Obama, Wealth, Work, and Poverty

We should want a tax code that rewards wealth to create work. Not a tax code that rewards work, instead of wealth. The latter would “succeed” only if the government was the primary source of job creation. That describes societies with command economies, such as what we saw in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union before the fall of Communism and in struggling developing countries today that have yet to figure out why their economies haven’t worked. Such hostile views towards wealth creation should not be found in free market economies, such as the United States, but it is exactly what we saw and heard during the Democratic National Convention (DNC).

Its funny, in my circle of friends, decrying the engines that create wealth is the equivalent of economic blasphemy. At the DNC, it was a virtue. The message of “we need a tax policy that rewards work, not wealth” wasn’t merely seen on the signs of delegates or alternates. It wasn’t the occasional mentioning of one of the many speakers that passed in front of the microphone. It came from the keynote address of the Party’s nominee for President. Barack Obama.

This sentiment of wanting to bite the hand that feeds the economy (wealth created by corporations and small businesses, not revenue confiscated by taxpayers) stood in contrast to the message heard by the candidate that I hoped would get the Republican nomination and who spoke at the his party’s Convention on behalf of Sen. John McCain, former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee.

Thompson uses a Southern charm and has a disarming approach to speaking that made the logic of what he said perfectly clear, regardless of party affiliation or philosophy. Paraphrasing the Senator, Thompson pointed out that the Democrats only want to increase the taxes on a small group of people – the top 5 percent. This, we are told, has no effect on the common person. Unless you buy milk, bread, or any other consumer product at the store. Or if you have a job that is dependent on someone (or company) subject to that top five percent. The Democrats like to bemoan “trickle down economics” (where the government ostensibly benefits the wealthy, which in turn creates opportunities for others). But the trickle can be seen in more than one way. The trickle can be policies that hurt the rich and, out of simple self interest, they share the misery with everyone else. Thompson did an excellent job of warning us of that possibility.

According to economist Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal, the US already has the second highest corporate tax rates of any developed country in the world after Japan. That, more than cheap wages, has led to the flight of jobs and manufacturing to other countries. Barack Obama promises to push us further in that direction through tax increases.

Ronald Reagan use to say that “you can’t help America’s poor by making America poor.” Obama disagrees. He intends to help America’s poor by making more people poor, so they will have more company. An Obama administration will be very interesting indeed. I doubt, however, we can afford it.

Kevin Price's articles are found daily in national publications such as USA Today, Chicago Sun Times, and Reuters. Subscribe to his newsletter here.

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

Mike Huckabee is Trying to Have His Cake and Eat It Too

Mike Huckabee is trying to have his cake and eat it too. This isn't easy to accomplish in an environment that is difficult to even get a fair break.

For weeks Mitt Romney has opened his deep pockets in an effort to derail the Huckabee Express. The former governor from Arkansas has gone from minor player to the man to beat over the last few months. With an attitude that nears entitlement -- Romney has paid for this nomination after all -- he is throwing everything, including the kitchen sink at Huckabee.

Huckabee has based his campaign on being a nice guy, which has played no small role in fueling his success, in my opinion. Further, his wit and wisdom has made him stand out in an often unimpressive crowd.

It appears, though that Huckabee has had all he can tolerate and he has decided to go ugly, creating an ad that puts him on the offensive. He looked at it and concluded that it wasn't the kind of ad that Huckabee should run. It had the potential of doing more harm to his reputation than help it.

He was probably right, but ruined his good intentions by having a press conference announcing he wasn't going to run the ad and showing the media the “offensive” commercial his team had designed. The purpose was to say, "do you see what I could have unleashed on Romney?"

I assume Huckabee was hoping that the media would run the spot for him and give him free advertising, but with arms length distance from the campaign. There has been some play of the ad, but at the expense of his "good guy" image. This is not the kind of approach that has made Huckabee the serious contender he has become. It seems to be the results of a "Tier 2" operation representing what has become a "Tier 1" candidate. He might survive it, but if such tactics continue the future will not be bright for Huckabee, in my opinion.

As an aside, since people interpret such posts as endorsements or oppositions, I don't support Huckabee. In fact, his views on economic issues are very disconcerting (I suggest reading the Club for Growth reports of Huckabee and other candidates). I continue to strongly lean towards Fred Thompson and wait patiently for him to give me more reasons to do so.

Kevin Price is the Host of the Houston Business Show, M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650. You can hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Read his opinions at BizPlusBlog.com. He is also the Publisher of HoustonBusinessReview.com.

2008 Presidential Campaign Update

For several months I have been doing a series of articles called "See How They Run." This is the first time I have mentioned such in this blog since September. I did write a post at RedState on the poor performance of the person whom I thought I supported for President, Fred Thompson. In it I observed:

It was kind of fun at first. Watching Fred Thompson on the sidelines and critically pointing out the weaknesses of others and providing a resounding "I could do better."

Now that he is in the race, it still feels like we are waiting for him to jump in. He did a recent ad that slam dunks Romney on abortion and raised serious concerns about Huckabee's fiscal policies as governor, but as a rule, has done little to ignite conservatives. In fact, he almost seems relegated to hurting conservatives who have been in this race far longer in his efforts to catch up in this competitive niche.

Thompson is going to have to make the case for Thompson and not merely be the critic. Otherwise he will be lucky to be more than a footnote in this race. Also, after watching the debate tonight, it would also help if he memorized his lines. So much for all those years of acting.

So, why the lack of interest on my part in the election? It feels as though it is a forgone conclusion that Hillary Clinton is going to win the Democratic nomination and I get the impression that none of the Republicans will effectively challenge her. Unless something major happens, the 2008 election could become one of the least interesting in modern history.

Kevin Price Hosts the Houston Business Show Monday through Friday at 11 AM on CNN 650. Read the opinions of the Houston Business Show news team by subscribing to the weekly Houston Business Review newsletter.

Fred Thompson Finally Jumps In

General Douglas MacArthur said that wars are lost because countries do "too little, too late." Having had worked on many campaigns over the years, I can actually say the same thing about elections.

As we sit following the formal announcement by the former Senator from Tennessee, Fred Thompson, I find myself asking the same question. Is it too late for him to get traction? Will his delays look like reluctance rather than deliberation? Does he lack the time to build the necessary machine to win in 2008?

I have spoken favorably about a Thompson candidacy both here and at Redstate.com. I will likely get on board now that he has made it official, but he makes me very nervous. He makes me question his level of confidence going into this race.

I'm hoping people perceive him as staying "above the fray" and even looking "Presidential." Once he faces a group of candidates who have undergone the expenditure of large amounts of money and have faced extensive scrutiny, we will see how much his star shines (no pun intended). Largely left untouched by opponents, former Governor Mitt Romney has described him as a "walk on" candidate who is showing up a little late in this process.

We will begin to see how the candidate fairs now that he has formally announced this week.

See How They Run: Sizing up the Three Tiers of Republican Candidates

The current discussion of two groups -- the "Big three" (or is it four now?) and everyone else doesn't accurately size up the break down of the Republican Presidential hopefuls, in my opinion. The following is my spin on the eleven candidates for President, what tier they are in, and what chances they have (if any). Again, this is my perspective, I look forward to the comments of others.

Tier I (in alphabetical order)

Rudy Giuliani. Rudy's strengths are that he is attractive to libertarians who favor the war and traditional conservatives who are willing to over look his positions on social issues "for a time such as this." He would be unacceptable in 2000, but must be taken seriously today. His negatives are that he is untested on national issues, people will have reluctance about choosing a former mayor, and NYC mayor has a history of being a "dead end job."

My view: He has access to deep financial pockets. He goes in deep in the election and I wouldn't be surprised if he's on the ticket, some where.

John McCain. On the up side, he had a strong organization and high name identification. Furthermore, his strong position on the war is attractive to traditional conservatives who might other wise dislike him. On the negative side, he's old and sounds old. His total lack of understanding on tax policy is unacceptable.

My view: He is sinking fast, many supporters or going to be bailing out in the days to come. Check back next week, the "Big Four" could be a "Big Three" again, minus him.

Mitt Romney. Romney is attractive (maybe too much so?), was able to get elected in the most liberal state in the country as a Republican (can you say Reagan Democrats?), he is a former governor (historically one of the strongest positions to run for President), and has virtual unlimited access to money (like his own pockets). On the down side, he "matured" on issues too late in life to make most Conservatives comfortable, his religion makes many traditional Conservatives nervous, and he's from Massachusetts.

My view: His money will have him last quite a while in this race, but I don't see him ever "catching on" to the Party in general. However, if a Giuliani gets the nomination, he might be seen as a good balance on the ticket. He won't be, however, because Republicans will have a very difficult time winning without a Southerner on the ticket. This, of course, leads to...

Fred Thompson. Thompson (photo) has access to significant amounts of money, is a very solid Conservative, is from the South (crucial for anyone to win the Presidency these days), is a former Senator (meaning he has proven ability to win bigger races), and knows how to act like a leader. His negatives are less obvious, but I'm concerned about how he will do on the campaign trail. Also, the Senate is not nearly as strong as the governorship for getting elected President (the chief executive role seems to be very important).

My view; Fred Thompson is the guy to beat. Period. His numbers are stronger than people who have spent millions and he simply comes across as more Presidential.

Tier II


This is were I am sure I will get some arguments. All those who believe there guy should have been in "Tier II" will be upset. However, it should be of comfort to all of you, that "Tier II" dwellers won't likely get the nomination, unless something seriously wrong happens to the group above. Again, this list is in alphabetical order:

Sam Brownback. The Kansas Senator is, in my opinion, on the bottom part of the Tier II list. He is a fine as US Senator and should really do us a favor by staying there. We can use quality people in that body. He lacks the maturity and ability to relate to be a serious candidate. Furthermore, he seriously lacks access to money.

Jim Gilmore. The former Virginia Governor comes from the South (a big plus) and had that crucial chief executive role. These are two major pluses. Beyond these two big positives, Gilmore simply doesn't cut it. I think he may be running for an appointment in a new administration. He also seriously lacks money.

Mike Huckabee. Huckabee is a relatively young Southern (recently) former Governor, who comes from a state that has strong, Democrat roots. If you keep your observations to this brief overview, he looks excellent, but his chances are really quite poor. He has a mixed fiscal record as Governor, very limited access to money, and doesn't come across as particularly Presidential. He's on the high end of the Tier II and could pull off a miracle if the top Tier implodes, but don't hold your breath.

Tommy Thompson. I like Thompson, personally, although he is not Conservative enough and he fails to come from a region that has produced a popularly elected President in decades. Thompson is innovative (his views on Iraq are very interesting, in my opinion) and he is a former Governor, which is very important in politics today. His down sides include limited access to money and a weak connection to voters (he's something of a technocrat). In many respects, running for President of the US is more like running for "class president" than virtually any other political office. He simply doesn't get the popularity factor.

Tier III

This is the group that would do us a collective favor by getting out tomorrow. These three candidates are two traditional right wingers (Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo) and a libertarian (Ron Paul) and they are only diluting the support of the real Conservatives in the upper tiers. I wish there were a couple liberal or moderate Republicans in this group.

I could easily dismiss these three for one simple reason -- they are members of the US House of Representatives. We haven't elected a US House member since 1880 (James Garfield who was assassinated just a few months in his office) and I honestly think we are less likely to elect someone from that spot now than then. The office doesn't give potential supporters much hope that he can muster the national support essential to win. They have extremely limited access to money, poor organization, and simply don't look serious.

Duncan Hunter. The California Congressman is actually an old friend of mine (I mentioned that to a campaign member and they now count me as one of his supporters). When I was involved with a think tank I helped to start in DC, he served on the Advisory Board and had a study I wrote with Dr. Larry Adams (who is now with the University of Virginia) published in the Congressional Record. I like him, but I can't support him. He doesn't have a prayer and I believe he is too pessimistic on economic policy to be a successful President.

Ron Paul. I was an early member of Young Conservatives of Texas (back when I made my first vote for Ronald Reagan) and Ron Paul was a very good friend to that organization. I believe he has a great deal of personal integrity and I have liked his position on many domestic policy issues. However, his "blame the US" views on foreign policy are a disaster that discredits many of his positions on the economy. I wish he would get out, but I'm afraid we might see him running as a Libertarian again. He's a sad story, in my opinion.

Tom Tancredo. Tom seems to me to be a single issue candidate -- immigration -- in a party that is still divided on the best approach to that issue. In many ways, he is just like Duncan Hunter, but if you put the two together you still wouldn't have a dime. He's a fine Congressman, I wish he would stay there.

That's how I size up the candidates, I look forward to seeing the comments of others.

See How They Run: The Republican Quest for a Quality Candidate

My first vote in a general election was for Ronald Reagan in 1980 at the ripe young age of 18. Since then I have voted in virtually every primary and general election for which I have had the opportunity. This current Republican lot for President is the east impressive I have seen over the last 27 years and it is also the largest group. This crowd is a mess.

The sheer number of minor league candidates and the weaknesses of the heir apparent (who people would think would be John McCain) almost makes me wonder if the Republican party is in shambles or if they are letting Democrats win in '08 so they can thoroughly mess things up and restore Republican rule for years to come (a possibility in light of how disastrous the Democrat front runners are).

Democrat rule of Congress should empower Republicans and make them optimistic about our prospects. The Majority Leader (Harry Reid) is voting to fund the war and putting our troops at risk and at the same time declaring that we lost and it is over. The Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi) appears to be breaking the law by representing the US in meetings with tyrants that our State Department has requested she not have communications. The Democrats have failed to govern and has held our legislative process hostage through the pursuit of witch hunts rather than policy changes. Left to their own, the Democrats are in serious trouble.

But the Republicans must offer an alternative and I don't see it in this group. I, personally, am hoping that former Senator Fred Thompson (photo) jumps in this race. He is a solid conservative from the South (crucial in winning Presidential elections), he has wide spread name identification, he isn't "needy" when it comes to the job, and his Hollywood credentials makes it difficult for him to be painted as outside of the mainstream (because he is on the Right). He is spending virtually nothing and is pulling higher numbers than many of the major candidates in the race.

If not Thompson, someone in the current group needs to rise to the top and needs to reflect the best that the Republican Party can offer.