on the radio. These principles are a guiding light towards a free economy.

1. Nothing in our material world can come from nowhere or go nowhere, nor can it be free: everything in our economic life has a source, a destination, and a cost that must be paid.

Simply put, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Everything has a cost regardless of promises from politicians.

2. Government is never a source of goods. Everything produced is produced by the people, and everything that government gives to the people, it must first take from the people.

Recently, 25 percent of Americans who were asked in a survey how the government pays for its programs said it was because the US "has its own money." Those people need to be familiar with this Pillar. The bailouts we have seen cost plenty and will have a profound impact on our economy.

3. The only valuable money that government has to spend is that money taxed or borrowed out of the people’s earnings. When government decides to spend more than it has thus received, that extra unearned money is created out of thin air, through the banks, and, when spent, takes on value only by reducing the value of all money, savings, and insurance.

Much of the new spending we have seen by Obama (and Bush) is being financed by fiat money (essentially counterfeit) and will result in rampant inflation. Other parts of the spending will be paid for by future generations. Finally, some will be paid by foreign governments who invest in such debt (making us dependent on regimes, like China).

4. In our modern exchange economy, all payroll and employment come from customers, and the only worthwhile job security is customer security; if there are no customers, there can be no payroll and no jobs.

Labor unions have long tried to create an economic world that is detached from reality. If labor wants job security, they must accommodate customers. There is no other way to assure long term job stability.

5. Customer security can be achieved by the worker only when he cooperates with management in doing the things that win and hold customers. Job security, therefore, is a partnership problem that can be solved only in a spirit of understanding and cooperation.

Unions often want an adversarial relationship with business, but job security can only come if the two are partners pursuing customers together.

6. Because wages are the principal cost of everything, widespread wage increases, without corresponding increase in production, simply increase the cost of everybody’s living.

An example of this is minimum wage. When it goes up, so do prices, and if the job isn't worth the wage, it will be lost. This solves the mystery as to why minimum wage increases are both rare and devastating.

7. The greatest good for the greatest number means, in its material sense, the greatest goods for the greatest number which, in turn, means the greatest productivity per worker.

Production is the best way to keep an economy strong, and those who participate in it growing financially. The best way to encourage productivity is for a government to keep the costs of production as low as possible. This is done through a stable money supply, low taxes, and few regulations.

8. All productivity is based on three factors: 1) natural resources (NR), whose form, place and condition are changed by the expenditure of 2) human energy (HE) (both muscular and mental), with the aid of 3) tools (T).

This is straight forward enough. These three factors make up the totality of the economy. As a formula, this is seen at NR + HE x T = Man's Material Welfare.

9. Tools are the only one of these three factors that man can increase without limit, and tools come into being in a free society only when there is a reward for the temporary self-denial that people must practice in order to channel part of their earnings away from purchases that produce immediate comfort and pleasure, and into new tools of production. Proper payment for the use of tools is essential to their creation.

Tools are the only one of these that can increase without limit. An example of this is agriculture, which was the dominant industry in the late 1700s and early 1800s, with the majority of our population working in that area. Today, the number who work in it are in the single digits and the abundance of food could not be greater. Tools are what have changed everything.


10. The productivity of the tools--that is, the efficiency of the human energy applied in connection with their use--has always been highest in a competitive society in which the economic decisions are made by millions of progress-seeking individuals, rather than in a state-planned society in which those decisions are made by a handful of all-powerful people, regardless of how well-meaning, unselfish, sincere and intelligent those people may be.

The genius of the many individuals when it comes to economic prosperity is always greater than the few or even the majority that would impose its view of "fairness" on the economy. This is the "invisible hand" that Adam Smith spoke of so eloquently in his The Wealth of Nations.

These Pillars are factual, logical, and without a political agenda. They provide excellent benchmarks on what works in the economic system. Pass this tool on to others who are trying to figure out the headlines and let freedom ring!

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.

*An internationally accepted working paper developed by The American Economic Foundation

If a Policy is Bad in a Good Economy...

On my radio show today I interviewed one of my favorite economists, Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal. He was on to discuss his latest book, The End of Prosperity, and it is must reading. In a very simple and straight forward manner, Moore and co-authors Arthur B. Laffer and Peter Tanous explain what works and doesn't work in our economic system.

One of the areas Moore and I discussed was the fact that government entertains things they would do when the economy is healthy, but would never do when it is weak. If there is a time that such a policy is harmful at all, isn't it safe to conclude that the policy is not in the economy's best interest ever?

On today's show we discussed the fact that Barack Obama is discussing reversing his position on raising taxes on the top five percent because that could make our weakening economy worse. Obama is finally conceding that jobs are made by that top 5 percent and the country simply can't afford more loses. Yet what jobs have we already lost with an economy that has the top one percent paying 27 percent of the revenue? What is more the top twenty percent pays 67 percent. Obama seems to be admitting that adding any more pressure on this group is harmful, but what of the damage already done? It would be interesting if Obama's tax cut discussion was spread to the job creating highest income group. Am I advocating the end of taxes for the rich? Absolutely not, just a fair tax or flat tax that encourages everyone to want to become richer.

Congress is also talking about slowing down the move towards increasing CAFE standards, which are designed to lower fuel consumption. Because of the dire straights of the Big Three automakers, policy makers are reconsidering because of the potential of further damage. Instead of trying incentives to move towards better fuel standards, they seem to be able to use their complete lack of imagination for either increasing regulations to the automakers demise or do nothing at all. They are considering the latter at this point.

Then there is the minimum wage increase which went up just a few months ago (July 24). Since that time we have seen a dramatic jump in unemployment -- the largest increase in 16 years. Minimum wage increases are not even included in the current economic discussion, but there is no doubt among economists that this artificial increase in wages is weakening job creation. Although there is no discussion about reversing this increase, there may be a growing debate about postponing the massive jump scheduled for July of 2009. Again, if the policy is harmful in a weak economy, why is the policy ever beneficial? Furthermore, if such increases cause no harm (as Democrats often argue), why nickle and dime with a dollar here or fifty cents there? Everyone knows that a twenty dollar an hour minimum wage would put a fork in this economy, so how does one justify a minimum wage at all?

Many cities in the US -- Camden, NJ; East St. Louis, MO; and Detroit, MI are in perennial recessions. How can the federal government determine what is best for these cities when it comes to wages? I have long argued that if we must have a minimum wage (a standard practice today), it should be done by cities and states, not by the federal government.

But the larger principle remains. If these policies do harm in bad economies, how are they beneficial at all? Steve Moore summed it up best, "that is a debate that the left doesn't want to have."

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.