What is a "Reagan Conservative?"

Ronald Reagan became President at a time when the US had become accustomed to being a second rate power and had found itself well on its path towards socialism. The media hated the man and dismissed him as an intellectual lightweight, a “Neanderthal” in his foreign policy, and “Draconian” in his policies toward the poor. In spite of this, he was one of the most popular Presidents in US history. He loved freedom and conveyed optimism at a time most Americans were suffering from government created malaise.



The Wall Street Journal and other surveys rank Reagan as high as number 6 on the list of great Presidents; the only people that beat him in the surveys are individuals who died many years before those polled were even born. This would be people like George Washington and Teddy Roosevelt. It is hard to beat “legends.” Even professional historians in academia rank Reagan as high as ten in surveys, according to MSNBC.



Reagan's greatness is measured by the "copy cat factor" seen in politicians today. The old saying that "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" could not be truer then what we see in regards to Reagan. Politicians of all stripes -- conservatives, liberals, and many who are in between -- have described their policies as being "Reganesque." I think that Reagan would find many of the comparisons quite shocking, if he were with us today.



So what does it mean to have an approach to governing like Reagan? I actually believe the Reagan model is easy to understand, but quite difficult to practice. Reagan was really simple in his view of the world. There was "good" and "bad," "right" and "wrong," he left the grey areas to the pragmatists or those who lacked the backbone or principle to take a definitive stand. His strong positions made him an attractive leader to a people who had been washed "back and forth" by the liberal policies that came before. He is hard to copy because his approach to governing required integrity in word and deed.



A sample of that simplicity and one of the hallmarks of Reagan's policies was his "three legged stool." Reagan's policies were built on three ideas; free enterprise, limited government, and pro-family social policies. He chose these three because they, of course, reflected his own values, but he also realized that each of these ideas have enormous appeal on their own. I was attracted to the conservative philosophy as a young Christian and noticed that Reagan's philosophy was very strong when it came to traditional family values. Over the last few decades, economics have become my passion and expertise, but it started with a concern in culture (and this remains important to me).



The approach is simple, yet profound. Reagan believed that there are huge sectors of the population that would be attracted to a strong message of free market economics, regardless of where one stood on other issues. The other issues (defense or culture) were not nearly as important to this block, but these voters would not be deterred by the other areas as long as a candidate was very strong on economic policies. Reagan rightly believed that this would be the case when it comes to other legs of the stool, as long as he was very strong and clear on his positions. While "big tent" Republicans argued that Reagan should have "lightened up" when it came to the strong positions he took, voters came to him in larger numbers as he took stronger stands on the issues of the day.



"Reagan conservatives" are the complete package. They recognize that consistency and strength are hallmarks in leadership. They understand that a stool stands on three legs and falls with fewer than that. The less shy conservatives are when it comes to policy issues, the more success they will likely enjoy.



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

FDR was Cautious Compared to Obama

Back when I worked for Sen. Gordon Humphrey (R-NH) in the 1980s, there was a saying among members of the Budget Committee he served on and the staff: "A million here and a million there, and eventually you are talking about serious money." Those now appear to be the "good old days" compared to the fiscal mayhem we see today.

Last week President Obama signed a law authorizing the United States Treasury to borrow an additional $1.9 trillion, during that time he did another one of his favorite paradoxical quips in a speech in which he discussed his commitment to frugality. Terrence P. Jeffrey of Human Events, suggests we all review the White House website and review the President's Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) own figures.

I love the title on the top of the OMB page: "A new era of responsibility." This from a budget that is adding to the deficit annually, what was the entire national debt for the first 180 plus years of this republic. The propagandists at the White House have nothing over the advocates of "newspeak" in Orwell's 1984.

Jeffrey observes that:

When calculated by the average annual percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) that Obama will spend during his presidency, he is on track to become the biggest-spending president since 1930, the first year reported on the OMB's historical chart of spending as a percentage of GDP.

When calculated by the average annual percentage of GDP that Obama will borrow during his presidency, he is on track to become the greatest spender and debtor since Franklin D. Roosevelt in terms of real spending.

Thought George Bush was bad? Obama will outspend and out-borrow the man that the Obama Administration routinely uses as a punching bag because of Bush's fiscal irresponsibility and who, when in office, was often seen by friends and foes alike as a "Big Government Republican."

Obama does not enjoy the excuses that FDR had for his dramatic expansion of government. After all, we do recall the Great Depression and World War II. In spite of this, Obama will even out spend this icon of big government.

Spending as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product is the gold standard for determining real spending. Under FDR (from 1933 to 1945), federal spending averaged 19.35 percent of the GDP. Under Obama, the estimates from the President's own Office of Management and Budget is 24.13 percent of the GDP. That is about 25 percent more than FDR's expenditure during the two greatest challenges of the 20th century -- worldwide war and global depression.

What may be most startling is the unique distinction that both Obama and FDR share. According to the OMB's calculations, they are the only two presidents since 1930 to have annual deficits that reached double figures as a percentage of GDP.

In the same vein, Obama will have a deficit this year of 10.6 percent of the Gross Domestic Product; the last time the deficit hit double digits as a percentage of GDP was 1945 -- at the end of World War II.

Jeffrey's most profound observation in the article was in regards to comparing our current challenges with those of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s in the latter's efforts to end the Cold War. Without firing a shot and without having a budget that exceed 6 percent of our GDP, Reagan put the Soviets into bankruptcy and ended the Cold War. Obama is going to have a difficult time explaining the fiscal mess he has created for us.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is also host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650). Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Ronald Reagan Articulated Economic Freedom

This weekend we celebrated the birthday of Ronald Reagan. There is no question that "the Gipper" had his flaws. Government grew under his administration as it has under every other, but Reagan went far in significantly changing the debate over economic freedom.

One of my biggest frustrations is the reckless abandonment by politicians when it comes to articulating the importance of that freedom. In fact, I haven't heard a Presidential candidate build a message on this theme since Ronald Reagan and I believe that Gov. Sarah Palin may be the first national candidate to do such in her Vice Presidential bid in 2008.

On the eve of the Fourth of July, 1987, President Ronald Reagan delivered an address entitled "America's Economic Bill of Rights." This was an important time for our Republic, because in addition to celebrating the birthday of the Declaration of Independence at this time, we were also commemorating the 200th Anniversary of the United States Constitution on that year. I cannot think of a better time to make such a speech and the need for that message is as strong today as in any time in our history..

Reagan stated right from the beginning what he believed about the Founding Fathers view of economics and noted that the American Revolution had a central theme against "No taxation without representation" and that they "knew that the right to earn your own keep and keep what you earn is central to America's understanding of what it means to be free. This country was built by people seeking to support themselves and their families by their own labor, people who treasured the right to work and dispose of their earnings as they saw fit, people who were willing to take economic risks." In making his case, Reagan focused on "four fundamental freedoms" and he bolstered these with several guiding principles.

Those four freedoms are, according to Reagan:

The freedom to work.

The freedom to enjoy the fruits of one's labor.

The freedom to own and control one's property.

The freedom to participate in a free market.

These four principles were fundamental in the building of this country and they have been under attack long before Reagan went into office and are all the more so today.

In order to secure these rights, Reagan advocated ten different initiatives to reach these objectives that included:

"Reduce subsidized government competition with private citizens." Whenever government could use private companies to do government functions, it should, in order to foster real job creation and to reduce bureaucracy on a state level. There should be no need for such concern on the federal level because of the confines of our Constitution.

"The Freedom to Enjoy the Fruits of Your Labor: You have the right to keep what you earn, free from excessive government taxing, spending, and borrowing." The government is waging a war on this right. Some states, such as Michigan, essentially have 50 percent unemployment. The government would rather have that level of suffering than afford people the right to work.

"To protect you from overtaxing by the Government, I will propose as part of the balanced budget amendment submitted to Congress, a requirement for a super majority vote by Congress before your taxes can be raised." I think this was one of the most bold and creative initiatives ever proposed by a President. This strikes at the heart of how our Founding Fathers saw government being conducted. They desired every legislation designed to expand the government to have as much difficulty of passage as possible (this is why they wanted all tax bills to start in the House and not the Senate), this would assist in that effort.

"To protect your right to own and use your property, my administration will pursue our successful efforts in the courts to restore your constitutional rights when the government at any level attempts to take your property through regulation or other means." I don't think Reagan even fully realized how far the reach of government would go in this area. Today, malls are developed in the name of "imminent domain" and people are removed from their property because of birds and "wetlands."

Reagan went on to address welfare reform years before Clinton, the need to strengthen intellectual property rights, and more. The entire speech deserves to be read in its entirety. In our current times, all of our freedoms are endangered in a way we had not seen historically. In a time such as this, we need to be reminded that our economic still freedoms matter.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is also host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650). Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

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.

Political Success without Compromising Principles

I have been watching the political landscape for a long time and got involved in the process at the young age of 17 as someone campaigning for Ronald Reagan and casted my first vote ever for him in 1980 at 18. Over the years I found myself supporting candidates in general elections that I would never support in primaries. I bit into the idea of "the lesser of two evils" which was feeding a movement towards political parties being built on patronage and compromise and not on principle. The current mess we are in today is built on years of good intended people like myself backing candidates who were only taking a slower path to totalitarianism, when we should have been investing in a new political paradigm (not a new party).




The Democratic and Republican parties are merely vehicles. They are recognized organizations with a built-in political apparatus that can get candidates elected. The Democratic Party has become, in my opinion, socialistic. It's principles are so extreme that Barack Obama received the nomination of the Communist Party USA in the 2008 elections (a fact largely ignored by the mainstream media). We might be able to learn a lesson from the Communists. Libertarian and Constitutional parties certainly do not have the luggage of the Communists, but they also lack the legs to make a difference on a large scale. A Republican Party, taken back by those who truly believe in the Constitution could, on the other hand, have value. For that to be the case, however, those of us who support liberty will have to shy away from the sick, co-dependent role that I believe we have been guilty of for years and take a more aggressive and strategic approach.





This approach will take time to see a lasting impact, but not the decades that a new political party will require. Friends of liberty every where will have to take the following steps:

• In this new political paradigm, "party discipline" should be about abiding by the Constitution, not towing a party line that undermines freedom.
• Ask candidates what it means to "defend the Constitution?" If the conversation does not include a discussion of Article I, Section 8 (which lists the very limited powers of the Federal government) and the Tenth Amendment (which restricts the government to those powers listed in Article I, Section 8), the conversation should be over. Certainly educate people about the Constitution, but don't believe that Congress is suitable for "on the job training."
• Become very familiar with the Constitution yourself. How can we hold candidates accountable if we do not know the limits of government?
• Remind the candidate often of what the Constitution allows.
• Work aggressively in the primaries for candidates who support the US Constitution literally and not in word alone.
• This is particularly true in the US House of Representatives which is far easier to get people elected and those who are conservative are far more in number than their colleagues in the Senate.
• If the candidates in your district do not understand their Constitutional obligations, work for candidates outside of your district. Don't let any candidate take you or your vote for granted. If your candidate loses in the primary, support a candidate elsewhere, in time or money, who is a believer in the Constitution.

This approach will produce winners both politically and philosophically, which is greatly needed in our time. It allows those who support liberty to do so without becoming Don Quixotes, merely chasing windmills.

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.

Sizing up the Glenn Beck, Katie Couric Interview

Part of the brilliance of the man known as Glenn Beck is his capacity to stay in the headlines. With that, it was not a surprise that the first interview that CBS aired of Katie Couric's new online series was with the controversial talk show personality. At the opening of the show you see a visual of Couric with photos of many personalities that we can expect on future shows behind her. I believe that many, if not most, of those interviews have already taken place. She chose Beck in order to attract viewers and she knew from that interview that he brought something that would catch viewers attention: his controversial remarks about Sen. John McCain. During the program he said he preferred Hillary Clinton over Obama (no surprise) and Barack Obama over John McCain. This raised more than a few eyebrows.

Republican Presidential candidate John McCain was never a conservative darling. The Arizona Senator has long been a rogue and has his name on more bills with liberal darlings like Kennedy and Feingold, than of Republican standard bearers. Be it his controversial views on immigration or his opposition to free speech in an effort to curtail the ability of individuals to support candidates, McCain was always more loved by the media than by the rank and file of the party. He won his party's nomination because of the huge number of independent voters and a media continuously singing his praises.

I'm among the many who has criticized Senator McCain, although I greatly admire his service to his country, I was always troubled by the radical directions he was willing to take this nation. Fundamentally, McCain was no more willing to defend the principles of the Constitution than Obama, he just had different priorities in regards to his desire for change. In spite of this, I would find it very difficult to say I supported Obama over McCain.

Radio host Mark Levin has immediately gone on the attack and John McCain has treated the remark as a compliment. I wanted to make a couple of observations of my own on the subject:

• Electing John McCain would mean more "wilderness wanderings" for the GOP. The Republican Party is in desperate need of reform. A candidate like McCain would only slow down that goal.


• Remember Jimmy Carter? There were two people that made me leave my family's strong liberal and Democrat roots. The most obvious one was Ronald Reagan, who is one of my favorite modern presidents. The second, was Jimmy Carter who could not have demonstrated more clearly how great the need was for our nation to go in another direction. Obama is going to likely have the exact same effect, except he is Jimmy Carter on Steroids.

The problem many observers are having is can we survive Obama's term? Worse still, could we survive an Obama reelection? The damage he has done, the numerous battle fronts he pursues, and his desire to create a paradigm shift in the way we govern are making us all concerned about the nation's future. On the other hand, many feel as though we are on the eve of a second American Revolution. This stage was set by the radical policies of the Obama Administration.

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.

"No New Taxes" Meet Barack Obama

In the eyes of most people, including political pundits, scholars, and every day voters, the beginning of the end of the George H.W. Bush presidency began in June 1990 when he decided to raise taxes. Raising taxes is the occupational hazard of a politician. Even my favorite tax cutter, Ronald Reagan, found himself doing such near the end of his second term. For George Bush, it was absolutely fatal.

In 1988 Bush was desperately trying to make the case that he could carry the Reagan mantle. Conservatives have long been suspicious of Bush's tax cutting credentials. In 1980 Bush described Reagan's tax cut objectives as "Voodoo Economics." Many rank and file Republicans feared that the candidate of 1980 would become the President of 1989. During the 1988 Republican National Convention, Bush tried to placate those concerns with a paragraph that would at first lift up his candidacy and then later haunt his presidency. During that speech, Bush told the enthusiastic crowd: "And I'm the one who will not raise taxes. My opponent now says he'll raise them as a last resort, or a third resort. But when a politician talks like that, you know that's one resort he'll be checking into. My opponent, my opponent won't rule out raising taxes. But I will. And the Congress will push me to raise taxes and I'll say no. And they'll push, and I'll say no, and they'll push again, and I'll say, to them, ‘Read my lips: no new taxes.’ Many believed that statement both sealed the deal and cursed his presidency when he turned back on his pledge in less than two years.

Fast forward to 2008 and candidate Obama has pledged that the middle class would not see an increase in taxes. In fact, we were told that the vast majority of those making less than $250,000 would actually receive a tax cut. This was a constant theme of the Obama campaign and we were even given a nifty calculator on the Obama website so people could see how much they would save under the Obama plan. Fox News reports that is about to change: "'We will not get this economy back on track, recovery will be not strong and sustained, unless we ... can convince the American people that we're going to have the will to bring these deficits down once recovery is firmly established,' Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said on ABC's 'This Week.' Asked point blank whether it was right to suggest it is a matter of when, not if, taxes will be raised, Geithner responded, 'It is absolutely right.'" The Associated Press went on to point out that Geithner would "not rule out tax increases for the middle class." The Administration can't afford to do such because the middle class has the vast majority of the taxable income "available."

According to Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal, "The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul­dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes."

When Obama begins to go after this "treasure chest" of dollars, his positive polling numbers will go the exact opposite direction as the unemployment figures. The amount of days that will be left in his administration will likely become very numbered indeed.

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.

Sarah Palin's Odd Move

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin shocked the political world by deciding to resign from office by the end of July. The blogosphere is making assessments about her decision based on their opinions of her. If they like her, it is some how "brilliant." If they don't, she is a "complete moron." I want to take this a little deeper.

For disclosure sake, I'm a fan of Gov. Palin. She is the first major political candidate to fully embrace and epitomize Reagan's "3 legged stool" of limited government, pro family, and national security since the Gipper himself. Furthermore, she is the only candidate in years who seems to understand the morality of economics. In fact, in her resignation speech she mentioned that the stimulus package was "immoral" because of its redistributive nature and control it placed on the states. You simply don't hear that from politicians today, but that message is desperately needed.

Now, with that disclosure, I simply don't understand her decision at all. I read her speech several times and watched it as well, and the more I studied it, the less I "got it." With the information I have before us today, I have to come to one of the following conclusions:

• She couldn't stand the heat of constant scrutiny on the family and her and simply needed to get out. This may be noble, but it likely spells the end of a powerful political career. Furthermore, if they can't handle the governorship, they certainly can't handle the White House or even the Senate, where they would deal with the constant questions by the much larger and more hostile cadre of journalists in DC. Than again, she could take a decade off and have her kids much older and she would certainly be young enough to run. She could rightly hope they will forget her resignation, but they will also likely forget her.


• A much bigger scandal that will "stick" is about to come upon her. Palin has been plagued with scandals since August of 2008, about the time she received the GOP nod for VP. None of them have had any staying power and they all appear to be trumped up to discredit her. You get the sense with this announcement, that "the other shoe" is going to drop and it is going to be big.


• She wants a fresh start. Tired of getting exonerated of one scandal to make room for another, she might think this is the best way to create a new beginning. She will be free to travel the country and make large amounts of money as a speaker, accumulate the financial largess to run for higher office and build a name around the country. Barack Obama and George W. Bush were the only Presidential candidates since John F. Kennedy to have a full time job while running for President and get elected. Furthermore, Reagan, Carter, and Clinton were former governors when they ran, making it a great springboard for office. The difference between Palin and these others, were the circumstances of which she left.
  

My concern is that no woman or minority is going to have a prayer dealing with the mainstream media if they are Conservative. The left tries to place these groups on a plantation, stating they would have nothing without liberal policies. This is a very narrow view indeed, but those who break it will suffer.

The jury will be deliberating on this for quite some time. However, she is going to have a difficult time distancing herself from accusations of being unable to finish things, or being scandal plagued, or not tough enough, or several other things that will do nothing to help her case as a GOP front runner.

See Kevin Price's new video commentary on the subject here.

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.

So What Could we Lose in Health Care Savings?

The Los Angeles Times reported today that "President Obama, joined by an array of groups pledging to cut the cost of health care, said today the commitment that insurers, hospitals, doctors and others have made to saving money will help him achieve the health care reform he is pursuing on Capitol Hill."

The Washington Times has taken a rather dismissive tone to the actions, stating "The pledge provided few specifics on how the costs savings would be achieved or monitored. And many industry groups remain fiercely opposed to a central plank of the Obama health reform plan — the creation of a publicly funded health insurance plan to compete with private insurers and ensure universal health coverage."

Many will argue, including this writer, that any such pledges by the health care industry will likely be more verbal than monetary. This is all the more the case when you factor in the huge amounts of money the industry will have to spend to fight the Administration's socialized medicine program.

This government-private "collaboration" has problems on several levels:

• Where does an administration that has spent more in 100 days than any Administration up to Ronald Reagan spent in their entire terms, have the right to lecture anyone on fiscal responsibility?


• These dollars are being spent on something and there are always trade offs. Will the proposed $2 trillion come from cutting waste and bureaucracy? Or will it come from innovation, salaries, patient care, and other legitimate functions of health care.


• The fundamental question of the "role of government" is again, completely ignored in this "agreement."

Right now this agreement is little more than another example of Obama attempting to do "something," even if it results in little or nothing. It is an example of rhetoric without substance. The solution to America's health care problems will be found in the market place. At some point, that is where Obama needs to seriously search. What works in our economy are things like competition, reasonable risk, innovation, and economies of scale. These are found in the market, not in the government.

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. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

I Remember Jack Kemp

The Jack Kemp I was Fortunate to Know

In 1979 I started getting interested in politics. I had every intention to cast my first vote, at the age of 18 in November of 1980. My interest in the ideas of free enterprise and the importance of a free society flourished when I stumbled on a recently released book entitled An American Renaissance. The book, by a former professional football player turned politician named Jack Kemp, plotted the future of the Republican party for years to come and described with prophetic clarity what would become know later as "Reaganomics."

After that book I moved from "interested" to "committed" and found myself an outsider in a family which had a FDR dad and a socialist (right off the boat from England) mom. My life has never been the same. I knew of Kemp from his book and the news, I received the privilege of actually knowing him shortly thereafter.

In 1980 I found myself in the role as a regional coordinator in the Students for Reagan campaign in Texas. It was "heady" times for an 18 year old because our efforts (including our region) were enjoying national media attention. Unfortunately for me, it also drew attention from Abilene Christian University where I was a student. As a group we decided to have a demonstration at a Jimmy Carter rally coming soon and we told the media, which in turn asked questions at my school.

During class one day someone walked in and handed my professor a note from Dean Beauchamp, who was the Vice President of Student Affairs. The professor was a friend of mine as well as my teacher and he turned slightly pale and looked at me. "Kevin, Dean Beauchamp would like to see you immediately after class." If he was slightly pale, I turned white as a sheet. Mr. Beauchamp was the enforcer on campus, the equivalent of the assistant principal in a middle school. Visits with him often preceded departures from the school.

I said, "May I go now?" He shook his head yes and said, "See me after your meeting" with genuine concern or morbid curiosity. When I got to his office there was little wait (thank God) and was quickly in his office. He cut straight to the chase, "Kevin, this is a Christian university and we expect our students to not embarrass us, we don't like the idea of you protesting our President." I said, "Oh no Dean Beauchamp, we are having a pro-Reagan rally." He stared at me and didn't smile. He said, "It is a free country, I can't stop you, and although I like Reagan, I will not tolerate this school being embarrassed, understand?" I understood.

On the day of the event we had media coverage from TV, radio, and newspapers and the local Republican Party publicly criticized my efforts because they were independent and drew far more attention than the establishment party received. Congressman Jack Kemp came the day after that event and got his hands on one of those newspapers. At a party for Reagan that night which included Kemp, I got an invitation from the Congressman to attend. When I got there, it was awkward. The party regulars had wished I chose to not attend. Kemp arrived fashionably late and he immediately asked "who is Kevin Price?" I sheepishly looked up and he motioned me to come over to him where he patted me on the back and shook my hand. He turned to the GOP county chair and said "we need more heroes like this to save the future of this country. If anyone is not happy with his efforts, they need to answer to me. Any questions?" Now the poor county chair turned white and was completely silent. Kemp turned and whispered to me, "I heard you were having problems at school too, do you need me to make a call?" I pulled my jaw up and whispered "no." I think he may have made a call because Dean Beauchamp later grabbed me in the hall and told me how proud he was of what I was doing for our country.

That was the kind of person Kemp was. I grew to disagree with him on some issues, but he entirely changed the debate in Washington and we went from a country that saw high taxes as "patriotic" to one in which individuals should fight for lower rates. In fact, I think he was the most influential American in the 20th Century to never get elected President. But as in the case of his conversation with me, Kemp was very real and interested in every day people, like me.

Football player, Congressman, Secretary of HUD, Vice President nominee of the GOP. He was a great American. He will be missed.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on CNN 650 (M-F at 11 am), AOL Radio, and CBS Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Ronald Reagan and Economic Freedom

One of my biggest frustrations is the reckless abandonment by politicians when it comes to articulating the importance of economic freedom. In fact, I haven't heard a Presidential candidate build a message on this theme since Ronald Reagan and I believe that Gov. Sarah Palin may be the first national candidate to do such in her Vice Presidential bid.

On the eve of the Fourth of July, 1987, President Ronald Reagan delivered an address entitled "America's Economic Bill of Rights." This was an important time for our Republic, because in addition to celebrating the birthday of the Declaration of Independence at this time, we were also celebrating the 200th Anniversary of the United States Constitution on that year. I cannot think of a better time or make such an address.

Reagan stated right from the beginning what he believed about the Founding Fathers view of economics and noted that the American Revolution had a central theme against "No taxation without representation" and that they "knew that the right to earn your own keep and keep what you earn is central to America’s understanding of what it means to be free. This country was built by people seeking to support themselves and their families by their own labor, people who treasured the right to work and dispose of their earnings as they saw fit, people who were willing to take economic risks." In making his case, Reagan focused on "four fundamental freedoms" and he bolstered these with several guiding principles.

Those four freedoms are, according to Reagan:

The freedom to work.

The freedom to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor.

The freedom to own and control one’s property.

The freedom to participate in a free market.

These four principles were fundamental in the building of this country and they have been under attack before Reagan went into office and are all the more so today.

In order to secure these rights, Reagan advocated ten different initiatives to reach these objectives that included:

• "Reduce subsidized government competition with private citizens." Whenever government could use private companies to do government functions, it should, in order to foster real job creation and to reduce bureaucracy.



• "The Freedom to Enjoy the Fruits of Your Labor: You have the right to keep what you earn, free from excessive government taxing, spending, and borrowing." Now more than ever, this fundamental right is endangered.



• "To protect you from overtaxing by the Government, I will propose as part of the balanced budget amendment submitted to Congress, a requirement for a super majority vote by Congress before your taxes can be raised." I think this was one of the most bold and creative initiatives ever proposed by a President. Unfortunately, it never became a reality. It is needed now more than ever.



• "To protect your right to own and use your property, my administration will pursue our successful efforts in the courts to restore your constitutional rights when the government at any level attempts to take your property through regulation or other means." I don't think Reagan even fully realized how far the reach of government would go in this area. Today, malls are developed in the name of "imminent domain" and people are removed from their property because of birds and "wetlands."

Reagan went on to address welfare reform years before Clinton, the need to strengthen intellectual property rights, and more. The entire speech deserves to be read in its entirety. In our current times, all of our freedoms are endangered in a way we had not seen historically. In a time such as this, we need to be reminded that our economic freedoms matter.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on CNN 650 (M-F at 11 am), AOL Radio, and CBS Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Three Mistakes the Tea Party Movement must Avoid

The Tea Party movement is a spontaneous, passionate, and in many respects, disorganized effort to restore those principles that made the United States the greatest country in the history of the world. Like many mass movements in its early stages, it is poised to rewrite the future of this Republic, or to be a mere footnote in US history. Decisions this movement is making today, will have everything to do with its legacy tomorrow.

Currently, there is plenty discussion about what the Tea Party should do. I want to focus on three things it needs to avoid.

• The Tea Party must never become partisan. Fewer people identify themselves with a party now than at any time in US history. The reason why is because the major parties have failed us miserably. The Reagan Revolution wasn't about partisan politics, but important principles regarding the way government viewed the economy, family, and national security. The 1994 "Contract with America" movement was actually motivated over issues of accountability. You had check kiting Members of Congress who wrote bad checks without consequences and a Post office Scandal (Members would turn their huge allocation of stamps into cash and even included drug laundering) that brought down many Democrats, including the Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee (Dan Rostenkowski). The current Tea Party is also about accountability, which is very similar to the 1994 elections and needs to maintain that nonpartisan appeal.


• The Tea Party must not become a single issue movement. On the one hand, Americans have every right to make this movement about taxation. The US has the second highest tax rates on businesses than any industrialized country in the world and the pressure on taxpayers in general are only growing. But there is a widespread attack on America's freedom that include excessive regulations, pressure from organized labor that is poised to damage the US competitive advantage, the disenfranchisement of our political freedoms (thanks to Obama's political antics, e.g., the movement of the Census Bureau to the White House in an effort to effect Congressional Districts, the attack on members of Obama's own party who won't vote lock step with the Administration, etc.), and more. If the movement only worries about taxes, it will be separating itself from those concerned about other issues and validating those who believe that people in this movement only care about money. It isn't about money nearly as much as it is about freedom. That includes economic freedom.


• The Tea Party must not become about personalities. Right now there is jockeying in the movement all over the country by individuals who want to lead it going forward. If a single individual rises to fill the role, the movement will likely be in trouble. That person will probably have a partisan history that will make him or her easy to dismiss by the movement's opponents. I'm reminded of the early days of the Reagan Revolution, which was led by people who were "mad as hell," like Eddie Chiles in Texas and Howard Jarvis in California. These were individuals who were leaders in business, not politics, and had no further agenda then restoring America's freedoms. In spite of how powerful of a personality Reagan had, he was, in many respects, the epitome of the movement that elected him, rather than the creator of it.

There are, I am sure, other pitfalls the Tea Party should avoid, but by being ever diligent on these three important areas, the Tea Party will be a force to be reckoned with for years to come and should leave a positive and powerful impact on the future of this 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.

The More You Tax Something, the less You get of It

From the time I was 16 I was passionate about the future freedom of our country. Early on I came across a book entitled An American Renaissance, by then Congressman Jack Kemp. Kemp was an early architect of Reaganomics and an important soldier in the "Reagan Revolution."

One of the concepts conveyed in that book is that "the more you tax something, the less you get of it." Also, "the more you subsidize something, the more you get of it." Those simple words are at once a "no kidding" moment and, at the same time, really quite profound. That philosophy was being thoroughly violated in the world of Government in the 1970s under Jimmy Carter and it is all the more so the case in the world we live in today.

The New York Times Headlines states that "Jobless Rate Hits 8.5% as March Payrolls Fall by 663,000." This headline has followed months of business owners voting with their pink slips at the election results of last November. This is due to the fact that candidate Barack Obama made it perfectly clear that he intended to raise taxes on job creation.

Because of the Democrat's control of the Congress and the position of Obama, President Bush's tax cuts were not renewed. Those cuts had a direct effect on those who create jobs. Because of the failure to renew those cuts there was a marked increase in the Capital Gains tax, which will significantly undermine the economic activity that leads to more jobs. Than there is Obama's own proposal to dramatically increase the taxes of those who make $250,00 or more a year -- the very people who create most of the jobs. Add the many other taxes and regulations (which are very similar to a tax in their results) they are adding on the economy and we have a government waging a war on employment.

So Obamanomics are increasing unemployment by penalizing job creation, so what is it subsidizing? A great place to look is Obama's recent pork package also known as "stimulus" and the impact it would have on the various states, such as Mississippi. According to Fox News, Obama's measure would force states to allow people to receive welfare, even if they are not willing to work. For example, Barbour noted, that if the state of Mississippi wants to receive $54 million in increased unemployment benefits, they will have to expand the benefits to those not actively looking for employment or willing to take employment if offered. Barbour's decision not to take it led the state to receive less than $4 million of the expanded benefits.

In sum, Obama is taxing employment and subsidizing unemployment. The current headlines could be many things, but not surprising.

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.

"Morning in America" Replaced by "Nightmare on Main Street"

In 1980 and through out his two terms in office, the theme of the Reagan Administration was "Morning in America" and it could not be more accurate. I think back to the late 1970s when I was a teenager growing up under Jimmy Carter. In the late 1970s more countries had fallen to Communism than at any time since immediately after World War II. So called “unaligned” countries, particularly in Africa and South America fell under the grips of Communism. On the economic front, Americans were facing multiple demons: double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and double digit interest rates. When Communist tyrants invaded Afghanistan, the US response was to not play games with the Soviets in the Olympics, a choice that punished our athletes and the untold number of Americans who would love to see them compete. Carter would try to make us feel better about our plight by doing fireside chats wearing a sweater (his subtle way of reminding us there was an energy crisis as well) and spending his time blaming Americans for our various problems. The crisis, we were told, was “a malaise” that had become rampant among the American people. Americans had become depressed and needed to believe in themselves again in order to be great again.

Ronald Reagan brought significant change to the American landscape. On the domestic front, Americans had been plagued by a welfare state that expanded under the Johnson Administration a couple of decades before. Those who did not want to work, did not have to. Government was entitled to as much of the public's money as it deemed necessary. Paying excessive taxes was considered "patriotic" and complaining about them was un-American. Democrats at this time enjoyed the jovial position of being the Santa Claus of the Welfare State and Republicans were relegated to being the scrooges financing government programs. It was no surprise that the Republican Party had been the minority party since 1932.

Ronald Reagan said to work was noble and to not work was a disgrace if one was able. Ronald Reagan declared that the government was taking the people's money and that is was the Congress, not the American people, that needed to be held accountable. His massive tax cuts in 1981 led to the longest period of prosperity since the booming 1920s. More importantly, Reagan changed the way people thought about government and became to believe that monies kept in the hands of the public was always better than money in the hands of government. In no time Republicans became the party of defenders of the taxpayer and Democrats became seen as thieves for those unwilling to work for themselves. In 1980 more than 30% described themselves as “card carrying Democrats.” By the end of the Reagan Administration, this number was down to single digits. Reagan changed America’s political demographics more than any person with the exception of Franklin Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln.

Today, "Morning in America" almost seems like ancient history. Instead we are facing a "Nightmare on Main Street." Barack Obama is socializing medicine, destroying the energy industry, spreading a cancer through out the banking industry, destroying incentives for those who work, and is increasing entitlements for those who will not work. He is raising taxes on those who make $250,000 a year and more, as well as on those who drive cars, smoke cigarettes, use health care, have a job, or use money (thanks to his inflationary policies).

The Obama Administration promises to create a situation very similar to the one that catapulted Reagan into the White House. Even today, friends of liberty are wondering who could help fill the void. The challenge for us is to end the nightmare and usher a new era of prosperity and freedom that we have not seen in years. The time to begin that process is now.

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.

Is There an Upside to Obama?

Friends of liberty everywhere are up in arms over the dangerous rise of Barack Obama. People are storing up guns, discussing relocation to other countries, and are even stashing away cash in anticipation that things will likely get worse instead of better under this Administration. In fact, I'm one of many who believe that Obama wants things to get worst so that he can promote an ever expanding role for government.

With all the alarm, is there an upside to Barack Obama as President? I think so and here are a few examples:

• Barack Obama is one of the most polarising politicians in US history. For the first time in decades, the political camps have been very well defined. This creates clarity that I believe is long over due.


• Because we have Obama and his Democratic colleagues in Congress, it will be very easy for the American people to determine who is responsible for the direction we are going. Obama owns this economy and the direction the nation is going as a whole.


• I, for one, am delighted to not have faux Conservative in the White House. I have long stop defending Bush, but the media continually described Bush as someone who represents the Right. His insane and at times unAmerican policies were often projected as "Conservative," which could not be further from the case. Let the Democrats defend Obama for while!


• This situation is forcing politicians to define who they are and what they believe in like we haven't seen in years. This was painful for many, an epiphany for others. We need many to have life changing experiences and we need more to be accountable.


• This is forcing true believers in liberty to stop being co-dependents to liberal Republicans who have destroyed our reputation, if not our integrity. It appears we are not taking it any more. It is about time.
  

In spite of all this "up side," those who support free enterprise, limited government, and pro-family values have plenty to make them concerned. Surviving Barack Obama and over coming the obvious addiction the general population has of government will be no small task. But instead of being at the end of America's greatness, our best days may be yet to come. In 1979 I was getting involved in politics as a teenager at a time that seemed to me was our darkets hour. Our international reputation was laughable, inflation and unemployment were at double digits, and another country seemed to be falling under Communist influence every few months. At the time it seemed like the sun was falling on a great nation. In reaitly, it was a dawn of a new era. Our best days could still be ahead of us. That choice is ours.

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

Tea Parties are Reminders of Howard Jarvis and Eddie Chiles

When I first got involved in politics as a teenager in the late 1970s, it was during a massive tax revolt against a government that had grown out of control. The highest income tax rate was hovering around 70 percent. This attack on capital formation did not only weaken the economy, but under minded freedom itself and the ability for individuals to pursue their aspirations.

The man who came to the rescue and who fought the battle of middle America who were being pounded by taxes was Ronald Reagan. But, in many respects, Reagan was a product of what was going on in the political culture at that time. For decades Americans were told that the patriotic thing to do was to pay taxes. Many more taxes. Reagan believed the patriotic thing was to hold government accountable for its spending and that the American people fundamentally knew how to manage their money better than government.

Reagan's message resonated because of individuals like Howard Jarvis in California who led the Proposition 13 drive that changed the way people would be taxed and Eddie Chiles of Texas who said that he -- like millions of other Americans -- was "mad as hell" over what the government was doing to American taxpayers.

In the June 5, 1978 edition of Time Magazine you find Howard Jarvis on the cover with his fist in the air. At that moment a grass root movement had finally received mainstream credibility. The article in the magazine stated that "rising taxes are a burning concern all over the U.S. In California, they are nothing less than an obsession, and small wonder." About the movement's leader, it stated that "the furor has turned Howard Jarvis, 75, into a statewide folk hero to millions of Californians, a demagogic devil to others. A retired millionaire manufacturer, Jarvis has been railing against high taxes for 15 years. Jarvis, whose face looks a bit like a California mudslide, has been demolishing debating opponents with his oddly compelling blend of verbosity, profanity and humbug." His supporters included the great economist, Milton Friedman, who did TV commercials for free and it stated that "former Governor Ronald Reagan has rallied behind Jarvis." That last line was an understatement. In June in 1978 when this article was written, Reagan was considered a political "has been" and a perennial candidate who would not have a prayer if he ran for President again in 1980. This tax revolt movement became a major driver that helped to put Reagan in office.

A little further south you had a gentleman I knew named Eddie Chiles, who also rose up in business (while Jarvis was in manufacturing, Chiles was in the energy field) to become an advocate of smaller government who also rose to the scene in the late 1970s. The New York Times pointed out in an obituary for Chiles that "as a businessman, he shared his views in the late 1970's, usually about some government affront to business, through a series of radio commercials in which he proclaimed, 'I'm Eddie Chiles, and I'm mad." The commercials were broadcast on 650 stations in 14 states where Western (Company of North America, which he owned) had operations and spawned almost a million bumper stickers reading, 'I'm mad too, Eddie.'" Eddie helped fuel the flames that led to the rise of Reagan.

People are mad as hell today and you see this in the rise of the new tea parties. Among the thousands who are going to the streets we will find our next Jarvis and Chiles. Also, on the political landscape, we will find the right elected officials who will carry this message to Washington. Some may be merely running for Congress in 2010, others may already be in office, but they all have far more to be mad about today than we did in the 1970s when the anti-tax movement began. The federal budget in 2008 was $2.7 trillion. The government has increased that budget by more than fifty percent in the last six months alone. This will be paid for with funny money (inflation) and by raising the taxes of those who make more than $250,000 a year (the same people who create most of the jobs). I'm mad too, Eddie and so are millions of other Americans.

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.

Michael Steele: Trendy or Substantive?

After one of the most contested races for GOP Chairman in years, Michael Steele was chosen to lead his party. Why anyone would want that job is beyond me, but he pursued it with a vengeance and he now has the post.

The question many will ask is, why was he chosen. Is he the GOP's answer to Barack Obama? Are they saying, as a party, that "we can choose a black man too"? There is no doubt that he is an articulate and successful African American who certainly has the biography that is worthy of the post, but is he the best person for the party in the times we are in today?

Pros of Steele

The new media is playing a bigger role in politics now than ever and that is only expected to grow. Steele is a huge fan of social networking websites (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) and used them even towards the goal of getting elected as Chairman of the party.

Furthermore, he is extremely articulate and conveys an image of the Republican Party that most people simply have not seen else where, but certainly needs portrayed if it is going to be anything more than a minor party. When Steele discusses the needs of minorities and issues of importance to them, it resonates in a very sincere way.

Cons of Steele

We keep hearing that the former Lt. Governor of Maryland is very "conservative." This is one of the statements that demands an asterisk or a disclaimer. He is "conservative" by media standards and the reporters who interview him. He is "conservative" by African American standards, which is a population that tends to be over whelming liberal. He is "conservative" by Maryland standards, which is one of the most liberal states in the union. He is not nearly as conservative, however, as the rank and file of his party that is crucial in electoral success.

The biggest problem facing the GOP is that it is becoming increasingly like "Democrats Light." Republicans are socialist, they are just not as socialistic as Democrats. We are soft on social issues, just not as liberal as Democrats. Some where along the way Republicans became convinced that the big thing the GOP can do is be a "softer" version of the Democrats. That is what the media, which is clearly in the Democrats pocket, has encouraged for years.

The GOP has always enjoyed its biggest level of success when it acted more like Republicans than Democrats. The stronger the positions that the party has enjoyed on free markets (particularly taxes), strong defense, and pro family, the greater the electoral wins. I believe Republicans need to restore its Reagan roots and becoming the party of success it use to be. I don't know if Michael Steele can help the GOP reach that objective.

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.

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.

The Gift of Ronald Reagan for Christmas

As a parent I love to watch my children enjoy the presents they receive. When you have as many kids as my wife and I, gifts to one another are simply not a priority. The most memorable gift I may have received was from a couple we know (Archie and Robin Arredondo). There is a huge group of friends that participates as "secret Santas" made up of a families we know. Archie was my secret Santa. We know around Thanksgiving who has who. A few weeks ago, Archie and Robin asked my wife what I like. Wisely, she said "anything with Ronald Reagan." She naturally thought -- as would I -- that I might get a great tribute book (like my daughter gave me a couple of years ago) or a T-Shirt (like my sons gave me on a Father's Day). Archie would have none of it, he went on a quest at eBay.

What I received was a Ronald Reagan action figure. Move over GI Joe, here comes the Gipper. Okay, it was more like a talking doll with a push button instead of a string, but it was one of the most thoughtful gifts I have ever received and it is the type of gift that keeps on giving. Americans, everywhere, should be familiar with the quotes of Reagan and this gift was full of them. The following are a few examples from the "Great Communicator."


* "Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."


The statement was even more powerful when delivered two decades ago when our primary enemy -- the Soviet Union -- had become weakened after decades of brainwashing and lies from its bloodthirsty regime.



* "Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States."


Where was wisdom such as this when the federal government decided to bailout Wall Street, while taxing the backs of Main Street?



* "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."


Bravo! Most parents enjoy giving their children the fruits of our freedom, but are not doing enough to pass it on to the next generation. This is a message that must be conveyed.


* "The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."


One of my favorite Reagan quotes.


When I was a kid the "in thing" was a GI Joe action figure. I think every child should be given a Reagan action figure so we can raise another generation of adults who enjoy freedom. A Reagan action figure is the gift that keeps on giving.

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'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.