Barack Obama's Anniversary

It seems much longer, but it has only been a little over 12 months since Barack obama became the President of the United States. For those who oppose the radical shift in the way our country is governed, this administration has been frightening to watch. President Obama has pursued a fast track for socializing the greatest health care system in the world, has used government subsidies to control major parts of the US economy (even firing CEOs), has added to the deficit at levels equaling our entire national debt just a couple of decades ago, and has created international instability due to a foreign policy based on indecision.

In recent months, the bad dream suffered by Obama's critics has become the President's nightmare as well. There are numerous examples:

In spite of the speed that the Democrats have applied in its pursuit of "health care reform," White House Adviser David Axelrod has declared that the Scott Brown win in Massachusetts was a result of "going too slow." Reality check: Massachusetts has been under this type of care when it passed its own bill under Romney for the past five years and the people want less and not more of that type of medicine.

The governor's race in New Jersey -- a solidly blue state -- has fallen into the hands of the GOP.
Virginia's governor has been "purple" for years and is open season to either party, but is now in the GOP's hands.

Two leaders of the Democratic party in the Senate -- Dorgan of North Dakota and Dodd of Connecticut -- have decided to retire rather than face a serious GOP challenge. One Democratic Congressman, Parker Griffith of Alabama, has actually switched parties.

The mainstream media does not seem to get it. Esquire magazine wrote an article about Obama that read like a teen magazine of its favorite celebrity. In the January issue there is an article entitled "Papa in Chief," in which the President's frequent indecisions are praised as deliberateness while many Americans see it as nothing short of dangerous. The article essentially sees Obama as a very paternal character indeed. Meanwhile, US deaths in Afghanistan doubled in 2009 as the President spent most of the year determining what -- if anything -- he would do about the insurgents' growing violence. I doubt our troops would consider this the "thoughtfulness" of a fatherly figure.

This administration spent much of 2009 scrambling in many different directions in an effort to get some of its sweeping legislation passed. As a result, many Americans saw the President's agenda as more political than practical and more about ideology than people. With Senators retiring, and seats changing parties even before the off-year election takes place, Obama is in serious trouble. Politically, this president is looking more and more like a "dead man walking."

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.

State of the Union: The Brief, But Powerful, Case for the Tax Cuts

The President's State of the Union speech, substantively, was fairly typical. "We need to balance the budget in the next five years" is something we have heard for six years and this time Bush can blame others if (when) it doesn't happen since he will be long out of office.

I will say that I am glad that he doesn't see tax increases as part of the solution to the deficit problem. One thing the President did articulate, but was largely ignored by the "talking head" news pundits, was that the deficit has been decreasing rapidly over the last few years. This without a tax increase? The economic growth driven by the tax cut has created more taxable activity, leading to a reduced deficit. Why would Democrats increase tax rates, which would likely reduce business tax activity, and thus reduce revenues? It is the politics of greed. They would rather crush economic growth, even if it hurts revenues and jobs, as long as it also hurts the very wealthy. It simply doesn't make sense. There is a quote, attributed to Abraham Lincoln, which was "you can't help America's poor by making America poor." This statement should be on the walls of both Houses of Congress.

The Democrats claim they have no problem with tax cuts, they just want them geared towards the middle or lower classes. These tax cuts are called "demand side" cuts, which leads to people buying a new stereo or TV. The President's tax cuts, on the other hand, are geared towards "supply" and lead to great economic formation, job creation, increased business activity, and (eventually) higher tax revenues, which we are seeing is true in the Bush cuts. I hope Americans are not fooled by the rhetoric. The Democrats tax approach will hurt more poor than help, destroy more jobs than create, and hurt revenue rather than generate.

If people are having a hard time understanding how cutting taxes increases revenue, just think of Wal Mart. Wal Mart has among the lowest price points for any retail company in the world, yet it is also the most profitable store of its kind. The lower cost per item, leads to more items sold, and then higher revenue. The same is the case for tax cuts. Such policies reduce the cost of business, leads to higher production, lowers prices, more items purchased, and higher revenue. Tax cuts work, let's keep them working for America.

Reflecting on the State of the Union

President Bush delivered his 6th State of the Union address to less than exciting crowds. In fact, the grand daddy of long speeches actually seemed some what short this year. The main reason why was the incredible restraint exercised by the audience when it came to applause. It seems that in past speeches 30 minutes to an hour were consumed in such out bursts, that was not the case this year.

The speech itself was strong in style and enjoyed some substance; although you clearly had the sense that the President knew he was not among friends. I almost think, with the rash of candidates using the Web to announce their candidacy, that Bush probably should have used the same vehicle for the State of the Union. Instead of the President having to have to make the long trip to meet with the hostile body, they could have just put a large screen TV on the wall and he could have literally talked down to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats. Just think how honest he could be in his assessment of the situation of our country.

Unfortunately, if he had done such, the President could not have the opportunity (like the one in the photo above) in which he and the Speaker arm wrestled before the speech. I believe the Vice President overheard the President saying, "if you win, you get a minimum wage increase; if I win I get to keep my tax cuts" or something like that. I didn't hear who won, but you can see that Speaker Pelosi is clearly cheating.

I will talk more about the substance of the presentation itself in the next week or so, but as far as the speech itself, it was fine and it drew ratings that we hadn't seen for such an Address in years. The American people still seem interested and open minded about the future of our country. Let's hope Congress is too.