Robert Byrd Fears "King" OBama

Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) is something of an institution in Washington, DC. He assumed the office of US Senator in 1959 and has served in that body longer than anyone in the nation's history. He is famous for his knowledge of Senate proceedings and is one of the most successful members of either House of Congress at "bringing home the pork" for his constituents. He has been a liberal champion of big government for years.

On the surface, he should be a huge fan of President Barack Obama. The federal budget up to 2008 was $2.7 trillion dollars. As a Senator in September of 2008 and as a President in January, Obama has increased that spending by over $1.5 trillion. It is the biggest growth of government in such a time frame in our nation's history.

Byrd's concerns about Obama are not the President's love for more spending, but how he intends to control that spending and the operations of government. In a surprising series of events, Byrd has written a letter to Obama condemning the massive shift of power from the Cabinet officials who are accountable to Congress to White House staff who are largely free from such scrutiny.

In a press release by the Senator, his office states that "Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va.... has written to President Barack Obama expressing his concerns over the increasing appointments of White House 'czars,' and the relationship between these new White House positions and their executive branch counterparts, noting that 'too often, I have seen these lines of authority and responsibility become tangled and blurred, sometimes purposely, to shield information and to obscure the decision-making process."

The release continues that "Byrd, in his February 23 letter, specifically referenced the creation of new White House Offices of Health Reform, Urban Affairs Policy, and Energy and Climate Change Policy, noting that 'the rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials. As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president. They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability,' Byrd’s letter continued."

Essentially holding Obama's own words against him, Byrd cited the President "recent memorandum to the executive departments and agencies in which Obama noted that, 'A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency.'"

This kind of public criticism by a Senator of a President isn't unusual. What is unusual is the Senator who is attacking this particular President and the seriousness of the charges. In the letter itself, Byrd describes Obama's approach as similar to the Nixon White House in terms of its secrecy and isolation from Congressional accountability. Those are "fighting words" among Democrats.

I have never been a fan of Robert Byrd, but he is certainly very correct in his concerns and assessment. While people continue to worry about the "Europization" of the United States under Obama, I'm more concerned that we are looking more like Venezuela and other regimes that have suspended constitutional law and that he changes the way we are governed. The policy approaches of Obama may not be as nearly as frightening as his approach to government.

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.

Only Barack Obama Could Pull this Off and it Would Cure Economic Woes

Every week we here of increasingly higher jobless numbers and policy makers are dumbfounded as to what to do about it. Approximately one year ago we had virtually full employment at around 5 percent unemployment. At current trends, it will likely be ten percent or higher by the end of the year, unless something miraculous happens.

However, we are not hearing about any stroke of genius, but rather traditional government "solutions" to economic problems. We are hearing about "make work" programs and "bailouts" that have government at the center of the solution. It is interesting that Barack Obama, who was marketed as an agent of change, would find his solutions in the waste bin of government created work, for answers. He needs to go deeper, he needs to pursue an entire paradigm shift.

Obama campaigned as a candidate who supported transparent government, but there is nothing more deceptive than our current tax system that discourages wealth creation and places businesses in the role as tax collector. Remember, businesses don't pay taxes, they are merely tax collectors. Taxes are a fixed cost of doing business. If taxes on businesses were eliminated, consumers would enjoy the savings over night because businesses couldn't afford to be reluctant to transfer the savings due to competition. These taxes on businesses are the single force undermining job creation today. They force businesses to find countries that are cheaper for doing business, be it in labor, taxes, or other factors. Currently, the US has the second highest tax rate of any industrialized country in the world and we do not even want to compete with cheap salaries (nor can we). Eliminating dishonest business taxes would restore some transparency to government and create many more jobs. It is as simple as that.

But those taxes would have to be replaced with others and the only honest place to raise those revenues are directly on the people and on their consumption (rather than income), however challenging to pursue. This is contrary to Obama and the Democrats class conflict philosophy, but it is the most honest, efficient, and the least damaging on all job creation (in fact, it would generate more jobs). Obama could make history with these realities.

No one, but an anti-Communist like Richard Nixon, could open relations with the Chinese. If any President who had a history of being "soft" on Communists open these doors, they would have been denounced and dismissed. Nixon brought an element of surprise that made the move possible. So, too, was the case with Bill Clinton who truly did end "welfare as we know it." It took a progressive Democrat to break the cycle of poverty that was holding the poor hostage. If a Republican President had proposed such a policy he would have been dismissed as being "cruel" and "heartless." To change our tax code towards a consumption system would require a similar element of surprise and would need to be done by someone who has promoted himself as a champion of the poor. That describes Obama very well.

With such a policy, the only serious challenge he would face is among his fellow Democrats in Congress. However, if he continues to pursue policies that destroy jobs, he will likely have a Republican Congress in 2011. This is a similar situation that Bill Clinton had in the 1990s in which a Republican Congress played a role in getting his reform passed. Clinton's welfare reform is one of the greatest policy achievements of the second half of the 20th century. A change in the way we collect taxes by Obama could be one of the greatest policy achievements of the 21st century and it is one many would love for him to seriously consider. Especially those facing unemployment.

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.

Obama Gets Bad News on Economic Policies

Barack Obama has been heavily preaching the gospel of wealth distribution for years and has made it a central theme of his candidacy for President. Obama has been going around the country and telling them about how he was going to take from the rich and give to the poor. The devil, of course, is in the details.

For over two decades poverty has been in rapid decline and wealth has expanded in this country. More businesses have started in recent years than in any time in history and unemployment is remarkably low (even among recession concerns). So, although Obama has won the Democratic nomination with his "us against them" message, many are questioning whether that message will work in November. For example, if people make $227,000 or more a year, their taxes will go up by $23,000 in Obama's plan. Most people at this threshold do not consider themselves rich and under McCain, they would actually enjoy a 15,000 tax cut. Furthermore, there are many families below that financial bracket who aspire to reach the $227,000 threshold.

It reminds me of 1972 when George McGovern was performing well early in his race against Republican incumbent Richard Nixon. Then he started promoting the idea of "Demogrants,' which were subsidies that would go to people who make less than $15,000 a year. Instead of his support swelling, it actually popped his electoral bubble because there many members in this lower income bracket who knew that such programs were paid by those who made more than $15,000 a year and they believed they would be among those numbers. Americans are, by their very nature, positive and believe the best for themselves and future. They knew they could earn more and would.

Americans are the same today. According to a recent Gallup poll, 84 percent of all voters are opposed to redistributing wealth as a way of solving economic problems and only 13 percent support such a policy. Instead, the vast majority of the 84 percent support policies that encourage economic growth and job creation. They believe in free markets. Obama's redistribution policies remind me of a Ponzi Scheme that will encourage poverty rather prosperity and a game which all of us will lose.

Tired of the plain old business news? Ready for practical information to change your business and even your life? Visit HoustonBusinessReview.com and sign up for this important weekly ezine.

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.

See How They Run: The First in a Series on the 2008 Elections

There are few things that have a bigger impact on a business's bottom line than government. In fact, government is a huge shareholder in virtually every business that takes huge amounts of money without helping a company's performance and actually undermines their productivity through excessive regulations and licensure laws (ask me how I really feel). Therefore, being informed about who is running is crucial in order to make sure that the people that are chosen do as little damage as possible. So over the next two years (can you believe it) I intend to do several articles on some of the dynamics of the race, discuss who is running, and in a very bold move describe very closely the next president even before the first primaries are held. In fact, you should be able to guess who that candidate will be by my description (just wait, I think it will be impressive).

In the posts on this subject that come I will discuss:

* Why they are running so early.

* Do candidates getting started this early weaken sitting incumbants?

* What role race, gender, and religion will play in the election.

* Who each of the candidates are (in both parties) and what their chances of winning.

* The role the Internet will play in these elections (like TV, a largely new media in 1960 destroyed Richard Nixon; the Web is knocking off candidates with tongues that slip and other behaviors).

I'm sure over time that several other items will come up and I would love to hear from others on other issues I should cover. With the possibility of the election of a woman, an African American, Hispanic, Mormon, and who knows what else I am missing, 2008 promises to be a very interesting year indeed. And even if we elect another white guy again this election will be historic because we will not have had an incumbant President or Vice President on the ballot in any Primary. We haven't seen that since 1928.