Obama's New "Tax Cuts" are Designed to Create Votes and Not Jobs

When it comes to income taxes there are basically two ways you can cut them. You can either have taxes that benefit consumption (geared primarily towards the large middle class in modest amounts and are designed to encourage consumer purchases) and those that are across the board (the same percent for each income group) and encourage production (also known as a "supply-side" tax cut). President Obama favors the former because he considers them more "fair" and they have the ability to help him with the middle class which has become increasingly unhappy with his policies. Rumor has it, he is considering such cuts as we approach the 2010 mid term elections. Someone needs to teach him some history.

For decades Republicans have resisted Democrat attempts to provide small and modest tax cuts for the middle and lower class at the expense of those with higher incomes, simply because such polices do not work. In 2008, as Republicans were fighting for their political lives, President Bush passed just such a consumption tax cut package of his own with very weak results. Most Americans received checks that were designed to make them go out and buy a new TV, maybe take a vacation, or even use it towards the down payment on a car. However, because of the rampant economic fear that our country has been suffering from, people used those checks to pay off credit cards, to make a payment on their mortgages, or to do other things to reduce debt.

These demand side, or consumption tax cuts, are very different from those on the supply side. Supply side cuts are usually long term (multi-year in scope) and proportional (giving as big of a percentage to the affluent as those in lower income brackets). The amount of savings for the affluent -- who pay the vast majority of all the revenues the government acquires annually -- are typically significant enough to lead to the creation of new jobs, the expansion of businesses, and to stimulate the economy. History has repeatedly proved this to be true.

Calvin Coolidge passed a huge tax cut that led to one of the greatest expansions of the economy in US history during the 1920s. In the 1960s, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy eloquently stated that it was imperative to "get the economy going again" and believed that tax cuts would lead to a "rising tide that will lift all boats" (rich as well as those who wish to be rich). Those tax cuts, which were predicted to lead to a depletion in revenue, led to one of the last balanced budgets the US enjoyed for decades and economic expansion. In 1980 Ronald Reagan inherited one of the worst economies since the Great Depression (similar to the one today) and he attacked taxes with a plan that was largely modeled after the Kennedy tax cuts. That tax bill was called a "jobs creation act," which is exactly what supply side tax cuts achieve, and it contributed to one of the strongest periods of economic growth in US History. Finally, following the technology bubble burst at the end of the Clinton Administration and the tragedy of September 11th, President George W. Bush used supply-side tax cuts to create an economy that sustained the lowest unemployment for the longest period of time since the early part of the 20th century (in terms of years of full employment). He followed that up with the ridiculous consumer tax cut of 2008 that did nothing to move things in the right direction (including voters that he was trying to appeal to) and has left many scratching their heads. We have learned that all tax cuts are not alike.

Part of the dramatic decline in the economy is actually linked to the end of the Bush supply-side tax cuts that had to be approved each year by the Congress in order to stay in effect. In 2006, pro supply-side Republicans were beat by Democrats who opposed those policies. The businesses that largely drive the economy knew their days were numbered. Hostility towards a pro-business view of taxes has become even worse following the election of Obama. After a few years since the 2006 elections unemployment went from 4.5 percent to around 7 in no time (and is now pushing double digits), consumer confidence reached a record low. 2008 should have been a Referendum on the Democrats. Instead, Americans decided to consume more of the poison that is destroying the economy.

Americans need to know the difference between consumption and supply-side tax policies, and remind their representatives of those differences in the up coming election cycle. Meanwhile, pro-growth candidates for Congress should use 2010 as a year to remind their constituents of what works and to use this as a wedge issue for Obama and his Democrats who seem to hate wealth (and, thus, job) creation.

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.

"I Believe in Free Enterprise, Except..."

For almost two decades I have been sitting across the table from politicians, authors, business leaders, and economists as guests on one of my radio programs. There have been the occasional crazies who want to socialize everything, but the vast majority of them -- like the majority of your neighbors and co-workers -- claim to support free enterprise.

These conversations about the virtues of the market go the same way. "The free market is so amazing and powerful, it is able to create jobs and new industries. It is terrible that government seems to do everything in its power to undermine the economy's potential." However, you dig a little deeper and then you start finding exceptions. Most of the time those exceptions are based on what they do for a living. Attorneys who represent clients who have suffered property damage will say, "they support free enterprise, except when it comes to the regulations they place on insurance companies." The farmer will tell you, "I definitely support free enterprise, except when it comes to agriculture subsidies." Scientists definitely believe the economy is best left alone "except when it comes to research grants." You get the idea.

Our entire socialistic system has evolved over the decades to accommodate exceptions like these above. Now we have millions of Americans who support free enterprise, "except." That "except" is bankrupting us and destroying our freedoms.

One of the most inspiring things I ever witnessed was the "Damn Right" campaign for President of Pete dupont in 1988. In that year, I actually voted for the former Delaware Governor while managing a Congressional race in West Texas. I have the feeling I was the only one who casted that vote in that town. He lost big time in the ballot box, but his message is as potent today as it was then. Pete duPont had no problem telling farmers, seniors, scientists and anyone else that they were part of the problem and that everyone would have to sacrifice in order to restore our freedoms. It was "damn right" for people to carry their own weight and not seek government as a solution.

Those who founded this Republic were aware that it was the tendency of government to expand over time. That is why they believed in the dispersion of power and they wanted to make changes in policy hard to achieve. The states would not ratify the Constitution with its "necessary and proper clause" that could be used for all form of abuses, without a Tenth Amendment that makes it perfectly clear that "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." They envisioned a nation of nations, with each state offering their own unique approaches to solving problems, all of them checked in their excesses because people could leave that state to another that provided more freedom. The decline in our liberties and the increase in socialism, are all linked to the undermining of the political institutions in government designed to protect us from an authoritarian federal government.

So, where does the long path towards the restoration of freedom begin? John F. Kennedy is famous for saying "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." We need to ask ourselves, what "exception to freedom can I give up for my country?"

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.

Why Bush's Consumer Driven Tax Cuts Didn't Work

For decades Republicans wisely discredited Democrat attempts to provide small and modest tax cuts for the middle and lower class at the expense of those with higher incomes, simply because such polices are ineffectual. In 2008, as Republicans were fighting for their political lives, President Bush passed just such a package. Most Americans received checks that were designed to make them go out and buy a new TV, maybe take a vacation, or even use it towards the down payment on a car. I predicted on my radio show that it wouldn't work and have defined effective tax policy often in this blog. I hate to say I told you so, but they didn't work. Instead, people used them towards their mortgage so they can stay in their home one more month, others paid on a credit card, and others still put it away for a rainy day. Very few used it to jump start the economy.

This "demand side" tax cut (meant to increase consumption) has the potential of giving all tax cuts a bad name. Supply side tax cuts have a much different effect. These cuts are usually long term (multi year in scope) and proportional (giving as big of a percentage to the affluent as those in lower income brackets). The amount of savings for the affluent -- who pay the vast majority of all the revenues the government acquires annually -- are typically significant enough to lead to the creation of new jobs, the expansion of businesses, and to stimulate the economy. History has proven this to be true.

Calvin Coolidge passed a massive tax cut that led to one of the greatest expansions of the economy in US history during the 1920s. In the 1960s, Presidential candidate John F. Kennedy eloquently stated that it was imperative to "get the economy going again" and believed that tax cuts would lead to a "rising tide that will lift all boats" (rich as well as those not so rich). Those tax cuts, which were predicted to lead to a depletion in revenue, let to one of the last balanced budgets the US enjoyed for decades and economic expansion. In 1980 Ronald Reagan inherited one of the worst economies since the Great Depression and he attacked taxes with a plan that was largely modeled after the Kennedy tax cuts. That tax bill was called a "jobs creation act," which is exactly what supply side tax cuts achieve, and it lead to one of the strongest periods of economic growth in US History. Finally, following the technology bubble burst at the end of the Clinton Administration and the tragedy of September 11th, President George W. Bush used supply-side tax cuts to create an economy that sustained the lowest unemployment for the longest period of time since the early part of the 20th century (years of full employment). He followed that up with the ridiculous consumer tax cut of 2008 that did nothing to move things in the right direction and has left many scratching their heads. Not all tax cuts are alike.

The dramatic decline in the economy is actually linked to the end of the Bush supply-side tax cuts, that had to be approved each year by the Congress in order to stay in effect. In 2006, pro supply-side Republicans were beat by Democrats who opposed those policies. The businesses that largely drive the economy knew their days were numbered. The results were almost instant. After less than two years unemployment went from 4.5 percent to 6 (and is now pushing 7), consumer confidence reached an all time low, and the Dow Jones went below ten thousand for the first time in four years (is is now typically between 8 to 10 thousand). 2008 should have been a Referendum on the Democrats. Instead, Americans decided to consume more of the poison that is destroying the economy.

Americans need to know the difference between consumption and supply-side tax policies, and remind their representatives of those differences before the next election cycle.

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.

For Barack Obama, Now the Hard Part

The party is over and governing begins. Barack Obama has enjoyed the position of US Senator and candidate for President. These roles are all about criticism, not about governing. With a solid vote giving him a win, expectations are very high for him when he enters office in January.

One of my favorite quotes is from Teddy Roosevelt, who sait "it is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

Being a "critic" is virtually the only job of a US Senator. Sure, they propose legislation, but they spend more time either dismissing the proposals of Presidents or trying to make the bills better, than actually making laws a reality. This may be why we haven't elected a sitting US Senator to the White House since 1960, when John F. Kennedy was elected. Since then, we elected a Vice President thrown into the Oval Office due to an assassination, than we elected a former Vice President. The next several Presidents included three former governors and a sitting Vice President. The US Senate had become a rather weak position to run for President. People were looking for leaders, not cheerleaders.

No matter who won this race -- Obama or McCain -- we would have a Senator moving into the White House. The Kennedy Administration, in spite of all the romanticism that surrounds it, was one of the least productive in US history. I think the weakness that mark that Administration played a role in our view of Senators. It will be interesting to see if Barack Obama raises the profile of that office as a springboard for the presidency.

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 PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Why Obama is Offended by Palin

It is a classic example of "bait and hook." John McCain has brilliantly chosen a Vice Presidential candidate who begs the question of experience. I know, that seems contrary to conventional wisdom, but I believe that it has huge strategic value to McCain's chances of getting elected President.

Palin's relatively thin experience for such a high office creates a huge temptation for the Democrats to go on the attack. However, it is the type of temptation that they can't afford to give in to. McCain knows it and, thus the choice.

* If Obama/Biden attacks Pailin too harshly on any grounds, it will garner the Republican a huge amount of sympathy from people who are tired of seeing female candidates getting mugged. Wounds from the Clinton race are still fresh in the minds of many.

* The media has already made people sensitive about the criticism that Sarah Palin might receive. Ridiculous questions that journalists would have asked during the time of "Leave it to Beaver" and "I Love Lucy" -- about a "woman's place is at home" has everyone on the left and right up in arms. This alone should have the Democrats proceed with extreme caution.

* The biggest reason Obama shouldn't bite into the temptation is because her experience is actually more substantive (includes executive power) than the Democrat's nominee. This is also why Obama is so offended that Sarah Palin was chosen.

Obama is, without question, the least experienced candidate to receive a major party's nomination for President. Obama likes to talk about the youthful John F. Kennedy and his staff enjoys the comparison. But Kennedy was a man who was "tempered by war" and an actual hero in his own right. Furthermore, he had six years of experience in the US House and a full term in the US Senate. Obmama does not want to beg that type of comparison. Obama's complete national legislative experience is less than Kennedy's in the Senate.

Obama's reaction and his inability to avoid the temptation to attack is rooted into the same reasons why he and his team reacted to the controversial New Yorker magazine cover. You remember it. The cartoon that characterized Obama and his wife as Muslim radicals who are trying to overthrow our freedoms and disregard our traditions. Was it inflammatory? Of course, just like the same magazine implied that George Bush and Dick Cheney had a "Brokeback Mountain" relationship. The publication assumed that no one would take it seriously. Obama did because it hits too close to home.

The appointment of Palin works in a similar fashion. "How dear the Republican's dismiss me by choosing such an inexperienced VP?" is the cry from Obama. You can almost hear it when he talks. The sad thing for Obama is that Palin's executive experience makes her better poised to take the chief executive spot than Obama. That is why the Democrats should avoid attack in this area. My instincts tell me they won't take that advice.

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.

Obama's Similarities to Famous Leaders

I have noted for quite some time the media doing stories about the similarities between Obama and other great leaders in history. I will not argue that he doesn't share characteristics of greatness with others, but I will say that they are completely missing the mark when it comes to the ones with whom they make comparisons. The big three I hear about are John F. Kennedy, Jr., Robert Kennedy, and (most surprisingly) Ronald Reagan.

John F. Kennedy, similarities are in youthfulness and the ability to give a speech. But beyond the rhetoric, the two are very different . In 1961, when Kennedy gave his Inaugural Address, he pointed out that "We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans -- born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage..." Kennedy was a genuine war hero and one who understood from day one that he was being sized up by his potential enemies around the world. Kennedy was firmly opposed to Communism and although he didn't take the strong stands that I would have preferred he had taken, there was no mistake about the level of his resolve. Obama, on the other hand, has indicated that he wants to sit face to face with our enemies (North Korea and Iran) and punish our allies (Pakistan). Then there is the competitive nature. I remember reading about JFK throwing the first pitch at a Major League Baseball game. He spent hours over several days practicing his pitch. We all remember Obama's bowling experience with a score (if I recall correctly) of 38. It seems minor, even petty, but to me it speaks a great deal about their resolve and personalities.

Barack Obama is one of the leading advocates of wefarism today and considers the reforms of the 1990s that changed "welfare as we know it" as harsh and unfair. Robert Kennedy, while pursuing his party's nomination in 1968, pointed out that Lyndon Johnson had replaced the important role of fathers and husbands in households with welfare checks and that this was going to create a culture of poverty that our country would not recover. He wanted to encourage business and enterprise to have incentives to move to hard hit areas, which is very different from Obama's approach.

Finally, there is the most preposterous of all, the "similarities" to Ronald Reagan. In particularly, we are being told that he will bring voters who don't traditionally vote Democrat to the party. This may be true with independents, particularly those with little or no voting history, but it will not likely translate into an influx of Republican voters. We all remember the expression "Reagan Democrats" and many of these never returned to their old party. The idea of "Obama Republicans" seems ludicrous to me. Obama is proving to be far more polarizing than Ronald Reagan.

Instead of enhancing Obama's credibility through the attempts of pointing out the so-called similarities between Obama and some of history's greats, I think these efforts is having the exact opposite effect and beginning to make the presumptive Democratic nominee increasingly appear like another empty suit.

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.

The 1987 Stock Market Crash

It has become one of those “where were you?” moments. The stock market crash of 1987. I remember September 11, 2001 (in my home office as I turned on the TV), John Lennon’s death (driving to the Silver Shooter Ice Cream Parlor to meet some fellow college students), and JFK’s death. Okay, I’m lying about JFK. My mom said I was struggling to walk having had recently learned how to achieve this unique achievement of personal development. I always reminded her that would have made me around two years old at the time, but she always stuck to that story and I was too young to prove other wise. Any way, where was I when the Stock Market crashed? I was driving to a county court house some where in Virginia to check to see if there were any liens on a house that a client was buying. I was between jobs for a short period of time and working at a title company (I was about to move to Amarillo, Texas to manage a Congressional race, another long story).

My routine during this time was to spend around half of my day – every day – in my car going from point to point. Usually I would listen to music, but throughout the news day the DJs kept discussing the market activity. I kept spinning the radio dial and a local PBS station had decided to devote the rest of the day to discuss the crash. My initial feeling was relief because I was too broke to have any stock at the time. That was followed by the thought that I was very pathetic to have such a thought. This, in turn, was followed by the fear that the implications of this event could possibly go far beyond Wall Street and could pound Main Street.

In retrospect, businesses beyond Manhattan were some what affected, but we didn’t see any of the devastation compared to the crash of 60 years before. Furthermore, the Market developed mechanisms to make it a safer institution and more able to help reduce the likelihood of such a shock in the future. So, do you remember where you were the day the market tumbled?

For This Fourth of July Remember the Roots of Our Revolution

Throughout human history, taxes have been one of the foremost ways that governments intrude on the rights of citizens. In fact, as we all learned in school, our democratic American Revolution began with a tax revolt. Our forefathers knew that if you bind up a man's economic life with taxes, tariffs, and regulations, you deprive him of some of his most basic civil rights. They have a wonderful phrase describing economic liberty in the Declaration of Independence. They call it "the pursuit of happiness." Well, with tax reform, we're going to make that pursuit a lot easier for all Americans." - President Ronald Reagan’s Radio Address to the Nation on Independence Day and the Centennial of the Statue of Liberty, July 5, 1986.

The American Revolution was predicated on some very radical ideas. The founders wanted a country in which the people ruled the government and not the government over the people. They wanted government to serve as a protector of individuals, but not as a provider of the public's desires. They saw government as an institution with limited scope and designed to protect private property and free enterprise. It would be nice if we had that type of government today.

The above quote by Ronald Reagan is one of my favorites and he is one of the last Presidents who ranked economic freedom as a civil liberty that needed to be protected. I'm sure others might have believed such, but he is one of the only ones who articulated such a view. In the above radio address given during the Independence Day holiday season of 1986, Reagan reminds us where the Revolutionary War found its roots -- it was a major tax revolt. Ronald Reagan made such revolts very popular again and he changed the way the nation debates tax policies.

Before Reagan, paying high taxes was considered patriotic and to propose such was fiscally responsible. Since Reagan, legally keeping every cent is patriotic because we now believe individuals can do better with their money than government and it is good for the treasury because tax cuts have a history of stimulating economic activity that results in higher revenues. This was the case for the Calvin Coolidge tax cuts of the 1920s, the John F. Kennedy cuts of the 1960s, the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s and the Bush cuts in recent years. Tax cuts increase employment, economic growth, and revenues.

It is time for us to remember the power of tax cuts in moving voters and the economy. I, for one, will require any candidate I consider to understand these important ideas before I hand him or her my vote. That is my way of keeping the spirit of the American Revolution alive on the fourth of July and the other 364 days of the year.

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.

Pearl Harbor Day: Remembering Days of Lost Innocence

"December 7th, 1941, a day that will live in infamy." Those were the words of Franklin Roosevelt regarding the attack by the Japaneese on Pearl Harbor. For many in my father's generation, this was a day of lost innocence. He was 21 on that day and he was as shocked as the rest of the nation over what took place in the middle of so-called peace talks. For the first time, he felt the US was truly vulnerable to foreign powers.

Days like this are important to people of every generation. I am a part of the extreme edge of the Baby Boom generation, having been born in December of 1961. Because of my age at the time of John F. Kennedy's death, I'm not considered a "real" boomer. However, my oldest brother was 17 on that November 1963 day and he remembers it as his time for lost innocence. A time when no one felt safe and the world seemed quite chaotic.

For me, my day of lost innocence was September 11, 2001. I was much later in age that my brother or father, and I certainly wasn't naieve about how things were in the country or world. But the ugly nature of the problems facing the rest of the world and the dangers that are in it, became very real that day.

On this day -- December 7th -- you might mention to people who experienced Pearl Harbor by living at that time, that you sympathize or even empathize and that you appreciate the sacrafice of their generation.