Are the Democrats really for the Poor?

One of the big debates over fiscal policy is the discussion of "priorities." Government, is going to spend, it is merely a question in what areas, we are told. In that debate we are told that Democrats (or liberals of any political party) are for the "poor," while conservatives are for the "rich." We often hear about "rich Republicans" and "poor Democrats," but how does this line up with reality?

In the last Presidential election, the only two serious contenders on the Democrats side were Barack Obama (who eventually won) and Sen. Hillary Clinton. Both used very populist rhetoric and to varying degrees, both sounded as thought they were pulling chapters out of the works of Karl Marx. Yet there is a cloud that hang over these "poor Democrats." That is the political realities that financially drove both of their political campaigns.

Personal income is a strong indicator of ones relationship to the constituents they represent. Barack Obama made ten times more than Sen. John McCain (who became the Republican nominee in the last year) accounted, with over $4 million in income. Meanwhile his wife cries poverty over having to have to make "outrageous" student loan payments to their old schools -- Princeton, Columbia, and Harvard (where's the violin music when you need it?).

In the same vein, Sen. Hillary Clinton, made an impressive five times more than Obama at approximately $20 million. My mathematical skills suggests I refrain from attempting to calculate the difference between McCain and her.

But personal wealth is only the beginning, there is also the lessons we learn from those who supported their campaigns. From the media we would have to assume that McCain certainly received much more from his rich Republican buddies than either (or even both) of the Democrats. The reality could not be further from the truth, Sen. John McCain raised a fraction of what Obama raised (who broke a presidential campaign record) and during the primaries, he could not keep pace with Clinton.

The debate about wealth, poverty, and politics, is really quite cloudy. I sincerely doubt that homeless and other poor people (the alleged beneficiaries of Democrat policies) are fueling their Presidential campaigns. In fact, a Fortune Magazine article implied that business was voting for Hillary. What kind of business? The big corporations that can actually afford liberal and big government policies and see such as a way of keeping smaller competitors at bay. We saw from the so-called stimulus packages (designed by Democrats in Congress, yet supported by both parties) in September of 2008 and again in the early days of the Obama Administration, that some of the biggest beneficiaries were the largest corporations in the United States.

The truth of the matter is that the mega rich support liberals over conservatives. In fact, Obama's support was 3 to 1 in that category. The reasons the rich supports liberal candidates might be quite cynical. Major corporations know they can absorb the regulations, tax requirements, and other obligations that come with being large. They also know such laws could put their aspiring competition -- the rising enterprises often driven by the middle class -- out of existence. Americans need to get serious about this issue and start by asking the question, what type of policies actually help the poor?

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.

Is Michele Bachmann Considering a White House Run?

Recently I had the opportunity to interview Michele Bachmann (R-MN), a woman often described as a rising star of the Republican Party. In a political world plagued with Democrats on the fast track of socializing our economy and Republicans who provide the weakest of criticisms, Bachman certainly stands out. She is very vocal about her convictions and is willing to take Democrats and Republicans to task.

Bachmann has not been on the political scene long, first getting elected to Congress in 2006, but there is significant buzz that surrounds her among the rank and file of the GOP. She took Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner to task for what appears to be his complete lack of understanding of the United State Constitution. It was actually very riveting television. In spite of her short sprint in the House, her overall political experience is as long or longer than President Obama, having served in the Minnesota Senate since 2000.

What makes Bachmann interesting is her honesty about the obligations she made to defend the US Constitution. Frankly, most members of Congress in the GOP act simply too sophisticated to take the Constitution seriously and the Democrats simply don't seem to care. Bachman is quick to remind people that they have sworn to defend that document and that commitment requires more than lip service.

Drew Zahn of WorldNetDaily is reporting that Bachmann is now hinting on a possible Presidential run. No, she has not put together an exploratory committee, but she has already stuck her neck out by modern political standards. Zahn discussed the possibility of a run for the White House with Bachmann. The Congresswoman stated that "If I felt that's what the Lord was calling me to do, I would do it." Furthermore she noted that "When I have sensed that the Lord is calling me to do something, I've said yes to it. But I will not seek a higher office if God is not calling me to do it. That's really my standard. If I am called to serve in that realm I would serve," she concluded, 'but if I am not called, I wouldn't do it." Meanwhile most of the other candidates who are ran in 2008 and consider likely contenders in 2012 seem to dismiss this possibility without hesitation.

Bachmann would have a serious challenge running for the nation's highest office. She is a female facing a media that doesn't seem that interested in having a woman for President. Just remember the ridiculous "stay at home mom" questions Hillary Clinton faced. Furthermore, she is a conservative woman. This is almost a crime by media standards since the press seems to believe women and minorities should all be liberal. Finally, she comes from the politically impotent US House of Representatives, which has not been able to produce a President in over 120 years. In the end she will be interesting to watch. She has already caught the imagination of many in the conservative movement at at time when it is looking for serious leadership.

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.

Breaking News: Barack Obama's Choice for Vice President

It is all but official. Barack Obama has made his pick for Vice President. No, the Illinois Senator and I are not golfing buddies and I don't have a crystal ball, but I have a couple of decades of experience in politics both working on campaigns and commenting on them and I think this is a fairly safe bet. I'm not at all a gambling man, but this would be one time where I would be willing to pull out my wallet. Obama has made his choice and you will hear about it soon.

Before I name the nominee, let me give you an idea of how I came to my conclusion. The VP choice is more important for Obama and McCain than it has been for any candidate at any time in recent history. Obama has demonstrated several serious weaknesses in recent months (and McCain has a few of his own) and he needs someone to fill his gaps. These are the weak spots in his armor, in my opinion:

* His age. Obama is among the youngest nominees for President in US history and he appears younger than his age. His recent flubs in his foreign policy statements have only accentuated his perceived immaturity.

* His inexperience. Six years ago he was in the Illinois State Senate. His rapid movement from no where to the top spot has everyone (including many of his supporters) a little nervous.

* Foreign policy inexperience. The situation in Georgia, the deteriorating problems with Poland and Russia, and Obama's soft response to these situations have made people very nervous about him as Commander and Chief.

* Demonstrates too much change. Change may be nice, but he is beginning to convey a level of change that many are not comfortable with. No, I am not merely talking about skin color, religion, or several other areas that relate to surface items, I mean his political philosophy (according to the National Journal, the most liberal in the US Senate) and his inexperience. He needs something to anchor his change and that could be his running mate.

So who is the best choice in light of these weaknesses? Well the field has been narrowed considerably in recent weeks to Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, Gov. Tim Kaine of Virgina, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, and (as a dark horse) Senator Hillary Clinton. If this is the list, the choice is simple, in my opinion.

* Evan Bayh accentuates all of the weaknesses that Obama brings to the race of the Presidency. He has more experience and is far more ready to lead tomorrow than the presumptive nominee. It is true, everyone on this list is in a similar position, but Bayh is comparably young to Obama, making the matter worse.

* Kathleen Sebelius has very little name ID outside the Democratic party, she will possibly anger the Clinton crowd who will remember the other female who could have been on the ticket, and she brings no experience on foreign policy in a race that is increasingly being focused on this important subject.

* Governor Kaine is one of the few in serious consideration who is as inexperienced as Obama. This isn't an advantage though, because it will have everyone asking the question of "who is in charge?" Two inexperienced candidates in trying times like these will translate into electoral disaster.

* The "bad blood" between Obama and Hillary Clinton takes the New York Senator out of serious consideration. Imagine the ad campaigns McCain will have of nothing more than what Obama and Clinton said about each other in the primaries. Ugly. Very ugly indeed.

* That leaves Joe Biden. On the down side, many suburban cities in America now have populations that are larger than the state of Delaware. However, he brings incredible foreign policy experience to the table, he has years of experience that matches his maturity, he is witty and can give a solid speech. Furthermore, both Senators have a very similar experience. Biden assumed the office of US Senator at the young age of 31 and he can empathize with the challenges of age discrimination. He is simply a very safe bet, which is needed for a candidate who has become too closely associated with change.

I believe Joe Biden is a done deal. If I am wrong, it will be because he decided to go bold and deep. If that is the case, he will choose Clinton.

I'm pretty good at assessing such things. For example, I accurately predicted the demise of Katie Couric at CBS Evening News back in September of 2006. Sure it isn't official yet, but wait and see.

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 Price of Business radio show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review.

Does Evan Bayh Help or Hurt Obama?

All the political buzz on TV, radio, and online is the probable choice of Evan Bayh for Vice President by Barack Obama. He is noted for his experience, thoughtful intelligence, and maturity beyond his years. To many he is a logical choice for the number two spot. As in the case of virtually everyone, there are always pros and cons. Bayh brings experience, and baggage, to the Democratic ticket.

The New York Times recently described Bayh as one with a "moderate to conservative" voting record and tends to maintain such an image in his persona. He's not "flashy" or excessive and that demeanor has translated in the way people perceive him. The reality, however, is really quite different. Michael M. Bates at Newsbusters has done his homework on Bayh and has found the following about the Senator's voting record:

"Project Vote Smart collects ratings given by a wide variety of special-interest organizations. Evan Bayh's record shows that in 2007, NARAL Pro-Choice America gave him a grade of 100, as did the AFL-CIO and the Children's Defense Fund. The Americans for Democratic Action assigned him a 95 percent rating and the ACLU awarded him an 86. For 2005-2006, he earned a 100 percent rating from the National Education Association. In 2007, the National Taxpayers Union gave him a grade of D, the American Conservative Union rated him at 12 percent, and both the Gun Owners of America and U.S. English assigned him an F."

There appears to be very little gray area when it comes to his record. He is very strong in his positions and they lean heavily to the left. Barack Obama already has the most liberal record in the Senate. He need a true moderate brought to the table. Bayh doesn't bring that.

I will say that Bayh has a significant amount of experience for a relatively young man. At 53, he is six years older than Obama but has a far more impressive resume. The son of liberal icon Birch Bayh who served in the Senate for almost two decades, Evan was very familiar with politics. In 1987, and in his early 30s, he became Secretary of State of Indiana. In two years he began one of two terms as governor of that state and completed his eight years in that office at the young age of 42. Shortly after that, he became an US Senator and is now in his second term. On paper, Bayh looks like a great candidate.

However, Bayh's experience, might actually hurt Obama. When Bayh was Obama's age he had already served as a governor for eight years and was well in his first term in the US Senate. He reminds voters of how inexperienced Obama is and raises questions as to why Barack is on the top of the ticket instead of someone like Bayh. It is true that Obama needs experience on his ticket, but he needs experience that looks experienced, not the kind that actually hurts Obama's efforts.

Another often touted advantage to Bayh is his relationship to Hillary Clinton. He was one of her strongest supporters and one of the last to abandon her campaign. On the other hand, many in the Obama camp simply don't trust Clinton and Hillary's supporters don't appear able to be appeased by anyone but the New York Senator or, at the very least, another woman to join in making history.

In the end, I am not sure if any candidate will prove to be a solid compliment to Obama and fulfill the mandate of doing "no harm." However, I do believe that Obama needs to begin to look somewhere else for a VP.

Would you like to get a periodical email of the best of Kevin Price's political and economic content? Subscribe to the Houston Business Review at Info@HoustonBusinessShow.com.

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

And The Democrats Vice President Nominee Is....

Talk about the likely choice of Vice President on both the Republican and Democrat side is beginning to dominate the airwaves. On the Republican side, questions of age, gender, race, and ideology are all weighing heavy. Interestingly, those are the exact same questions being asked by the Democrats. I want to focus on what the Democrats are going to need from a Vice President nominee:

* The National Journal has identified Barack Obama as the most liberal member of the US Senate. He needs a running mate with solidly moderate credentials. It is next to impossible to find a national Democrat who is conservative, so we will keep our expectations modest.

* Barack Obama is one of the youngest people to be the nominee of his party for President. Furthermore, he looks younger than his age. Having a running mate that looks more mature would bolster his ticket.

* A huge number of Democrats are furious over the situation with Hillary Clinton. They see her as jilted by the party itself. Some, I'm sure, are entertaining Clinton as VP, but others still are concerned about the field day the Republicans will have using film footage of the two candidates (Obama and Clinton) pounding each other during the primaries. However, does Obama need a woman to help placate the female members of his party?

* One of Obama's biggest weaknesses is foreign policy experience. We live in a dangerous world and people want mature and decisive leadership to face international challenges. Foreign policy experience on the ticket would be very helpful.

* Obama (like McCain among Republican states) found it very difficult to win in states that Democrats must line up in November. In those traditional Democrat strongholds, Hillary often found herself on top. Finding someone strong in these areas could be helpful.

The list of candidates being mentioned most are Sam Nunn (former Senator of Georgia and an established foreign policy leader) and Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, an enthusiastic supporter of Hillary Clinton who could help mend fences there. Both of these are perceived moderates and Nunn can help with the problem of Obama's perceived youthfulness. Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius is about the only female mentioned with much frequency and she does nothing to help Obama in some of her biggest weaknesses. There was also much talk of Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico. He has a significant amount of foreign policy experience and he serves as a chief executive in the office of governor. However he has not and is not likely to catch on at this point.

So, who will be the Democrat's nominee for VP? My gut still says Hillary is the only one who can heal the divide in the party. Get ready for a Republican field day!

Would you like to get a weekly email summarizing Kevin Price's political and economic content? Subscribe to the Houston Business Review at Info@HoustonBusinessShow.com.

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.

How Hillary Clinton Can Win

There is a scenario in which Hillary Clinton can win. That is by getting the nomination in 2012. It is safe to say the Democratic Party has absolutely no intention of getting her the nod. To me, as an outsider (I am not a Democrat), I believe the Democratic machine decided very early to choose Obama. Not the rank and file voters (like those from Florida and Michigan who supported the New York Senator and are being disenfranchised), but the leadership.

They do this because Democrats haven't been able to win a Presidential election without minority (and African-American) support in particular. Now, if they go with Hillary, they will alienate this important demographic. However, Hillary has no intention to give up and she has no interest in waiting until 2016 to run. I believe she is officially running for 2012.

It will be difficult, maybe even impossible, for Clinton to beat Obama if he is an incumbent in 2012. She is passionate about making sure that there is a Republican in that office when 2012 comes around. The best way of doing that is by making sure Sen. John McCain wins this year. Furthermore, with the Republican Senator being in his early 70s already, there is a very good chance that the seat could be completely wide open in 2012 and create a tremendous opportunity for all contenders.

Who would have bet that Hillary Clinton would become McCain's best supporter? Politics does make strange bed fellows.

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.

Did Obama Protest Too Much?

President Bush took his political opponents on in Israel by comparing them to those who tried to placate Hitler in the days leading up to World War II. Barack Obama quickly rose to the occasion by protesting "I resemble that statement." Okay, not those exact words, but Bush didn't point the finger at any particular person and Obama quickly assumed he was talking about him. I guess "if the shoe fits, wear it."

The protest reminds me of situations that break out in my house. I find a mess in the kitchen that you can tell was caused by kids and ask "who is responsible for..." and, of course, before I even finish, the most guilty party yells "not me." I'm afraid Obama protests too much.

Obama is a traditional "progressive" and has described himself in those terms -- "jobs, peace, and freedom" (although I have no idea how his policies will generate any of the above). Many Democrats are talking about appeasement as well, but they are doing it for pragmatic reasons. Many initially supported the war (e.g., Hillary Clinton) and argue they based that decision on the data they had seen. It was, in their opinion, the right decision at the time. Some, like Dennis Kucinich, made an ideological choice. No matter how bad the data looked (and it obviously had some credibility because much of the international community came up with similar results), he would vote against it. All along, Obama claimed he would have done the exact same thing.
Obama used this commitment as a wedge between Clinton and the most liberal forces that dominate his party. Clinton implies that it was easy for Obama to criticize since he was in the Illinois Legislature as a State Senator when she voted for the war. I guarantee you, he was telling the truth. He is an ideologue. A pacifist. He would vote "no" regardless of what he say. And those are dangerous positions for the leader of the free world to hold.

It requires a certain degree of pragmatism to be President, in my opinion. You have to be philosophical, but you have to be able to make decisions based on political, economical, and national security realities. Obama is proving over and over again that he doesn't have that ability. What do we expect from the man the National Journal calls the most liberal in the US Senate? Obama reminds me of Neville Chamberlain, a progressive in his own right who believed humans had evolved too much for Hitler to drag the world into conflict. Chamberlain was wrong and so is Barack Obama.

The above article originally appeared at RedState.com. It was edited for BizPlusblog.

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.

Media Has Made Its Choice for President

While people are going to the polls in West Virginia in what is expected to be a Hillary Clinton landslide, the media has begun the formal anointing of Barack Obama as the Democrat's nominee. Both candidates are being described as having "different styles" and are clearly entering a different stage by the mainstream media.

Most of the networks have discussed Obama's "new swagger" as a "presumptive nominee," but none seem to provide tangible examples of how this is seen in reality and not mere projection. Reality had Obama saying that if he would claim to be the nominee he would be "presumptuous" considering that Hillary was just days away from racking up a win in West Virginia.

Meanwhile, we are told that Hillary is starting to take a more "conciliatory tone" and will soon be transitioning from opponent to party unity. The reality I have seen has Hillary remaining strident and some of her allies alluding to the possibility of another "bomb" going off more dangerous than Rev. Wright in the Obama campaign.

What is interesting is that all the networks, including Fox, seem to be on the consensus train. I for one believe that Obama is much more than likely to get the nod, but the current discussion in media seems to be little more than wishful thinking.

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.

Clinton, Obama, Promise to Raise Gas Prices

If you are not paying enough for gas now, you will be if Hillary Clinton or Obama get elected. People are clearly tired of outrageous gas prices and are looking for relief -- and solutions -- from elected officials. They don't appear to be getting it from the Democrats.

Senator Clinton has a proposal that would provide a "tax holiday" that would lower costs around 20 cents a gallon, but the other tier of her program will devastate these savings -- a windfall profit tax for oil companies. The tax holiday is fine and I have proposed such on the radio and in this blog, but it should only be a small part in helping relieve our energy crisis.

Obama is worse, he wants nothing to do with a tax holiday and is asking for a windfall profit tax like Clinton's. How big of a tax? 50% once an oil company reaches a certain level of revenues. How will this lead to a tax increase? Such also leads to shortages and long lines like we experienced in the 1970s. You remember those "good old days." It is really that simple.

Prohibitive windfall profit taxes give businesses an incentive to stay away from that magic number, what ever it is and it actually leads to a decrease in production. Lower production, leads to higher demand, which in turn leads to higher prices. It is simple economics 101.

The heart of John McCain's program is tax holiday as well, which is fairly benign in a negative arena and should provide some modest relief. The good thing about McCain's proposal is that it won't undermine production and won't fuel higher profits or shortages.

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.

Rich Republicans and Poor Democrats

How many times have you heard about "rich Republicans" and "poor Democrats"? I am sure the answer is often; but I am also sure you are confused about what is going on in the political market place today.

First, let's look at the incomes of the two major Democrats and the presumptive nominee of the Republicans.

* Sen. John McCain made approximately $400,000 in 2007. Certainly an impressive income and not one that would make you cry "poverty".

How about the "poor" Democrats?

* Sen. Barack Obama made ten times more than McCain in '07 with over $4 million in income. Meanwhile his wife cries poverty over having to have to make "outrageous" student loan payments to their old schools -- Princeton, Columbia, and Harvard (where's the violin music when you need it?).

* Sen. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, made a whopping five times more than Obama at approximately $20 million. I won't even try to calculate that difference with McCain.

But how much candidates make isn't the only point, is it? It is about the level of financial support they get. Surely McCain receives much more from his rich Republican buddies than either (or even both) of the Democrats? The reality is the exact opposite, McCain has raised a fraction of the $40 million that Obama raised last month or any month for a long time and Clinton consistently raises significantly more than McCain.

The debate about wealth, poverty, and politics, is really quite cloudy. I sincerely doubt that homeless and other poor people (the alleged beneficiaries of Democrat policies) are fueling their Presidential campaigns. In fact, a Fortune Magazine article implied that business was voting for Hillary. What kind of business? The big corporations that can actually afford liberal and big government policies and see such as a way of keeping smaller competitors at bay.

If people do just a little homework, their views of "rich" and "poor", "Republican" and "Democrat" could actually change.

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.

Oink, Oink from the Federal Government

The government is at it again. They are feeding the pork at the expense of taxpayers. Each year Citizens Against Government Waste releases its annual report of wasteful government programs designed to assure the reelection of politicians. "Earmark" spending is used by Members of Congress to bring home projects to Congressional districts and states that politicians can point to in order to help get reelected. What did they find in 2008?

Citizens Against Government Waste has dug up $17.2 billion in pork and that waste covers a plethora of areas. Here are a few examples:

In Agriculture: "$15,115,446 for 17 projects by Senate Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), including: $3,723,750for a Natural Products Lab; $2,780,400 for the Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center; $1,075,419 for the Agricultural Wildlife Conservation Center; $849,015 for genomics for southern crop stress and disease research; $511,395 for biotechnology research;and $229,383 for rural systems research."

In Commerce: "$146,708,000 for 63 projects by CJS Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking Member Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), including: $5,640,000for the Marshall Space Flight Center; $470,000 for a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)Maritime Museum in Mobile; $329,000 for American Village Citizenship Trust Montevallo for character programs in at-risk areas (the group’s website boasts that its mission is to “...to strengthen and renew the foundations of American liberty and self-government through citizenship education.”In addition to these lofty goals, young lovers can rent out the chapel and the barn to get married for $2,650.); $235,000 for the Foley Police Department for communications upgrades; and$235,000 for West Alabama Marine Shrimp and Fish Aquaculture to develop new methods and find efficiency in the development of marine shrimp and fish aquaculture using ponds and the salinic water of West Alabama."

In Defense: "$173,200,000 for 25 projects by Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), including:$25,000,000 for the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network;$23,000,000 for the Maui Space Surveillance System operations &research; $10,000,000 for the National Defense Center of Excellence for Research in Ocean Sciences; $5,000,000 for the Maui High Performance Computing Center; $3,500,000 for Army conservation and ecosystem management; $3,000,000 for the Hawaii National Guard Counter-Drug Program; and $2,000,000 for Brown Tree Snakes."

The list goes on and includes energy, finances, and other guilty culprits. I recommend reading the summary here. The criticism crosses party lines and guilty parties among the GOP and Democrats are quick to throw hand grenades. But I have been familiar with the group for 25 years, back when it was called the Grace Commission, which was appointed by Ronald Reagan and led by J. Peter Grace. I, for one, have long been grateful to the contributions they make.

How did the Presidential candidates fair in the Report? Well, Senator Hillary Clinton secured 281 projects totaling $296 million, and Obama won 53 projects totaling $97 million, according to the group. How about John McCain? Zero. He doesn't believe such an approach to government spending is ethical and votes against earmarks at every opportunity and will not offer them (and hasn't offered them in years).

How did your elected officials spend?

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.

Pelosi on Super Delegates

The Democrats unique voters in their primary process -- the Super Delgates -- are charged with protecting the interest of their party. It is doubtful they will fulfill that mandate as the race between Obama and Clinton continues to spiral. The "rules" about the Super Delegates are simple. These leaders in the party are expected to vote in a way they seem fit to meet the needs of the party as they perceive it.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now telling these delegates that they would be in error to support any candidate other than Obama, because they must reflect the opinion of the majority of Democratic voters. Clinton supporters are arguing that it is time for a reality check.

* There are no specific guidelines and Pelosi's demands are arbitrary

* The argument that Obama has more Democratic votes ignores that he is having a very difficult time winning truly Democratic states. He tends to win the states that Republicans are going to get in November.

* Most of those votes were cast before "Preacher Gate", in which Obama's Pastor showed a racist and even anti-American bent that is of concern to many Democrats. I doubt Obama will be able to carry Wright into November.

Currently, Pelosi is the most powerful woman in the US Government and has reached the highest elected position in our nation's history. I am sure she would like to maintain that role and many are wondering whether that passion is more important to her than the interests of her party.

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.

Bush Begins Celebrating Early

President Bush has begun celebrating early. Why? Because his days are numbered as President of the United States and he's beginning to think that someone in his party might continue at his job after he leaves in less than 12 months. Every President wants to leave a legacy. One of the most important parts of a legacy a President wants to leave is a member of his party staying in office.

Why the new sense of confidence? The people of Ohio and Texas gave Hillary Clinton a new lease on life instead of a knock out blow. If she had crashed and burned earlier this week, Democrats would be sending their money to one candidate instead of two and all of that money would be pointed to their collective enemy and not one another.

Simply put, this Democratic contest could easily go to August and the next Democrat nominee be chosen in a smoke filled room. The candidate will come out significant weakened after being pounded by a fellow Democrat and by a Republican who is running now unchallenged in his party (although he certainly has some fence mending with the rank and file).

Floyd Brown, who is a political expert I've known for over 20 years and an old friend of mine will soon be on the Houston Business Show. He argues in a recent post in his blog that he shares with his wife (Mary Beth Brown) that neither Obama or Clinton look very strong against McCain and he provides persuasive arguments that the Arizona Senator might very well be the strongest candidate the Democrats can face.

Floyd will be on my show in the next week (for more information visit the Houston Business Show site ) and I will discuss his unique views then. Regardless of how one thinks, we must be more impressed with Republican chances in 2008 than we were just a few months ago.

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.

Who Should Conservatives Vote For?

There is a debate raging among Texas Republicans about whether they should vote in the Democratic Party in order to play a spoiler role. After all, the Democrats and independents did the same thing to Republicans in places like New Hampshire, which has led to us having a likely nominee like John McCain. The following are four options being weighed by Conservatives in Texas:

* Vote for John McCain in order to make him look like a stronger candidate as he goes into the general election. This seems to be the least attractive option among Conservative voters that I know.

* Vote for Barack Obama to protect voters from the Clinton machine. She is, without a doubt, the most polarizing candidate in the race for the presidency. Maybe the most divisive, ever. I believe that Obama is the biggest threat in November, however. He's articulate and has virtually no record to run from. Voting for Hillary was the conventional wisdom for some time. To me, it makes zero sense.

The two most logical options to this writer are:

* Voting for Hillary Clinton. I must admit, it is very strange to see that on my screen. However, a vote for Hillary will likely force Democrats to use the delegates voted for in Michigan and Florida in order to have a decisive victory. This means that Obama will be punished for obeying the rules and Hillary would likely come out the winner in a smoke filled room. It will be similar to George McGovern getting the nomination after a brokered convention in 1972 and his giving his acceptance speech at 3 AM. The nominee will limp along to November and Democratic voters will feel very disenfranchised.

* Voting for Mike Huckabee. A vote for Huckabee will remind McCain how hard he still needs to work to satisfy Conservative voters. It will make him weigh his choices for Vice President more seriously and take stronger positions on issues he has been soft on. Furthermore, there are many "RINOs" (Republicans in Name Only) running for office on Texas ballots. If one votes for a Democrat they will not be voicing their opinion on those other races, meaning that moderate Republicans (who would vote for McCain anyway) will determine Republican representation on those other offices. It is too important for RINOs to vote for Republicans.

It is that last argument that will likely have me cast a vote for Huckabee. It will be interesting to see what other Conservatives will be doing this Tuesday.

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.

Edwards is Changing His Mind About Fox?

That is what MediaBistro.com is speculating about. Several months ago former Senator John Edwards went over the deep end because of his discuss over the "bias" that he had seen at Fox News. He made it clear, no true democrat should grace the stage or studio of anything "Fox." This was odd, because he had been a guest many times until his last interview on January 23, 2007. Had there been a major shift in Fox's editorial approach at that point or was he simply looking for a way to differentiate himself from the rest of the pack?

Portfolio's Jeff Bercovici writes "shortly after last night's Democratic debate on MSNBC, Eric Schultz, Edwards's national press secretary, sent out an email blast to reporters touting the results of a Frank Luntz focus group conducted on Fox. Schultz's email follows."

From: Eric SchultzSubject: Frank Luntz Focus Group of Undecided Nevada Voters: EDWARDS WINNER. Edwards Declared the Winner by a Focus Group of Undecided Nevada Voters. On Fox News, Frank Luntz' focus group from Las Vegas of thirty undecided Nevada Democrats declared Edwards the winner. Luntz:"How many of you thought John Edwards won?" [1/2 crowd raises hand]"How many of you came in supporting Senator Edwards?" [About 3 people raise hand]"On issue after issue, we're going to show this to you tomorrow night, his language actually scored better than Senator Clinton and Senator Obama." [Fox News, 1/15/08]

I'm sure the Senator has to be happy about Fox's new found "enlightenment." But can he easily have a change of heart? The jury is still out on that.

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.

Barometers Versus Leaders

I'm not a fan of a Mike Huckabee, Barack Obama, or John Edwards. I disagree with Huckabee on most issues and Edwards and Obama on virtually every issues. However, at least these guys have been extremely consistent.

They have said from day one that they intended to be candidates of change. Unfortunately the only change that will likely be found is in our pockets after they confiscate huge amounts of income as they promote the tax legislation through the rhetoric (Obama and Edwards) and through the records (Obama, Edwards, and Huckabee).

The message for change is a sound one. There are certainly things that deserve a better approach. But more government and class conflict (popular themes of each of these candidates) are not a solution.

Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton took a different approach. Romney postured himself as a bastion of stability and a force for normalcy. Clinton mentioned change but, what you really got from her was "experience" (e.g., all the funerals she attended as First Lady). Now that the experience message isn't resonating, these candidates are making dramatic shifts toward populist rhetoric. Ironically, Clinton's shift may have worked in New Hampshire (that appears to be the case at the time of the writing).

Romeny and Clinton seem to make better barometers than leaders. They have sensed a change in the political weather and are trying to accommodate the storm rather than their principles. We need principled leadership and not mere gauges of temperament.

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.

Bhutto and the US Race for the Presidency

The terrible murder of Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan is having a ripple effect felt right here in the US. Besides a wildly volatile stock market that is concerned how the actions on the other side of the earth might affect us right here, there is also discussions on how the terrorism will shake up the US race for the presidency.

The winners appear to be the candidates who have taken the strongest positions on the war on terror. With over 45 percent of Pakistanis supporting Al Qaeda (according to CNN) and the possibility that they were behind this act (though no one has claimed it at the time of this writing), US candidates who have had the strongest positions on the war on terror are the biggest "beneficiaries" of what has happened in Pakistan. I know, it sounds tasteless, but I'm not sure how to describe it any more clearly.

Generally speaking, the political prognosticators are arguing that the biggest winners will be Sen. Hillary Clinton among Democrats (because of her long term relationship with Bhutto and the fact she is probably the most Conservative among that liberal group) and Sen. John McCain, who has had the strongest and most consistent views on the war on terror. I have a slightly different spin. I think the biggest winners are any Republican contender and the losers are any Democrat, because all of the former have had stronger positions on terrorism than any of the latter. Whether or not there will be any lasting impression will take weeks, if not months, to see.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and is Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Get a free subscription to that newsletter by clicking here.

"Hope Now" Means Problems Tomorrow

It appears that the Bush Administration' plans to help struggling home owners fight off foreclosures is destined to happen. Hillary Clinton has offered a similar plan of her own and both Wall Street and policy wonks on both sides of the partisan aisle are embracing the concept. Simply put, it is being proposed that those who got subprime loans and are still current (but struggling with any increase in rates) will see a freeze at their current rate. The increases would be put on hold for as long as five years, according to most estimates. Others, still, are arguing for all the increases to be added to the back of the note through additional years. The reform promoted by the President is being called "Hope Now".

Although this idea is extremely popular and should have an immediate short-term benefit to the economy, I believe the long term effect could be chilling to the economy in general and future home buyers in particular.

When people got an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) they either (a) knew what they were getting or (b) should have read the contract to know what they were signing up for. They were signing up for a loan that would have future increases. That was the price they had to pay to get their loans because of their credit situation.

Investors back up money mortgages such as these because they thought that although some might foreclose (the risk of doing business), they would at least enjoy a higher rate during that process. Although there is no doubt in my mind that the President's plan is actually beneficial to some lending companies (which usually do well at financing homes, but are terrible at selling Real Estate), it is fundamentally wrong for the government to take such a coercive role.

Besides the fact that this is a violation of contract law (an idea clearly protected in the Constitution), this is also a modern form of Price Controls. When investors consider financing risky loans with the opportunity of failure (like sub-prime loans) they will remember the dollars lost due to government intervention. The loser in this process will be the same person "Hope Now" is meant to benefit -- the risky individual who needed the loan. This is the unintended consequences of bad policy. We won't see it today, but we will see likely see the affects in the future.

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

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.

Oprah Winfrey Gets Political

Let me preface this by saying that I absolutely respect Oprah as a media personality. In fact, I can safely say she is the most successful at what she does than anyone I know. Her show is now over 20 years old and it remains among the most highly rated and, I believe she is the highest paid celebrity.

There are reasons for her success, and these are just a few of them in my opinion:

* She makes sure her visual presentation is better than anyone on day time TV. Her sets are amazing and very inviting and makes watching the program very enjoyable.

* She has excellent guest selection. After years of cultivating relationships she is able to get some of the best show participants a person will find on television regardless of time of day.

* She doesn't insult the users intelligence. She is smart and her programming highlights that, making for excellent viewing. She has even made "book clubs" popular again.

* She has remained remarkably apolitical. We are all pretty sure of her political leanings in the way she throws softballs to those with a liberal bias and tries to nail conservatives. She is, however, at least willing to have conservatives on her program. I personally believe this last characteristic is one of the most important reasons. I remember being told that you don't want to talk politics or religion with friends and she has been very careful when it comes to this area.

Until now.

Just recently Oprah endorsed a candidate. Something she hadn't done to date. She has come out in support of Barack Obama who is among the most liberal of the Democratic candidates (I put him just after John Edwards). Many are suggesting that her endorsement won't matter much, since they both appeal to the well educated and more affluent constituencies rather than the broader population that John Edwards has pursued so passionately. I disagree, I think she will help Obama reach a group that Hillary Clinton thought she had in the bag -- upper middle class and well educated women.

Time will only tell whether Oprah will make that big a difference. Time will also tell whether such a move hurts her TV program. She has accumulated a lot of capital over the years, but there is no place that is quicker to lose it than in the world of media.

Note: Order Kevin Price's audio program The Accumulators, which explains the impact that the Internet is having on marketing and consumer behavior. It is available online here for only $10 plus p and h. Order Oprah's and other great programs and books by clicking here. Receive the Houston Business Review e-zine free each week by clicking here.