The Simplest Guide to what the US Government can do that You will Ever Find

More Americans are aware of the huge problems facing are republic than at any time in recent decades. Our unemployment is approaching Great Depression levels, our deficits are growing annually at a rate similar to what our entire national debt was just a few decades ago, and the government is pumping dollars into our money supply in the trillions of dollars, putting us on pace for hyperinflation. Everyone seems to be aware of what is wrong, but are unaware as to why and, more importantly, how to fix it. That is why I developed this simple guide.

There is nothing original in this article. In fact, that is what makes it unique. It goes back to the original source, which is the US Constitution, to guide us back to where we belong. There is an old saying, "if you lose something, go back to the place where you last remembered having it." We have lost our liberty and the place we can find it is in the US Constitution. Every member of Congress swears to defend the US Constitution and to fulfill the powers listed in it. What are those powers? How many are there? The answer to those questions will surprise most Americans today.

Seventeen powers. That is all. None of them are particularly sexy and combined would cost a fraction of what we pay today. If they only did these functions, taxes (which obstruct job creation) would be much lower, the dollar would be much stronger (since we would not need "funny money" to fund excess government), and we would simply be more free. Here are those simple items:

"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

"To borrow money on the credit of the United States;"

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

"To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

"To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;"

"To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;"

"To establish post offices and post roads;"

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

"To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;"

"To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;"

"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"

"To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;"

"To provide and maintain a navy;"

"To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;"

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;"

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles "square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;-And"

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Over the years that last clause ("necessary and proper") has become a license to do virtually everything. This is wrong, because the clause makes it clear that it applies only to the "foregoing powers" (the seventeen items listed above. Some of the Founding Fathers feared that this could lead to an abuse of power, which led to the first ten amendments being added to guarantee our rights, including the 10th Amendment, which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Stop arguing with friends, family, loved ones, neighbors, and even idiots. Tell them their elected officials are breaking the law and have them read this simple document which will give them the tools they need to determine whether or not a policy is proper and whether or not their member of Congress should change careers.

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

It is time for Economic Triage

You know medical triage, the idea of a procedure used in emergency rooms to determine who gets treated first. When Barack Obama was running for President and, shortly after he was elected, we were daily lectured about the urgency of the situation facing our economy.

What we have seen is a massive subsidy primarily benefitting the richest corporations in America passed first by Bush in the fall of last year and part 2 (arguably worse) in January of 2009. It was interesting that the very liberal and very conservative Members of Congress voted against this legislation. The left clearly saw the corporate welfare involved and the right saw both that and the obvious disregard of the Constitution. We were told that action was needed "now!" If not, we were looking at unemployment of around 8.5 percent in 2009. We have that unemployment rate and more with "stimulus" and the situation is getting worse.

There are several serious challenges facing Americans today:

• The largest unemployment rate in recent history. Forget about the 9.5 percent touted by the Obama Administration, economists on both the right and left say it is more, much more. Bill Clinton's former Secretary of Labor and a huge fan of Obama, Robert Reich, says the actual uemployment is closer to 15 percent.


• Excessive taxation of the job creators. The vast majority of jobs comes from people who make $250,000 a year or more, yet this group is being singled out to pay more taxes as a form of economic genocide. It has never been easier to move capital and with US tax rates the second highest among industrial countries in the world, you can expect a flight of capital and jobs that comes with such.


• Hyperinflation. On one day, the federal government pumped $1.4 trillion in the money supply in order to pay some of its recent bills and to "jump start" the economy. This type of policy leads to hyperinflation as too much money chases too few goods.

Obama should approach our situation with these realities in mind, and as a doctor in triage, he should be driven by the mandate to "do no harm."

• Eliminate barriers between people and jobs. This isn't through temporary government jobs that will run out with the subsidies, but through real jobs that create revenue for them to grow in number and in quality. The federal government should mandate the states to have a minimum wage law in each state of the union and allow them to set them based on the needs of the people and the cities. This would not cost the federal government a penny, but would spur economic activity immediately.


• Eliminate taxes on corporations because they do not pay taxes, they are tax collectors. Taxes are a fixed cost for doing business, plain and simple. If taxes are too high, businesses have no choice, but move to places where the rate is less so they can lower prices and be competitive. This would have a profound impact on high quality job creation. This policy would also encourage an increase in productivity and soften the blow of inflation.


• They should end taxes on wealth creation and replace income tax with a sales tax. This would eliminate the economic genocide against job creators and would more fairly spread the financial burden of government on all economic groups.

Our situation is dire, the answers to our problems are in the market place and not in the halls of government. These kind of actions would encourage problem solving where it belongs -- in the hands of the people.

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.

Supporting the Constitution just Is Not that Cool

When Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner was taken aback by Michele Bachman's aggressive questioning about the role of the Constitution in governing today, he was clearly uncomfortable. The Minnesota Congresswoman was clearly "not cool" in his view. It seems that we are now lead to believe that "smart," "sophisticated," and "relevant" individuals might appreciate how wonderful the Constitution was, but it is not really that useful today.

I recently did a radio interview where I went to great lengths to cite specifics of the Constitution. According to the host, the audience loved it and you could see that by the number of questions we were receiving. One comment stayed with me though. One person said, "I agree with everything you are saying, but how do you convey your message without sounding nuts." "Gee, thanks," I thought, but at the same time I understood his point. He was simply trying to tell me that, if you stick too close to the Constitution, you are often going to be dismissed by the people you talk to on the subject.

I'm afraid he is correct. To believe in the Constitution in a manner that the Founding Fathers intended, is to be willing to have the same attitude they had as they wrote the Declaration of Independence and together they stated that: "for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

People like:

• Carter Braxton of Virginia, who was a wealthy planter and trader. He saw his ships wiped out by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in poverty.
  
• Thomas McKeam was under such constant pursuit by the British that he was forced to continually move his family. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him and he too died in poverty.
  
• Francis Lewis had his properties destroyed. The British jailed his wife and she died within a few months.

I could go on, but the theme is similar... sacrifice, poverty and often death for what they believed in. Today, most people in politics have a rather smug view of the Constitution. Years of political correctness have led people to dismiss the law of this land as something of value in years past, but totally "out of date" today. Recently I interviewed a member of the Tea Party and mentioned that the dramatic moves of the government in so many different areas was clearly against the idea of state rights as seen in the Tenth Amendment. Her response was, "well, I don't really like to talk about the Tenth Amendment because that was used as an excuse for institutional racism." Well I hate to tell you, but state rights is the centerpiece of the US Constitution. That document is about the dispersion of power and they saw strong states and local governments as an primary means of achieving that.

To dismiss the Constitution because it has been used to protect racist policies in the past (and has since been corrected) is to advocate a government without law. That is exactly what we have today. A huge population that has come to the belief that the Constitution is irrelevant and instead of a government that is ruled by law, we have a government on autopilot. This is dishonest government.

I challenge people to study the Constitution and value its relevance today. I encourage people to challenge those who question the currency of the Constitution and ask them what they believe should govern our nation today. More than likely, their answer will be far more flimsy than the document that helped to make the US, the most free and prosperous country in the history of the world.

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.

Sweden, US, and Answering the Socialism Question

The economic lessons the vast majority of us received in high school and college is grossly inadequate. Most people can't answer the simple question as to whether the US is making a dramatic move towards socialism. In fact, most can't even explain what socialism is. Socialism is simply defined as "government control or ownership of the means of production." What are the means of production? You and I are, of course, as are the businesses we own and work for.

Recently and with questionable Constitutional authority, the Congress has financed (largely through fiat money) the massive taking over of numerous financial institutions. So ambitious is the government's reach, Congressional leaders are "naming names" of individuals who received bonuses from companies that garnered a bailout to an angry mob and retroactively taxing these executives in an effort to punish the businesses they claimed a commitment to protect.

Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner and company are not finished yet. The Associated Press are reporting that he and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke "sought broad new powers Tuesday to regulate tottering nonbank financial companies like insurance giant AIG, and President Barack Obama said he hopes 'it doesn't take too long to convince Congress' to grant them.'" These powers don't merely transfer to the Fed and to Treasury, but to the President himself. Furthermore "Along with the new authority to regulate and, if necessary, take over giant financial companies whose collapse might endanger the broader economy, the administration wants increased oversight and controls of previously unregulated markets such as hedge and private equity funds." The government's reach will even go into financial institutions that didn't participate in the bailout programs.

I remember when Americans were shocked back in 1979 when Chrysler successfully negotiated a bailout from the federal government that was a fraction of what GM received in January, which was a very small fraction of what the government gave in bailouts in general.

Historically, when we typically think of socialism, we think of Europe. Furthermore, the most socialistic of all the European governments is arguably Sweden, which is famous for its "cradle to grave" government programs. But recently George Bush, without Congressional approval, gave $15 billion to help bailout the Automobile industry. Sweden's government had a very different message to its struggling and iconic Saab motor company. The New York Times reported that the "enterprise minister, Maud Olofsson, put it recently, 'The Swedish state is not prepared to own car factories.'" Saab lost over $340 million last year and has begun the process of "reorganization," which is one step short of bankruptcy.

Ironically, the Washington Times has noted that "Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Monday that the administration decided on its public-private plan to rescue the U.S. financial system because "we are not Sweden," the country known for nationalizing troubled banks and other sectors of its economy. We are the United States of America, we are not Sweden," Mr. Geithner said.

Geithner is right, Sweden had enough sense and, maybe a commitment to free market principles, to avoid socializing the automobile industry. One thing we know for sure is that there is no question the US is making a dramatic move towards becoming socialistic and seems to be trying to surpass, rather than merely catch up, with Europe's poster child of socialism.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on CNN 650 (M-F at 11 am). 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.

Bush Snubs Constitution, Congress, and Passes the Buck

In one of the most glaring examples of "keeping up appearances" in history, President George Bush has decided to single handily provide a bailout bridge to the "Big Three" automobile companies. It is intended to be a bridge that keeps them alive long enough to get to Barack Obama, who is expected to have a more friendly Congress available to do more. The current Congress and majority of Americans are rightly afraid that this is just another bridge to nowhere.

In a brief speech, the President made the case for going against the Congress and using money that was passed for bailing out Wall Street, to be shifted to assist the automobile industry.

He begins by pointing out that money shouldn't be given to the industry without accountability (as proposed by the automobile companies originally), stating that a "more responsible option is to give the auto companies an incentive to restructure outside of bankruptcy -- and a brief window in which to do it. And that is why my administration worked with Congress on a bill to provide automakers with loans to stave off bankruptcy while they develop plans for viability." This bill was rejected by the United States Senate. Bush notes "this legislation earned bipartisan support from majorities in both houses of Congress." There was not, however, enough "bipartisan support" to get this passed.

Bush goes on to say that "unfortunately, despite extensive debate and agreement that we should prevent disorderly bankruptcies in the American auto industry, Congress was unable to get a bill to my desk before adjourning this year." This is a nice euphemism for stating that the bill didn't pass. Period.

Bush states that "this means the only way to avoid a collapse of the U.S. auto industry is for the executive branch to step in. The American people want the auto companies to succeed, and so do I." Maybe some of the people he knows. Maybe his golfing buddies from Ford or tennis partners at GM. But I couldn't find a single national survey that supported such. Furthermore, the American people overwhelming told Congress to not pass this bill. Most were unhappy with the Wall Street bailout, someone needs to be held accountable for their business acumen (or lack of).

In spite of the political realities, Bush goes on to say that "today, I'm announcing that the federal government will grant loans to auto companies under conditions similar to those Congress considered last week." Remember, Congress "considered," but rejected this legislation. Bush is disregarding the will of the Congress, whose authorization should be necessary (according to Article I of the Constitution), and is making the $800 billion bailout for Wall Street into a giant slush fund for the Executive Branch.

The President stated that "these loans will provide help in two ways. First, they will give automakers three months to put in place plans to restructure into viable companies -- which we believe they are capable of doing." When I left Detroit in the 1970s, the automobile industry in that city was already on the ropes and Chrysler was seeking loans. The automobile industry has wasted decades trying to get its house in order. Now, Bush believes it will restructure itself in 3 months? It would be funny if the money wasn't real and he wasn't serious. Well, at least it is only around $15 billion. The second "way" this bill is to help will be "if restructuring cannot be accomplished outside of bankruptcy, the loans will provide time for companies to make the legal and financial preparations necessary for an orderly Chapter 11 process that offers a better prospect of long-term success -- and gives consumers confidence that they can continue to buy American cars." Does Bush honestly believe that Americans will ever have confidence in a company in Chapter 11? President Bush clearly needs a reality check.

Bush states that "because Congress failed to make funds available for these loans, the plan I'm announcing today will be drawn from the financial rescue package Congress approved earlier this fall." Translation: I will take money passed by this Congress meant for one purpse, for purposes that this Congress voted against. This is the arrogance of officialdom and a President behaving like an autocrat.

President Bush simply can't stomach the thought of the automobile industry going under during his watch. In an incredible attempt to protect his "legacy," this President is suspending his Constitutional responsibility, snubbing the Congress who is required in authorizing such expenditures, and is abandoning the will of the people. In an effort to "save face" he is leaving a very ugly memorial to his administration.

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.

How to Determine Gas Prices in a Year

I don't want to mislead with my title. I don't own a crystal ball and can't predict exactly what fuel will cost at certain times. However, we have all been studying fuel prices rather closely the last few years and have begun to be able to see linkage between certain events and gas prices.

For example, as prices hit an all time high and hovering around $4.00 a gallon in the early part of the summer, House Republicans declared they were have a "staycation" like many other Americans and taking care of business by focusing on energy. The theme of the ad hoc Congress was "drill here, drill now" and the public and media took notice of the action. So did the oil speculators who lowered the price of oil per barrel, which showed up in our gas prices.

Another example was Senator John McCain declaring that he was changing his historic position of being opposed to domestic drilling and stating that everything should be brought to the table for consideration (biodesel, coal, etc.), including exploiting oil in the United States. He placed particular emphasis on the latter because of how that view stood in contrast to the Democrats position of avoiding all domestic drilling. The results was the further lowering of gas prices.

So, oil futures are based on projected consumption (demand) and projected supplies. The lack of oil in this country is not based on scarcity (which is created by nature), but because of shortages (which is based on government policies). With that, the single biggest factor about future supplies and prices of oil is the government. Oil speculators are convinced that the Democrats are hostile to domestic production (just look at their voting record and stated postions) and that the Republicans seem to take the pursuit seriously. With that, here is a quick breakdown of the future of prices:

• If the Democrats win both the Congress and the White House, expect gas prices to grow exponentially. I project them to more than double the current $3.00 a gallon level by the elections of 2010. That $6.00 a gallon rate could be rather conservative.


• If the Republicans win both the Congress and the White House, expect a rather significant drop in gas prices as long as the Legislative Branch makes domestic drilling a top priority. If they do that, you could see prices back around $2.00 or even less within two years.
  
• If you have divided government where different parties dominate the Legislative and Executive branches, you will likely see prices remain about the same with a continued upward trend.
  

Don't be fooled by arguments that passing legislation that encourages domestic drilling won't immediately lower prices. We know that serious discussion alone can achieve that. If Americans are concerned about lowering gas prices, they should be very deliberate about the way they vote.

A few weeks ago gas prices began to rise at a rapid rate. This was about the time the media began to declare that it was unlikely McCain would win. It is largely based on futures.

So what about the recent drop in gas prices? Everyone is thrilled with them going below $3.00 a gallon in many parts of the country. Why this is happening is the "bad news" to this otherwise exciting news. The current financial crisis is now having a direct impact on gas prices. Oil futures project that we are going to have people driving less, companies transporting fewer goods less often, and factories demanding less energy because of projected manufacturing declines. The good news of lower fuel costs is actually an omen of bigger economic problems.

Watch the headlines and observe gas prices. You will see the link. Think carefully how you vote, because it could profoundly impact your financial future.

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

Solving the Energy Crisis in 30 Days or Less

Since the media loves words like "crisis," I will use it; but it is certainly over used. Furthermore, our problems are not in energy but in policy. We have plenty of energy to fuel our cars and we could cut our prices by close to half in about a month if our elected officials had the courage and desire to do so. The majority in Congress have neither.

Thirty days seems ridiculously short and cutting prices in half, ambitious, but I sincerely believe these are goals that are realistic and should be pursued today. How?

* Congress could simply open a serious debate on making the hundreds of years of oil available in this country subject to drilling (in Alaska, the Dakotas, Florida, etc.).

* A few liberal Senators with a history of opposing drilling in this country, coming out in favor of such.

* Hearings on the subject in which Members of Congress strategize with oil industry leaders rather than lecturing them as if they were poorly behaving school children.

If these simple things happened -- without a single drop of new oil being pursued in this country -- the drop of oil prices would be exponential. The threat of the US becoming energy independent would be enough to throw the market into a tailspin. The world knows our ability to produce is legendary and the last thing out international competitors want us to do is produce in this area. A serious debate alone would drive our competitors to making sure it is a moot point. A similar debate in the 1980s led to a dramatic reduction in the price of oil per barrel.

So why isn't it happening today?

* The current Congress has a majority of members who actually want gas prices to be higher. Yes, you read that correctly. Many talk about America's desire for fuel as if it were an alcohol problem. In an environment such as this, you will never get actions that will drive prices down.

* This is going to sound a little conspiratorial, but I believe the majority of this Congress wants high prices, lost jobs, and economic downturn. It is the politics of "us vs. them" and economic decline that makes them believe they could have a more sizable majority in 2009 and one of their own in the White House. The Democrats need economic decline and they are our economy's woes biggest advocates.

I said at the very beginning of this post that the problem isn't energy, but policy. It isn't scarcity (which is caused by nature), but shortages (which is due to poor policy). We need to hold this Congress accountable. Tell them to stop lecturing the executives that represent the energy industry and support the owners of them (the many individuals of all economic groups that own stock in these publicly owned companies). Finally, sign the petition to get this problem solved today. Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less. A serious discussion alone could change everything.

According to recent surveys on marketing, most advertising attracts sellers (others who want you to buy more ads) and not buyers. Do you want to know why? Email info@HoustonBusinessShow.com and put "marketing audio" in the subject line and we will get it to 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. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Economy Held Hostage by Future of Tax Cuts

Since the Democrats have taken over both Houses of Congress in 1996, there has been a great deal of discussion on the future of the tax cuts that many economists believe drove this economy through much of the 1990s. The situation is simple. When the original tax cuts were passed early in the Bush Administration, the President was unable to make those cut permanent. The votes weren't there. These cuts had to be passed by every Congress and now they are facing expiration because the current leadership won't even allow them to be voted on.

We can now hear the clock ticking on the tax cuts and the impact on 43 million American families could be significant. Failure to keep those cuts on the books will translate into the "biggest tax increase in history" according to the President.

CNN has reported that "allowing the cuts to expire would add $1,900 to the tax bill of a family of four with an annual income of $60,000, Bush said. All told, he added, 43 million families with kids would have to pay an average tax increase of $2,323." As damaging as the policy will be on families, the effects on Main Street and Wall Street could prove even more profound.

"It turns out that 75% of taxpayers who benefited from the reduction of the top bracket were small business owners," Bush said, noting that small businesses pay taxes at individual income tax rates. "So when you hear 'tax the rich' you're really talking about taxing Mom and Pop businesses."

Many capital investments of business of all sizes (be it a new machine, more office space, or vehicles, etc.), the hiring of new employees, and other expenditures that lead to greater economic growth -- and even increased revenue for the government in taxes -- have been held hostage by a Congress unwilling to take action. The result of this procrastination could be further economic down turn. It is time to stop playing politics and make this tax cuts permanent. Tax cuts have worked for decades, as seen in the video going back to the early 1960s. We need these tax cuts to continue today.

According to recent surveys on marketing, most advertising attracts sellers (others who want you to buy more ads) and not buyers. Do you want to know why? Email info@HoustonBusinessShow.com and put "marketing audio" in the subject line and we will get it to 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. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Steve Stockman on the Radio

Just when you thought it was safe to turn on the radio, Steve Stockman has his own show. The former Republican Congressman will be on every Monday through Friday from 4 to 6 PM on CNN 650.

I have known Steve for years. He and I were both members of Young Conservatives of Texas and I found myself on the front lines helping to fight for his reelection in 1996 when I hosted a radio show in the heart of his Congressional District. A fight he almost won in spite of the enormous amount of resources thrown at him by the Democratic Party that year (he was the number one Congressional target).

Stockman will bring an unusual amount of honesty and experience to the radio, especially for a former Congressman. And he won't have any problem telling listeners the way he feels about today's political issues. He will easily speak his mind. Knowing Steve, this is a mere first step for something bigger, it will be interesting to see how his program goes.

Until Stockman, I have been one of the few political voices on CNN 650. Sure, there are others on the station with opinions, but few seem very passionate. I think Steve is an excellent added voice.

Hear a recent interview between Steve Stockman and Kevin Price here.

For a copy of the free audio program and 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.

Congress Poised to Raise Gas Prices

You haven't seen that headline, have you? But the recent hearings being held by Congress on how the tax laws benefit the oil companies gives me every reason to believe that they are looking at legislation that will close "loopholes" in the tax system. Closing those loopholes will, in turn lead to price increases. Why do I come to that conclusion? Because corporations don't pay taxes, they are merely tax collectors.

Simply put, businesses are not philanthropic, but are in the business of making a profit. Taxes on business are always absorbed by their customers either through high prices or lower quality (or both). High taxes will eventually lead those businesses to pursue those options are relocate.

If Congress is doing more than election year rhetoric (a huge possibility, of course), than expect them to raise your prices through what essentially will be a tax increase. Because "closing loopholes" has that exact same effect.

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.

Republicans for Pelosi?

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (photo) may be the best thing to happen to the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan. Her trip to the terrorist state of Syria has many Jewish voters (a strong Democrat constituency) moving rapidly to the Republican Party. Her focus on witch hunts rather than legislation has the media rightly calling this a "do nothing" Congress. The 100 days of work she promised hasn't produced a single bill that has made it to the President's desk. Her failure to have the Congress renew the tax cuts (required for their continuation) could easily destroy the very low unemployment we currently enjoy (since such cuts stimulate economic growth). Most recently they sent a bill to the President that requires a deadline for the troops in Iraq to return. They are actually implying they won't fund and protect our troops unless there is a deadline that aids our enemies. The list goes on.

Rumor has it, Pelosi is considering a trip to Iran! She's been told "no" by the White House and has been threatened with the Logan Act for the trip she already took to Syria. The Logan Act prohibits any US citizen from going to foreign countries negotiating without the authority of the US government or purporting to represent the country. It certainly appears she may be guilty of such. With her comments about possibly going to Iran, some Republicans in the Senate are offering to buy her a ticket. It seems the more actions she takes, the more helpful she is to the Republican Party.

When Democrats challenged Republicans in the 2006 Congressional races, they claimed they would turn things around once elected. "Turning it around" is beginning to look like a war on the economy, the abandoning of our troops, and an irresponsible approach to foreign policy. The Democrats have been largely a minority party for quite some time. Pelosi's behavior is making me believe they actually prefer that status.

Much Ado About Nothing... Yet We Have Real Concerns

While liberals continue to want to persecute Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (see photo) for non-existent crimes in his recent firings of US Attorneys, the world faces a serious problem with Iran. The fanatic regime has told the world it will not comply with international agencies when it comes to its nuclear programs and is holding British sailors hostage (our closest ally) without cause.

The Attorney General has done nothing wrong, but demonstrated poor manners in the way he fired several US Attorneys. Such attorneys have worked at the pleasure of Presidents since the posts were created. They are political jobs, so why are we surprised that they are being treated that way? Should the AG have said performance was the cause? Definitely not. Should he have done several firings so close together? Clearly not in good taste, unless he fired almost all of them at once like others have done in the past. But are any of these acts criminal, deserving hearings? No way.

The President has stated that we need to move on and we can't afford the time consumption or waste in resources pursuing this ridiculous non-case. That is why he is rightly resisting the effort of many in Congress to make this seem criminal. If the President doesn't draw a line here, he will spend the next two years of his Administration doing nothing but fighting battles of politics and not of statesmanship. We elected him and the Congress to govern. The President must be allowed to do that and the Congress needs to muster up the courage to do the same thing or the new Democratic majority there now will find themselves a minority again. They have been the minority since the early 1990s, so that may make them comfortable. The Democrats have got to know that being in the minority in politics is a relatively easy position. Your primary objective is to criticize. Once your side wins, you are expected to do so much more.

It is time for the Democrats to stop holding this government hostage through hearings and for them to rise up and do that for which they were elected, which is to govern.

Cut in Deficit Shows Tax Cuts Work

Newspapers around the country are reporting that there was a significant drop in the deficit for the first five months of the budget year. How significant? More than 25 percent than it was a year ago.

Was this due to a significant decline in spending? No, federal spending is at an all time high.

Was this due to a huge tax increase? Not yet, but we do know future tax cuts are going to the way side because the Democrats have pledged to not support new ones and abolish as many as they can of the ones on the books.

According to the White House and the Congressional Budget Office, the reduction in the deficit is due to a dramatic increase in revenue. The San Diego Union Tribune reports "for the first five months of the budget year, revenues are up by 9.3 percent to a record $954.4 billion." If not due to a new tax increase, what is the cause of this increase in revenue? The tax cuts passed earlier in this decade would be the single biggest contributor.

Tax cuts make it cheaper to participate in economic activity and makes the potential for profit worth the risk of lost income. This is, of course, tax cuts that are geared towards those who are paying the most in taxes, because they also are the creators of wealth. I have argued this point over and over again. The tax cuts work and we should demand Congress to remove more barriers to wealth creation in order to get more revenue, more jobs, and more prosperity. Remember what John F. Kennedy stated so eloquently: "A rising tide lifts all boats." The tide he was talking about was tax cuts that would have a profound ripple effect on the whole economy. He was right then and it is right now.