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.

Obama's Critics are also in the White House

Criticism for the Obama Administration's economic agenda is hitting very close to home. Martin Feldstein, an advisor to the President on economic issues and Harvard University professor has become openly critical of the President's health care agenda. In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal (aptly titled "ObamaCare's Crippling Deficits"), Feldstein states that "the higher taxes, debt payments and interest rates needed to pay for health reform mean lower living standards."

Feldstein has been an advisor to both Republicans and Democrats, but is known as a proponent of huge "stimulus packages" during economic decline. In spite of this, Obama probably did not make a particularly smart choice in picking the fiercely independent Feldstein. The one time advisor to Ronald Reagan publicly warned that president of the negative implications of the deficits in the 1980s. Those deficits were nothing compared to those provided in Obama's budget. His deficits would last years after the recession is over and in spite of the massive tax increases that promises to accompany them. The Democrats correctly criticized Bush's deficits. Feldstein notes that Obama's deficits, because of its expensive health care agenda will reach $9.3 trillion -- more than twice the amount of the previous administration.

In an earlier article in the Washington Post, Feldstein noted that "For the 85 percent of Americans who already have health insurance, the Obama health plan is bad news. It means higher taxes, less health care and no protection if they lose their current insurance because of unemployment or early retirement." Feldstein also notes that the price of the program is enormous and would cost more than $1 trillion and would raise the current maximum tax rate from 35 to 45 percent.

Barack Obama has fundamentally been dishonest when it comes to the health care debate. Consistency he has been arguing that his agenda would lower cost and expand coverage. The reality is, his agenda would dramatically reduce the quality of coverage for those who currently enjoy the best health care system in the world and would be accompanied by the excessive costs so common in bureaucratically driven programs.

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.

Global Warming Campaign Proves to be Expensive Joke

Conspiracy theorists have argued for years that government officials who support the massive regulation of industry in the name of environmentalism, do so in order to pursue even greater government control It is not about a cleaner environment, but a more powerful government. Meanwhile, scientists who have advocated Global Warming have often been accused of being professional "Chicken Littles," who make a living predicting that the sky is falling. After all, if research studies had indicated that things were fine or temperature changes were cyclical, there would be no need for future research and the funding that comes with it. There is a business side to everything, including environmental research, and fear has proved to be a successful element in obtaining increased funding.

The media has been quick to defend those in government and science in the alarmist camp, creating a powerful and effective troika supporting an ambitious agenda. They have apologized for the many exaggerations and have gone to great lengths to defending the most outrageous of claims. The recent release of some rather incriminating emails are embarrassing to the media, scientists, and government officials behind the Global Warming movement. Forget embarrassing, the movement is now on life support.

The Wall Street Journal discusses the content and the implications of the emails in question, quoting several including one stating that "The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."

"So apparently wrote Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world's leading climate scientists, in a 2005 email to 'Mike.' Judging by the email thread, this refers to Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center. We found this nugget among the more than 3,000 emails and documents released last week after CRU's servers were hacked and messages among some of the world's most influential climatologists were published on the Internet."

"The 'two MMs' are almost certainly Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw data and codes used in climate graphs and models, then fact-checking the published conclusions-a painstaking task that strikes us as a public and scientific service. Mr. Jones did not return requests for comment and the university said it could not confirm that all the emails were authentic, though it acknowledged its servers were hacked."

The emails in question are in the thousands and the thread demonstrates a similar theme and are most enlightening. The Wall Street Journal article goes on to point out that "In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a 'unified' view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the 'common cause'; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to 'hide the decline' of temperature in certain inconvenient data."

In essence, the world has been duped by scientists driven by the desire of prestige and funding, politicians driven by a lust for control and power, and a media that makes a living by creating alarm. The cost of pursuing a battle plan against these false problems has cost countries like Spain millions of jobs in its "cap and trade" style legislation and countries through out Western Europe and the United States billions of dollars in regulations to date. What will these false prophets receive for their crimes against economies? Probably Pulitzers and Nobels. What a strange world indeed.

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.

Disscussing why States Prosper on Fox News Strategy Room

I always enjoy the opportunity to join the panel on FoxNews.com Strategy Room. This being the week of its first year anniversary of that program made it all the more special. On the show we covered many things, including why certain states prosper and why others do not. I knew exactly where the conversation was going when the Host, Eric Bolling started discussing the decline of Detroit and other historically industrialized cities and out of no where he started naming states (mainly in the South) that seem to be enjoying economic growth. He asked, "what do these have in common?' The answer was simple; they are Right to Work states.

Right to Work states allow employees to choose whether they join a union, while closed union shop states make union membership compulsory. How significant of an impact does such have an economy? A report by Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal and best selling author Arthur Laffer, published by the American Legislative Council, indicates that it is huge. The authors do a thorough investigation of why the ten richest states have prospered and why the ten poorest have struggled. The report covers ten years, 1997 to 2007.

The states that have enjoyed the most prosperity over the last decade, according to the study, are Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Virginia, South Dakota, Wyoming, Nevada, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas. On average, these ten states witnessed an 85.1% increase in the states' gross state product growth, an 87.9% increase in personal income growth, a 55.9% increase in personal income per capita growth, and a 20.4 percent increase in population growth.

On the opposite end of the economic spectrum you have Hawaii, Pennsylvania, California, Illinois, Ohio, New Jersey, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, and New York. These unfortunate states have only seen a 59.3% increase in the states' gross state product growth, a 60.7% increase in personal income growth, a 52.3% increase in personal income per capita growth, and a mere 4.4 percent increase in population growth.

There are several similar characteristics between the rich and poor states in one area in particular, which is in the policies they pursue. For example, all but one of the winners are Right to Work states (Colorado). Meanwhile, all of the losers are under force unionism. When unions (and their higher benefits, wages, and other labor expenditures) are a fixed cost of doing business, those states are simply less attractive, which leads businesses to businesses moving to more business friendly states.

It doesn't stop with unions. The ten losers are noted for having excessively high taxes on businesses and high income earners. When these income earners feel such pressure, they know they cannot always "fight" the policies effectively, so they take "flight" to states that are friendlier to business and wealth creation. Furthermore, the losers are known for more excessive regulations than the winners, another cost in time and money in building a business. Finally, these losers often have crippling licensure laws that undermine entrepreneurship and economic activity. Laffer and Moore's study goes much further by examining several "principles" of effective taxation and shows huge disparity between the winners and losers. The bottom line is that some states create an environment that is more business friendly. As a result, those states enjoy lower unemployment and higher economic growth.

The results of the states that ignore the ability of businesses and the affluent to flee such policies have led to a huge decline in both prosperity and even population growth in the "loser" states. The study should be read by policy makers, business owners, and individuals who want to live in states of prosperity and not poverty.

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.

The Political Earthquake of 2010 is Starting to Rumble

Most people are expecting a political earthquake like we have not seen since 1980 or 1994. The expected arrival of that event is 2010, but rumbles towards that date are happening now. What is interesting is that one of the earliest targets among those who have grown disgusted with a government out of control isn't a Democrat, but long time Senator Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania. This Republican Liberal has long been the subject of Conservative disdain.

Spector has been suspicious in the eyes of the Conservative rank and file for years. Not only did he vote for the terrible TARP package last Fall, he went so far of being only one of three Republicans to vote for Obama's massive package in January of this year. For many, this only added insult to a political career that has long injured Conservative causes.

Today it is being reported in everything from the Wall Street Journal to CQ Politics that Pat Toomey, Chairman of the fiscally Conservative Club for Growth, is resigning from that position in order to make a run for the United States Senate. His reason for leaving is "to pursue other opportunities." He goes on to state that "I feel extremely honored to have been able to lead such a great organization," in a statement released Monday."And while I will certainly miss the Club for Growth, I am comforted knowing that the organization will be left in the capable and talented hands of my former congressional colleague" (former Rep. Chris Chocola, R-IN).

Toomey is no stranger to elected office and was once a US Representative from the State of Pennsylvania. While in office he collected a solid Conservative voting record on many issues and not just economics, the National Review noted during the debate over who McCain should choose for Vice President that:

-Toomey holds a 0% rating by NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League), indicating a solid pro-life voting record
-Toomey is in favor of school prayer
-Toomey voted yes on the 2003 energy policy proposed by President Bush
-Toomey voted no on prohibiting ANWR drilling
-Toomey has repeatedly voted in favor of free trade
-Toomey is rated A by the National Rifle Association

It goes on to point out that, of course, "Toomey is a tax cutter and a limited-government proponent. The Club For Growth's efforts reflect his commitment to these conservative principles."

After the massive Tea Party events on Wednesday, April 15, many are going to be looking at a place to funnel their energies. The center of the political universe will be the US House and US Senate. If the Tea Party hopes to be more than just a fad, they need to pursue changing the make up of the Congress in 2010.




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.

Job Creators Cast Their Votes

CEO Magazine, a leading publication of the nation's business leaders, has recently done a survey of the nation's Chief Executive Officers about the up coming race for the White House. The survey did an assessment of their view of how Barack Obama and John McCain would help the country's economy and support job creation.

The results weren't even close. Eighty percent of all participants voted for John McCain over Barack Obama. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Barack Obama keeps talking about "tax cuts" for 95% of the economy and only the top 5 percent will be saddled with a tax increase. CEOs know, however, that half of that 95 percent don't pay any taxes and that five percent group pays far more than any other sector. In fact, the Wall Street Journal reports "As it happens, the top fifth of earners currently pay 67% of all federal taxes -- including not just income taxes, but payroll taxes, corporate taxes and death taxes. The top 1% of earners pay 26% of all federal taxes." In other words, the economics simply does not add up.

But the issues covered by the survey are not limited to taxes. The publication's report card breaks down policies to include energy, economic and fiscal policy, foreign policy, defense, environmental, education, tax, and health care. The over all grade for Obama was C- and the grade for McCain was B-. Neither candidate scored an A, but Obama scored Ds while McCain's lowest grade was a C.

Obama's biggest weaknesses according to the survey are economic and fiscal policy, foreign policy, defense, and (as seen before) taxes. CEOs believe that Obama's policies would put significant upward pressure on spending, his lack of experience will find the US in conflicts that could undermine economic stability, there are similar concerns about defense policy, and we have already seen the business view of Obama's tax policies.

McCain's lowest grades were in energy, the environment, education, and health care. McCain is very new to being serious about pursuing domestic drilling (which is the fastes way towards lowering prices), furthermore he is one of the most ardent supporters of extreme environmentalism (which make businesses concerned about the economic impact). Furthermore, most business leaders have long felt that policy makers don't understand the educational demands of America. This includes McCain. Finally, business has been rightly concerned about the impact of proposed health care policies on the economy. In this, McCain's policies raise many questions (especially the taxing of benefits).

So what about the 20 percent that would vote for Obama over McCain? I would assume they are part of the group of leaders representing mega businesses that have consistently supported Democrats because their companies can afford to do so and often see government as a means of regulating their competitors out of business.

What is most interesting about the article is that the focus is on job creation more than any other area. People can talk about helping the middle class all they want, but there is no better benefit to anyone than opportunity created through job creation.

Kevin Price articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Obama, Wealth, Work, and Poverty

We should want a tax code that rewards wealth to create work. Not a tax code that rewards work, instead of wealth. The latter would “succeed” only if the government was the primary source of job creation. That describes societies with command economies, such as what we saw in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union before the fall of Communism and in struggling developing countries today that have yet to figure out why their economies haven’t worked. Such hostile views towards wealth creation should not be found in free market economies, such as the United States, but it is exactly what we saw and heard during the Democratic National Convention (DNC).

Its funny, in my circle of friends, decrying the engines that create wealth is the equivalent of economic blasphemy. At the DNC, it was a virtue. The message of “we need a tax policy that rewards work, not wealth” wasn’t merely seen on the signs of delegates or alternates. It wasn’t the occasional mentioning of one of the many speakers that passed in front of the microphone. It came from the keynote address of the Party’s nominee for President. Barack Obama.

This sentiment of wanting to bite the hand that feeds the economy (wealth created by corporations and small businesses, not revenue confiscated by taxpayers) stood in contrast to the message heard by the candidate that I hoped would get the Republican nomination and who spoke at the his party’s Convention on behalf of Sen. John McCain, former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee.

Thompson uses a Southern charm and has a disarming approach to speaking that made the logic of what he said perfectly clear, regardless of party affiliation or philosophy. Paraphrasing the Senator, Thompson pointed out that the Democrats only want to increase the taxes on a small group of people – the top 5 percent. This, we are told, has no effect on the common person. Unless you buy milk, bread, or any other consumer product at the store. Or if you have a job that is dependent on someone (or company) subject to that top five percent. The Democrats like to bemoan “trickle down economics” (where the government ostensibly benefits the wealthy, which in turn creates opportunities for others). But the trickle can be seen in more than one way. The trickle can be policies that hurt the rich and, out of simple self interest, they share the misery with everyone else. Thompson did an excellent job of warning us of that possibility.

According to economist Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal, the US already has the second highest corporate tax rates of any developed country in the world after Japan. That, more than cheap wages, has led to the flight of jobs and manufacturing to other countries. Barack Obama promises to push us further in that direction through tax increases.

Ronald Reagan use to say that “you can’t help America’s poor by making America poor.” Obama disagrees. He intends to help America’s poor by making more people poor, so they will have more company. An Obama administration will be very interesting indeed. I doubt, however, we can afford it.

Kevin Price's articles are found daily in national publications such as USA Today, Chicago Sun Times, and Reuters. Subscribe to his newsletter here.

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

Are You Ready For "Estaticide"?

I first thought of this idea while on the Steve Stockman Show in Houston, Texas and recently found myself discussing it with my friend on the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, Steve Moore. The concept is "Estaticide." Estaticide is the extermination of individuals because of how punishing the tax implications.

This possible phenomenon is spurred on by the best of intentions. In 2001, President Bush wanted to provide relief to families that are devastated by the death of a family member. It is bad enough that mom or dad have passed away, without picking their pockets in the process. This led to the creation of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 2001 (which modified a similar act in 1997). This law would lead to a gradual increase in the tax credits associated with estate taxes and a reduction in the maximum rate until 2010 in which the tax would be repealed. The bad news is that the rate would go back to 2002 levels in 2011. That means the rate would go from zero to a maximum rate of 50 percent in one year.

Steve Moore, at a recent RightOnline.com event, pointed out that it would literally make this jump over night from New Years Eve 2010 to the new 2011. In his speech, he paints a morbid picture. You can see a family surrounding a dying love one in December 2009. Loved ones knowing he will pass away, but praying he makes it to January 1 when the maximum rate plummets from 45 percent to zero. Fast forward to one year later and you find a different family whose patriarch is on the death bed with hours being left before the tax rate goes from zero, back to 50 percent and without the credits. You can see them surrounding the bed and looking at their watches.

This leads to the concern about "estaticide." People mysteriously passing just before the tax laws change. Stranger things have happened. A better thing that could happen is if lawmakers would put an end to the insanity of severely penalizing people for dying once and for all. People work hard to provide for their families for both now and for future generations. It is one of the drivers that make people work harder and economies productive.

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

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.