Stock Market grows with Unemployment Numbers

The United States have seen monthly increases in unemployment of hundreds of thousands of people each month for several months in 2009. In fact, the US has experienced the largest increase in unemployment in a quarter of a century. What was Wall Street's response? A remarkable increase in the growth of the stock market numbers. In fact, in March of this year the market had plummeted to just above 6,000 and has gained approximately 80 percent of that since that time.

There is a clear divide between the short term interests of the public and business in general and an even bigger gap between the average person and Wall Street. The latter is all about profits and bottom lines. They could not be happier about the Draconian steps being taken by businesses these past months for several reasons:

• When economic environments get to this point, there is nothing that Wall Street desires more than action. Often "retreat" (cutting costs and employees) is one of the most attractive actions in the eyes of investors.



• There is no quicker way to cut costs than to cut employees. Employees are one of the most expensive aspects of doing business and so Wall Street is particularly excited by such cuts. The more harsh, the better.



• Wall Street has been waiting for the market to capitulate. They have been waiting to see investors hit bottom (the DJA is now roughly half of what it was a year ago) and another indicator that the decline has plateaued is when you start to see massive layoffs. Such job losses are horrific for the recipient of the pink slip, but is great news for those who are investing in those businesses.

I don't believe the job cutting is over. Virtually every publicly owned company is going to seek ways to increase investor confidence in their companies. There is no quicker way to achieve that following a decline in profits than through layoffs. Those who have not cut yet are watching the Market's response favorably and you can expect many more to jump on board. Furthermore, many of the companies that have had layoffs also have vendor relationships that are dependent on them. As we see these companies lay people off, expect many more businesses that are dependent on them to do the same thing.

Unfortunately this ugly trend will continue, in my opinion, until there is a decidedly different approach to policy. Cutting taxes on job creators (AKA, the affluent and business owners), restoring moral hazard (e.g., allowing businesses to fail), and resisting the temptation of regulating our businesses out of existence are just a few of the steps that are needed to restore fiscal responsibility and to encourage a stable economy.

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 Next Big Economic Earthquake

While some Americans are beginning to believe they are recovering from the twin disasters of the mortgage crisis and the Wall Street freeze, there is a new problem just beyond the horizon...a potential crash in commercial Real Estate. The extent of the concern was expressed quite well in a recent interview on Fox Business between anchor Alexis Glick and FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair.

Concerning the commercial and residential Real Estate situation: “Commercial real estate is ticking up more. I think later in the year into next year, the commercial real estate losses are going to be a much bigger factor. We’ve known it’s been coming for some time—there’s not a whole heck of a lot we can do about it.”

“The more traditional commercial real estate loans are showing some distress and that is derivative of the economic situation, so we will have some time working through that and I think it will be a big driver for bank failures in the next year."



On the rules that the FDIC put out yesterday: “They are good rules. I think there are some issues about timing because a s you know the industry is still under some distress…I think the issue is more of timing as opposed to whether the rules are the right thing to do. If we’d had them a few years ago, there would have been more capital in the system, so it would have been nice to have it back then and we’re doing the right thing now although the timing is troublesome.”

On economic recovery: “As the economy improves it will take a bit longer for the banks to fully recover, but we have some challenges ahead. They’re manageable and we’ll work through them.”

Can the FDIC cover the cost of bank failures? “We have a lot of cash—we have $22 billion cash on hand to cover the cost of failures.”

On the common ground between herself and other regulators: “We all agree that we need to end ‘too big to fail’ and we need a resolution mechanism that will allow these even very large institutions to be closed down and for shareholders to take losses as part of that process.”

Funny how the hero of 2008 was "too big to fail" is now the demon of 2009. I think the "average joe" could have forewarned the geniuses of Wall Street and DC that government wasn't the solution to our economic crisis.

View Glick's interview 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.

Consumer Confidence Jump May Show that Ignorance is Bliss

Bloomberg reported this morning that "Confidence among U.S. consumers jumped in May by the most in six years, fueling speculation the economy will recover later this year. The Conference Board’s sentiment index surged to 54.9, higher than forecast, according to figures from the New York- based research group today."

To say that this "confidence" is optimistic is to put it light. Consumers do know that over the last several months many things have taken place on the political and economic front. There is this hope among these people that "doing something" has to be a good thing.

What is interesting is that Wall Street seems to be thinking in similar terms to consumers and may be drinking from the same drink, Bloomberg notes "Stocks climbed for the first time in five days on speculation a lifting of the gloom surrounding the worst recession in half a century may spur consumers, who account for 70 percent of the economy, to spend. Still, rising unemployment and falling real estate values underscore that it will take time to establish a sustained rebound. " I think the key word in this paragraph is "speculation."

I believe that this optimism is based only on perceptions and not substance. Once the American people begin to see the policies that are going into effect, they will likely lose a great deal of that confidence.

For example, when the $1.4 trillion dollars that was pumped into the economy on one day earlier this year to help satisfy some of our expenses, we will begin to see a significant jump in prices (which never makes consumers feel confident), a likely decline in economic activity due to the instability that will create, and have a punishing effect on job creation. What will also hurt consumer confidence is the direct attack the Obama Administration is waging on employment, by focusing on raising taxes on job creators.

Obama also wants to double tax businesses with operations both here and in other countries, which will certainly chase capital to other parts of the world. The vast majority of the jobs created in this country are from those who make over $250,000 a year, yet, according the National Taxpayers Union, those who make $153,542 or more already pay more than 60 percent of the total tax bill. Thinking that this is a viable source for more money will only translate for greater economic difficulties.

When the fact that the US has increased its debt annually over the next ten years with the Obama budget and when the additional strain that will bring on the economy finally sinks in, "confidence" is not the word that comes to mind.

The biggest concern that even the most casual observer of our economy and politics should have, is the apparent huge lack of understanding of the consequences of public policy by the American people (including the geniuses on Wall Street), when it comes to the choices being made by the Obama Administration. Optimism is one thing, but the upswing in consumer confidence seen this recently is pure fantasy.

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.

Lessons Wall Street Could Learn from Hillsdale College

Education should be an on going process. If a person becomes too old to learn, they are simply too old. Wall Street institutions that lined up for hand outs should have went back to college before they became wards of the federal government. They should have went to Hillsdale College.

Hillsdale College is a private institution in Michigan that is noted for its commitment to independent thinking, its love of country and for producing outstanding alumni. It also doesn't receive a single penny from either the federal or state governments. Not even financial aid from its students. It argues that this has been the secret of its independence.

In fact, the financial geniuses on Wall Street didn't even have to go back to school, they could have simply visited Hillsdale's website, which states that "In 1975, the federal government said that Hillsdale had to sign a form stating that we did not discriminate on the basis of sex. Hillsdale College had never discriminated on any basis, and had never accepted federal taxpayer subsidies of any sort, so the College felt no obligation to comply, fearing that doing so would open the door to additional federal mandates and control. Our trustees pledged two things: first, that the College would continue its long-standing policy of non-discrimination, and second, that it would not accept any encroachments on its independence. The case went to court, and Hillsdale College won a partial victory, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals did rule that Hillsdale College was an “indirect recipient” of federal funding because of participation in federal grant and loan programs. In 1984, Grove City College in Pennsylvania fought and lost a similar legal battle. The case then went to the Supreme Court, and in Grove City v. Bell, it was determined that if even one student received a federal grant or loan, it made that institution a direct recipient of federal funds. To avoid the hassles of government control, Hillsdale College announced its decision to end participation in all federal financial aid programs in 1985. In 2007, Hillsdale announced that it would no longer accept State of Michigan taxpayer subsidies earmarked for student financial aid, thereby making the College completely independent of taxpayer support" (emphasis added).

Rarely in history has the government funded any business or institution without ultimately controlling it. It is naive to think that a government that exercises so much control over businesses in the form of taxation, regulations and licensure laws without funding them would not expect more -- much more -- from companies they actually financed. Now they have dined at the government's table, businesses will be looking at spending millions in legal costs to extract itself from the monster it has wed (if that is even possible). The first legal battle will come quickly, with the government retroactively taxing AIG for bonuses it paid its employees.

The admonishment to "do your homework" isn't limited to businesses. All of us need to take a much more careful approach in dealing with this government today.

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.

The Bad Ride in the Markets and Main Street

Since September the federal government has been busy. Very busy. But it has very little to show for all its efforts when it comes to Wall Street's and Main Street's reaction. Back in September, when Congress got together to roll up its sleeves and to heal the economy's woes, Wall Street was worried by the volatility of the market. Back then, the market strongly worried investors as it stood at the brink of going below 10,ooo points. Slightly 4 months later and we are threatened by a market that could (and likely, should) go below 7,000 points. The irony is that the plummeting market was a direct response to the government's "best efforts" to placate Wall Street's concerns. Instead of getting better, it has gotten markedly worse and has now reached 11 year lows.

Main Street has responded in a similar fashion. 2008 began with unemployment at a remarkably low 4.9 percent, which many economists describe as "full employment," when you consider seasonal and other factors that make "zero unemployment" an impossibility. Unemployment hovered around 5 percent through much of the year until about a month before the huge minimum wage increase (yes, there is a connection), in which it solidly went into the 5 to 6 percent area around that time. By September it had broken 6 percent and showed no interest in going back. This rise in unemployment joined the drop in the Market in leading to Washington coming "to the rescue." Main Street has responded to the massive bailouts of September and the "stimulus" of January by laying off even more people -- over 500,000 in the last couple of months alone. Main Street has responded to the Obama agenda by casting a new ballot -- pink slips -- and now unemployment is squarely in the 7 percent area and is moving its way towards double digits.

So why have both Main Street and Wall Street reacted so negatively? It is because both of these sectors are in the arena of enterprise. They fundamentally know that the more government controls things, the less efficient and productive those things become. The Bank of America is now on the brink of having 40 percent of its ownership be in the hands of government. Banks running like typically inefficient government institutions have done little or nothing to bolster consumer, financial, or business confidence. Fundamentally, I believe that at some level Americans know better. Free enterprise, limited government, and private property -- the founding principles of this Republic -- are better values than government control and ownership. There is a very good possibility that the businesses today are suffering from rather serious buyers remorse. I hope the government gets that message.

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 the Market and Unemployment Jump at the Same Time

On Monday of this week over 70,000 jobs disappeared from some of America's largest businesses. Today, Boeing announced they were laying off 10,000 more. What was Wall Street's response? The first upward trend for the Market since Barack Obama came to office.

There is a clear divide between the short term interests of the public and business in general and an even bigger gap between the average person and Wall Street. The latter is all about profits and bottom lines. They could not be happier about the Draconian steps being taken by businesses this week for several reasons:

• When economic environments get to this point, there is nothing that Wall Street desires more than action. Often "retreat" (cutting costs and employees) is one of the most attractive actions in the eyes of investors.


• There is no quicker way to cut costs than to cut employees. Employees are one of the most expensive aspects of doing business and so Wall Street is particularly excited by such cuts. The more harsh, the better.


• Wall Street has been waiting for the market to capitulate. They have been waiting to see investors hit bottom (the DJA is now roughly half of what it was a year ago) and another indicator that the decline has plateaued is when you start to see massive layoffs. Such job losses are horrific for the recipient of the pink slip, but is great news for those who are investing in those businesses.

The job cutting is far from over. Virtually every publicly owned company is going to seek ways to increase investor confidence in their companies. There is no quicker way to achieve that following a decline in profits than through layoffs. Those who have not cut yet are watching the Market's response favorably and you can expect many more to jump on board. In fact, even as I write this, Fox News is reporting that Best Buy and Target are adding to the jobless numbers. Furthermore, many of the companies that have had layoffs also have vendor relationships that are dependent on them. As we see these companies lay people off, expect many more businesses that are dependent on them to do the same thing.

I know it looks a little dark, but these layoffs could very well be the beginning of the "light at the end of the tunnel." This hope becoming a reality depends heavily on the policy choices of Barack Obama.

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.

New Bank of America Logo, Sign of the Times

I often wonder what goes into the decision making of some of America's companies. The American people have felt as though they have been mugged by the federal government as it confiscates their income in an attempt to bailout Wall Street's fiscally irresponsible financial institutions. One of the biggest beneficiaries of that bailout, and a company that has just this week gone back for more, is Bank of America (requesting and going to receive an additional $20 billion, adding to the billions it received and making the bank the biggest beneficiary of the bailout at $45 billion).

In the last couple of days I was driving home and I noticed something different about the Bank of America branch just a few blocks from my home. It was entirely trimmed in red! The blue "Bank of America" words are now floating in what looks like a red ocean. It is actually a very ominous sign of the times.

For the millions of Americans who are offended by mega corporations receiving bailouts, this seems like a very odd memorial to the debt ("in the red") we are all in. The Bank of America seems to be celebrating this financial blood bath. It is the Bank of America's way of thanking us taxpayers for the tens of billions it has received in a bailout.

That leads to another issue. So the Bank of America has hit hard times. They line up like all the other financial institutions, car companies, porn executives, and other white collar free loaders at Capital Hill, and actually receive billions of dollars. Among the first thing they do is change their signs? I would think that would be expensive for the many branches. Following this expenditure they turn around and ask for more? You have to give them credit for their audacity! But the person who was behind this new sign decision should really be looking for another job.

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.

Is the Federal Government about to Create a Consumer Bank?

Back in September, when Wall Street suffered a horrible meltdown, we were told that $800 billion being pumped into financial institutions through taxpayer dollars would get the "economy moving again." Four months later and we could not be more amazed by the delays in the process. Essentially, the major banks have enjoyed a massive gift that make them more secure, but they have done nothing for the average consumer.

As a result many Members of Congress in both the House and Senate are up in arms and are about to declare that they will not take it any longer. The way I believe they may respond, is by taking the $300 billion plus left from the first bailout and additional dollars from the $1 trillion in being proposed by President-Elect Obama, to create a government based, consumer lending bank.

I don't believe they will make these banks "within" banks or even attempt to run the programs through credit unions, but will make them separate, government run, institutions. They no longer trust the banks to be altruistic, which I think was foolish to believe they would be in the first place. Banks are largely successful because they are self interested and run on the profit motive. Banks are only behaving like banks.

That leads us back to the new, government driven, banks that I believe are right around the corner. These new institutions will run with the efficiency of most government bureaucracies, which means they will continuously be running deficits, will be unresponsive to consumer needs, and will possibly undermine the competitiveness of private banks because it is very hard to compete against free or cheap money.

Since Wall Street is so dependent on private banking, the possible rise of these lending institutions will only further drive stock market fears. These banks will create ever more unpredictable investment environments and further drag the economy into despair. Although it is true that many bankers have made horrible decisions (mainly driven by political pressure from organizations like ACORN), such poor decision making would become standard with government run banks. Instead of making investments based on possible returns, they will be based on altruism and political pandering. If you ever wondered what the expression that the "road to hell is paved with good intentions" means, wait until you see these new banks.

Government leaders continue to seek short cuts and political solutions to our economic situation. Members of the US House of Representatives will all be fighting for their political lives in just two years and the President is not that far behind with his four year term. With these type of election cycles, the pressure is on to improve thing immediately, even if the consequences are potentially harmful in the long run.

A good doctor would allow some of these economic woes to run their course and not keep applying quick fixes to long term problems. Our financial institutions, like the economy in general, need a time to heal and not so called "reforms" that promise to have devastating long term consequences.

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.

Bush Snubs Constitution, Congress, and Passes the Buck

In one of the most glaring examples of "keeping up appearances" in history, President George Bush has decided to single handily provide a bailout bridge to the "Big Three" automobile companies. It is intended to be a bridge that keeps them alive long enough to get to Barack Obama, who is expected to have a more friendly Congress available to do more. The current Congress and majority of Americans are rightly afraid that this is just another bridge to nowhere.

In a brief speech, the President made the case for going against the Congress and using money that was passed for bailing out Wall Street, to be shifted to assist the automobile industry.

He begins by pointing out that money shouldn't be given to the industry without accountability (as proposed by the automobile companies originally), stating that a "more responsible option is to give the auto companies an incentive to restructure outside of bankruptcy -- and a brief window in which to do it. And that is why my administration worked with Congress on a bill to provide automakers with loans to stave off bankruptcy while they develop plans for viability." This bill was rejected by the United States Senate. Bush notes "this legislation earned bipartisan support from majorities in both houses of Congress." There was not, however, enough "bipartisan support" to get this passed.

Bush goes on to say that "unfortunately, despite extensive debate and agreement that we should prevent disorderly bankruptcies in the American auto industry, Congress was unable to get a bill to my desk before adjourning this year." This is a nice euphemism for stating that the bill didn't pass. Period.

Bush states that "this means the only way to avoid a collapse of the U.S. auto industry is for the executive branch to step in. The American people want the auto companies to succeed, and so do I." Maybe some of the people he knows. Maybe his golfing buddies from Ford or tennis partners at GM. But I couldn't find a single national survey that supported such. Furthermore, the American people overwhelming told Congress to not pass this bill. Most were unhappy with the Wall Street bailout, someone needs to be held accountable for their business acumen (or lack of).

In spite of the political realities, Bush goes on to say that "today, I'm announcing that the federal government will grant loans to auto companies under conditions similar to those Congress considered last week." Remember, Congress "considered," but rejected this legislation. Bush is disregarding the will of the Congress, whose authorization should be necessary (according to Article I of the Constitution), and is making the $800 billion bailout for Wall Street into a giant slush fund for the Executive Branch.

The President stated that "these loans will provide help in two ways. First, they will give automakers three months to put in place plans to restructure into viable companies -- which we believe they are capable of doing." When I left Detroit in the 1970s, the automobile industry in that city was already on the ropes and Chrysler was seeking loans. The automobile industry has wasted decades trying to get its house in order. Now, Bush believes it will restructure itself in 3 months? It would be funny if the money wasn't real and he wasn't serious. Well, at least it is only around $15 billion. The second "way" this bill is to help will be "if restructuring cannot be accomplished outside of bankruptcy, the loans will provide time for companies to make the legal and financial preparations necessary for an orderly Chapter 11 process that offers a better prospect of long-term success -- and gives consumers confidence that they can continue to buy American cars." Does Bush honestly believe that Americans will ever have confidence in a company in Chapter 11? President Bush clearly needs a reality check.

Bush states that "because Congress failed to make funds available for these loans, the plan I'm announcing today will be drawn from the financial rescue package Congress approved earlier this fall." Translation: I will take money passed by this Congress meant for one purpse, for purposes that this Congress voted against. This is the arrogance of officialdom and a President behaving like an autocrat.

President Bush simply can't stomach the thought of the automobile industry going under during his watch. In an incredible attempt to protect his "legacy," this President is suspending his Constitutional responsibility, snubbing the Congress who is required in authorizing such expenditures, and is abandoning the will of the people. In an effort to "save face" he is leaving a very ugly memorial to his administration.

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.

Madoff Destroys Himself and Others

Bernard Madoff enjoyed one of the most trusted names on Wall Street. "Enjoyed" is definitely past tense. Madoff has sat on a committee of academics, regulators and executives formed in 2000 by former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt to assist the agency on new stock-market rules in response to the growth of electronic trading. Madoff has led the trading committee at the Securities Industry Association, Wall Street’s biggest trade group, and has served as chairman of the Nasdaq Stock Market. Madoff was the quintessential insider, which is how he was able to go so deep into a far reaching "Ponzi scheme" (to use his own words). Everyone who was someone on both sides of Wall Street -- regulators and investors alike -- knew the 70 year old Madoff as an authority with enormous personal credibility.

Now, Bloomberg reports that Madoff is "alleged to be (a central part of) a Ponzi scheme that cost investors $50 billion, after he subjected it to oversight two years ago, people familiar with the case said." Did the regulators dismiss the normal level of due diligence that they would require for such investments because of Madoff's reputation? That, I'm sure is one of many questions that will be asked.

Bloomberg also reports that Madoff is "operating what he told his sons was a long-running Ponzi scheme in the New York-based firm’s business advising rich people, hedge funds and institutions. His ability to avoid detection may fuel debate about the SEC’s effectiveness and the adequacy of its resources for policing money managers. "

Ironically, Madoff was accused of illegal activities in the early 1990s but was found to had been operating legally in the raising of over $400 million in an unregistered securities deal. I wonder if they will want to look at that deal again, considering how far reaching this current scam is and its financial impact. $50 billion is no small amount (yes, you keep seeing BILLION).

Madoff got clean with his sons first and they, in turn, turned him in to authorities. They are completely distancing themselves from him and are declaring their innocence.

Madoff has invested huge amounts of money into the politicians who appoint the regulators. Furthermore, he has been in a regulatory role over the years. On the surface, he appeared to be the kind of person that would require anything but extensive scrutiny. Maybe, in order to protect those who would easily trust such individuals, such financial managers should be under additional scrutiny. I'm sure that will be part of future debates as well. In the mean time...buyer beware!

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.

Christopher Dodd Has to Go

I am not at all sympathetic of the plight of the automobile industry. The Big Three of Detroit have largely brought their terrible situation upon themselves through decades of bad decision making. In spite of this reality, I was offended when Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-CT) informed the CEOs of Ford, Chrysler, and GM that if they wanted money for their companies, they needed to go. This is the same Christopher Dodd who has been on the Senate Banking Committee for years and oversaw the financial debacle of Wall Street that led to an $800 billion bailout at taxpayers expense. This is the same Dodd who has fueled record government spending for years that has led to our debt of trillions of dollars.

As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Dodd proposed a housing bailout on the Senate floor in June 2008 that would assist troubled mortgage lenders such as Countrywide Financial. Condé Nast Portfolio reported that in 2003 Dodd had refinanced the mortgages on his homes in Washington, D.C. and Connecticut through Countrywide and had received favorable terms due to being placed in what was later called the "Friends of Angelo" (Countrywide's CEO) program. Dodd received mortgages from Countrywide at allegedly below-market rates on his Washington, D.C. and Connecticut homes. Dodd has not disclosed the below-market mortgages in any of six financial disclosure statements he filed with the Senate or Office of Government Ethics since obtaining the mortgages in 2003. The Senator's home state Hartford Courant reported Dodd had taken "a major credibility hit" from the scandal.

If direct payment has influence, the problem is even more widespread. Countrywide has also contributed a $21,000 total to Dodd’s campaigns since 1997. Dodd has also received $70,000 in campaign contributions from Bank of America, which is buying Countrywide, in the last year-and-a-half before the Countrywide Financial loan scandal surfaced. Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are the only other Senators who have received more money from Bank of America than Dodd. However, no politician has received more contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than Dodd's combined $133,900.

Marcus Cicero, when discussing the Roman Empire, said "the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled..." Dodd's throwing stones in a glass house and maintaining a straight face in the process, is arrogance at its height. Senator Dodd needs to go and should be a part of a serious "house cleaning" that should be seen in both the US House and Senate. It is true that, in the end, many familiar faces like Dodd would disappear. That would be a face lift the US could afford.

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.

Jackson is Furious and Limbaugh is Confused by Obama's Choices

Barack Obama is about to announce the make up of his economic team as Wall Street, Main Street, and the media pundits hold their collective breath. His choices appear to be very surprising. This is not because they are very radical, but surprisingly conventional. They are the type of choices that will likely relieve Wall Street and infuriate the radical base that brought him to power. Furthermore, all of those who wished Clinton had gotten elected, don't worry, your favorite members of that team are showing up for an encore. What is most surprising of all is that Obama seems to be drawing on the more pragmatic and technocratic wing of the Democratic Party. Limbaugh and Hannity might go crazy over how boring these choices are.

Don't get me wrong, this team is liberal. But it is not the rampant ideologues that had many on the Right worried. On the other hand, they could also be the ultimate collective Trojan Horse, creating a sense of complacency that may make it possible for Obama to pursue the far reaching agenda he campaigned on.

The following is a breakdown of two of his most prominent team members:

• Timothy Geithner will be nominated as the new Secretary of Treasury. Geithner has worked in government almost his entire adult life with positions that have included Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Monetary and Financial Policy (1995-1996), Senior Deputy Assistant Secretary of Treasury for International Affairs (1996-1997), and Assistant Secretary of Treasury for International Affairs (1997–1998). In 2003 he was appointed the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He has been a foot soldier of Bush's recovery efforts on Wall Street and was there when the disaster happened, which should raise questions as to why he would be a good Secretary of Treasury. However, I think he is a safe bet, since Democrats will want to make Obama look as strong as possible and Republicans will be pleased by such a "moderate" choice.


• Lawrence Summers, who was Treasury Secretary under President Bill Clinton, will be appointed to head the National Economic Council. Summers is the poster child of technocrats. Under Obama, Summers will actually be the architect of the new administration's economic policies. Considering Summers' faux paux while President of Harvard in which he claimed that women were not as capable as men in performing the hard sciences, I was surprised to see him in politics again so soon. Not only did it leave to his quick departure as Ivy League administrator, I thought it would see him exit the political scene entirely. However, it appears Democrats can say things that are politically incorrect without consequence. Summers will be perceived moderate by the political powers that be and should enjoy confirmation without incidence.

In the end, what we learn, is that Obama is actually was quite impressed by the accomplishments of Bill Clinton, as we see the former President's influence in virtually every area of policy in the new President's appointments. It is safe to assume that the radicals that drove Obama to the White House are going to feel like they are in the out house, if the new President continues to make such safe appointments. They have to be patient for a while, but I am sure Jesse Jackson is already sharpening his verbal sword. Finally, conservative pundits must be at a lost trying to figure out what kind of President Obama will in fact be. I don't have any doubt what Obama would like to do. His radical up bringing and the course he took to power makes that obvious. However, he may be shrewed enough to know that his agenda will have to be pursued with caution and such is reflected in his team.

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.

Could Democrats Reverse Capital Gains Increase?

Although the Stock Market closed today with a dramatic high in single day totals, the market itself is in a continued state of decline. This decline can be attributed to several factors, I'm sure, but one that has been largely neglected in the business banter of today is the looming capital gains tax that will go from zero to 20 percent in January 2009. Ask people on Wall Street and they will be the first to point this out to you. That increase provides enormous downward pressure on the Dow.

We are less than three months away from a significant cut in profits, thanks to the capital gains increase. In the mind of investors, the value of stock is declining on virtually a daily basis. As each day goes by people are reminded that the stock they own is going to see a twenty percent drop overnight. This increase is one of the single biggest jumps in history. It is happening because the capital gains portion of the Bush tax cuts that contributed to historic prosperity will come to a screeching halt on New Year's 2009 and the level will retroactively return to those earlier highs.

Candidate Obama and his Democrat cohorts could easily argue against the horrors of Wall Street and make their case against wealth creation when they were in the opposition, but now they are about to control the White House and both Houses of Congress. Their commitment to wealth distribution and opposition to capitalism will now under go a serious test.

Don't be surprised if Obama and company blinks. I could see him quietly ask the Congress to suspend the capital gains tax increase or (at least) reduce the increase even before he takes power. I wouldn't be surprised if Congress complies and Bush passes it into law. It would make sense for it to happen now, under Bush and the timing of some level of improvement could be linked to Obama's Inauguration (the media would certainly help maintain the Messiah persona through such an association). Meanwhile, if Obama waits until he becomes President and pushes a suspension of the capital gains taxes, he would be exposed as a very serious hypocrite. Bottom line, Obama's philosophy is facing a very serious dose of reality. He might very well find it useful to test the power of free markets and the use of incentives in tax policies.

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

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

What's "Down" with the Stock Market?

Wall Street is facing the biggest post election sell-off in US history. The big question, of course, is "why"? Clearly, there is no simple "cut and dry" answer to this question. It can't be attributed to any one thing, I'm sure. But one contributing factor that I think is being largely ignored by the mainstream media, is the election of Barack Obama.

Of course, we have always recognized the impact of a new President-elect on the market. Is the new President pro-business? Is he in the pocket of special interest? What about his relationship with labor? The positions the candidate had during the campaign, show up in the stock market's reaction shortly after elections.

With Obama, we have a new President that is hostile to wealth creation, saying in his nomination acceptance speech that he supports tax policies that helps work, but not wealth. In this country, the two have always been linked. Wall Street knows that, but it appears that Obama does not. Because the current Democratic controlled Congress did not renew the next year of the Bush tax cuts, Wall Street (and those of us on Main Street that own stock) know that we will currently make 100 percent of our stock sales if we do them by the end of the year, but only make 80 percent when the capital gains tax goes into effect.

Daily, our stock reduces in value because of that looming capital gains tax. Sellers know that reluctance is growing on a daily basis as we get to January 1, 2009 and the tax increase. As that reluctance grows daily, expect the market to grow south with it.

This, of course, is only one area of concern. Hours after Obama was declared President, Iran's radical leader called for the dropping of sanctions against that regime. Wall Street is concerned of how safe the world will be with Obama. Capital gains tax is only the beginning. Obama plans on dramatically raising the taxes of the most affluent. Obama has declared that he is going to try and regulate or tax some businesses into bankruptcy (e.g., coal). This too plays heavily on the minds of Wall Street. The point is, business has plenty to worry about and those jitters are showing up each day in the Dow Jones Industrial Averages.

The test for Obama is simple. Can you have policies that benefit Main Street, but are harmful to Wall Street, yet maintain a healthy economy? I have my doubts.

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

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

Jobs that Could Be in Trouble

The economy appears to be in trouble and everyone is wondering what industries will suffer the most from the up coming recession. When dollars get tight, people focus on cutting costs and buying necessities. So, anything that can be described as "waste" are most vulnerable. Currently, unemployment is now above 6 percent and some fear it could reach double digits.

The following are a few examples of industries that could be hardest hit:

• Supermarkets and fast food establishments could be the first to see a negative impact. The latter is for obvious reasons, because people will simply refrain from eating out as often. Supermarkets, on the other hand, will find themselves in a battle over pricing that we hadn't seen in years. The large volume leaders -- Walmart, Costco, and Sam's -- will be the likely winners of that battle. AOL Money & Finance points out that "Aside from Supervalu, which has already said it is struggling, Kroger and Safeway could be affected as well. These three largest chains have more than 750,000 workers. If same store sales drop sharply and a large number of outlets are closed watch for as many as 50,000 people being out of work.This does not take into account the scores of smaller chains and tens of thousands of individual food retailers around the country." On the fast food front, 10,000 jobs have already departed from Starbucks. That will only be the beginning.



• An industry that has been perceived as some what recession proof -- the Internet and E Commerce -- could be falling on hard times. The way these industries will be hit is if the damage is widespread throughout the business market place and it has a ripple effect on these areas. To some companies, E commerce and web businesses are an option, not a necessity. If that is the case, they too could suffer.



• E companies could find themselves in pain. My company's own web platform of over 90 websites has seen a slight decline in pay per click advertising revenue (fortunately we have seen a rise of other advertisiers). People are getting their ads for less because there are fewer competing to place them. What type of business are vulnerable? Google, Yahoo, eBay, and Amazon, just to name a few. Combined, these four employ over 75,000 employees. Yahoo seems the most vulnerable and could easily layoff 20 percent of its 15,000 employees.



• Software firms are also very vulnerable and I am sure that Bill Gates and his friends at Microsoft are among the most concerned. The largest of these companies employ over 600,000 combined. If these firms start laying off, it will have a trickle effect through out the entire economy since so many businesses are dependent on them.



• The hot industry in my neighborhood is energy and even it is vulnerable to cut backs. The price per barrel has dropped from a high of nearly $150 to around $70. Those prices are still high, historically, but the days of the fatted calf may be fading. Some are projecting a cut of as many as 5 percent of the labor force in these industries.



• Not surprisingly, media companies are taking a significant hit at this time. Everyone seems to be trying to lower expectations, including Viacom and CBS. The six largest media companies -- including Time Warner, Disney, and GE -- employ over 400,000 employees. If they start laying off the ripple effect could be huge.

What over shadows these dire concerns is the fact that thing Wall Street loves to see it that, when a business hits a hard time, the decision makers are tough and willing to make unpopular decisions. This is often best demonstrated in layoffs. In fact, the Stock Market has a history of rewarding companies with higher returns as they let employees go.

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

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

Understanding the Stock Market Following the Bailout

Today it appears that the market has capitulated. Investors believe that the market has hit bottom and it is time to rebuild and to buy and is in the 9,000 points area and moving upwards. But people want to know, does this relate to the bank bailout? Why did the market perform so poorly immediately after the bill passed in Congress? Are we about to see the light at the end of the tunnel?

I suggested on my radio show that the market would probably stop its free fall in the low 8,000s and that appears to be the case. But, I have also suggested that this event wouldn't necessarily signify anything more than Wall Street catching its breath. Yes, it could mean it begins its mending process (as seen with the market up around 500 points at this writing), but it could be a short term euphoria from European and Asian markets that responded more favorably than expected over night or just a strong desire to give itself a break from the drama. In other words, the market is being driven by emotions at this time more than anything else and interpreting what is happening is no small task.

Here are a few observations about the current market landscape:

• Members of Congress supported the spending of more than $800 billion to bailout financial institutions with much of the specifics of how it would be spent to be determined later (Obama and McCain each have very different approaches). This approach raises as many concerns as it placates.


• The amount proposed, $800 billion plus, was pulled completely out of the year. A high level Department of Treasury official said that this figure was chosen because it "needed to be real high." They had no idea how much was needed, because they weren't sure how it would be fully implemented. Again, this has raised more market concerns.
  
• Much of the drama surrounding this event -- most recently seen in the emergency meeting of members of the G7 -- is a mixed bag that could end up heightening fears rather than calming them. On the other hand, because of the interdependence of the international financial markets, some are seeing such an approach is crucial in getting back to normal.

In addition to the financial issues, there are the political aspects. Many in the media are treating Presidential candidate John McCain as if he were among the "walking dead." Wall Street believes that the economic future of this country is in better hands under McCain than Obama. Is McCain's chances begin to decline, I project a continued drop in the stock market.

So are we on the rebound? I certainly hope so, but smart investors are going to find themselves taking a "one day at a time" approach to their investing.

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.

Sizing Up the Vote Against the Wall Street Bailout

I was trying to have a business lunch while watching the US House of Representatives vote regarding the Wall Street bailout on TV. It wasn't easy. On the one hand, I wanted it to pass. I grew up with two parents who were raised during the Great Depression and the life they lived has had an impression on how I look at things. Generally speaking, I have denounced the philosophy of fear and scarcity that I grew up with, but when they spoke about the problems with banks and the fears of the Stock Market, I had to take notice. On the other hand, passage of this bill would be the abandonment of moral hazard on Wall Street and further promote a financial system growing out of control.

I was a little surprised that the bill didn't make it. I actually expected it to do more than squeak by, let alone crash and burn. It demonstrated how deep the angst of the American voters is and how great the fear is among members of Congress towards those voters. We have an election that is less than six weeks and the more vulnerable a member of Congress, the less likely he or she was going to vote for it. Clearly, many members rightly feel like they are in the cross hair of angry voters.

Most Republicans were making more than a "protest vote." Some felt that $700 billion being voted on in such a short time frame didn't make sense. What could be hidden in a bill that virtually no one had enough time to thoroughly understand it? Most feared there could be plenty and it gave Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson carte blanche authority for bailing out other financial institutions (including some outside of this country). Most Republicans wanted a proposal that didn't have taxpayers bearing the lion's share of the proposal. They wanted a system more like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, where the banks have to pay a premium to protect their accounts. They offered a list of other reforms that would have dramatically reduce the final costs of the multibillion dollar bailout by hundreds of billions of dollars.

The Republican proposals didn't even receive serious consideration because they didn't offer quick or simple solutions, would require more pain on Wall Street (and also Main Street) in order to achieve long term reform, and simply didn't have the "panacea effect" that investors are looking for. The bottom line is that Wall Street and Washington wants average Americans to do the hard work that our politicians and financial institutions should be responsible for.

In the end, I'm glad that the House Republicans put the breaks on this proposal. Certainly, we need some type of bill to get us out of this situation, but it should be done with deliberation and not at the expense of future generations.

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.

Suze Orman Could Use a Lesson in Economics

Suze Orman, middle America's favorite financial Advisor, has become the poster child of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. She was on the Today Show on NBC singing the organization's praises and assuring Americans that the government is coming to the rescue in light of the current financial crisis on Wall Street. And it appears she is on the agency's payroll, since she dominates its' MyFDICInsurance.gov home page.

In light of the chaotic frenzy both Wall Street and Main Street are in, it would be nice to have a calming voice. That is exactly the role she tried to play, although I will say she looked extremely stressed out while trying to make her case.

My biggest concern came when the interviewer asked about the economic impact of people having their accounts insured. Orman pointed out that if you have $100,000 in a FDIC insured account, that money is safe. That statement is largely true. But the interviewer than asked "what if this leads to thousands of people needing to cash in on the insurance?" Orman's answer was something to effect that "Americans have nothing to be concerned about, the US Government has a check book and will pay for every account that is covered by the agency. Taxpayers will never have to pick up the bill." That was quite a mouthful.

First of all, that agency (like all government agencies) exists due to taxpayer funding. All taxpayers have already paid into it.

Secondly, and more importantly, is the high costs behind the "checkbook" she spoke so warmly about it. If the costs of accounts going bad exceeds the amount of money in the agency's budget (a very real possibility in light of our current crisis), the government will likely fund (at least) some of it through the simple printing of money. Essentially printing counterfeit dollars to pay for the program. As government prints new money, without an increase in productivity, the value of all money goes down. This is the definition of inflation, which is the worse tax program of all.

I have actually been a fan of Suze Orman and still believe she has advice that is helpful to many Americans. However, this interview on Today makes me question either the extent of her honesty (because of how outrageous her statements are) or the extent of her knowledge (because she should know better). At the very least it would make sense for her to get a basic refresher course in economics.

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.

Congressional Democrats Show Priorities When It Comes to Working "Over Time"

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), Majority Leader of the US Senate, has declared that he and his Democratic colleagues will work "around the clock" to solve our financial crisis. In a very real sense, this shows where his party's values and priorities are.

Of course it is all good and well that the Congress that played a pivotal role in getting us in this Wall Street crisis, would do something about getting us out, but the same Democratic leaders have not been nearly as interested in helping average Americans with a crisis that has been equally challenging to most. That is the raging rise in gas prices that has seen exponential growth, especially since the Democrats have taken over both Houses of Congress.

During the summer recess, many Republican Members occupied the US House and demanded Congressional action on our energy situation. Drill here, now, every where, and there too. Meanwhile the Democrats were dismissive about it and more interested in pursuing reelection rather than the needs of the vast majority of their constituents. They didn't see an energy crisis, but an opportunity to reduce demand on gas which would help conserve the commodity and lower pollution. It was a "good" problem that the "gasoline addicts" in this country needed. Tell that to the average American who was looking for relief and needed a break.

It is interesting that a party that has marketed itself as the "party of the people" will show up in mass to address Wall Street's concerns, but took a vacation when it came to the biggest issue facing average Americans. To me, it is unconscionable and they do it with a very straight face.

Instead of being embarrassed by their elitism -- going to premiers of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" in fleets of SUVs and lecturing the rest of us to take a bus -- they behave as though they simply know best and it would be better if we did what we were told. With the Democrats, average Americans get gouged while Wall Street gets a hand out, and they are for the people? You have to be impressed by their unction.

There is plenty of fault to go around in our nation's current financial crisis. Republicans, Democrats, Congress, White House. However, the Democrats hypocrisy when it comes to their treatment of the issues of Wall Street and the average American, they appear to be for the average person in their public relations, but for the elite in DC and Wall Street when it comes to their policies. I hope we remind them of that in November.

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 Vs. McCain: Battle of the Regulators

Obama is boasting that he is the true regulator and that John McCain is a "Johnny Come Lately" with a history of being a champion of deregulation. Meanwhile, McCain is arguing that he has a long history of being a responsible regulator and being willing to toughen the laws when it made sense.

The problem on Wall Street has more to do with incentives than regulations. Regulations have, by their very nature, serious limits. Regulations are the tactics of paternal government, often forcing businesses to do what is contrary to common sense, but meets government mandates.

When I think of regulations, I think of what was one of the regulatory capitals of the world, the former Soviet Union. In the old Soviet model, the authorities wanted a certain number of plates of glass to be produced and mandated the businesses to produce a high quantity daily or face heavy consequences. So the factories made thin sheets of glass, most of which broke before they left the factory. Will that didn't work, so the authorities demanded that the factory produce glass that was very heavy and would be awarded according. None of the glass broke in the factory, nor in transportation, but they also didn't fit when it reached its destination.

In the formerly Communist Poland, that country produced the largest number of environmental regulations of any country in the world, yet it had the highest pollution levels. In fact, when I travelled there shortly after the fall of Communism, I found it very difficult to even breath. Aristotle spoke of the "tragedy of the commons," in which things decline if they are not owned. Ownership, and the responsibility associated with such, is a necessary element for anything to get better.

This leads to the current arguments about the crisis in the financial markets today. In my opinion, the situation has more to do with an increase in government intervention, not a lack of it. Any changes in law should increase the burden of responsibility on financial institutions rather than facilitate the corporate welfarism that is rampant today.

Amity Shales of Bloomberg has offered three new rules that the financial markets clearly need:

• "First, no more bailouts." We must take the "moral hazard" of businesses being bailed with virtually no consequence seriously and allow companies to swallow the poison they have brewed for themselves. Allow one of these companies to be dwindled to nothing due to bad decision making and be swallowed by a competitor which will fire those who made such horrible choices. Yes, the market will suffer in the short run, but it will have an "enema effect" that will result in a healthier economy in the long run.


• "Second, clean up the rating system so that numbers speak something closer to the truth." The ratings systems on stocks on Wall Street are driven by people who make a living off their selling. It is not unlike the proverbial foxes watching the hens. Consumer Reports is considered the most credible leader in protecting individuals from shady products because they won't take advertising from the companies they monitor. We need a systematic approach to stock by someone (or thing) who doesn't have a vested interest in their performance.


• "Third, make the U.S. more competitive by lowering corporate taxes and other levies so foreign firms will want to fill our new vacuum." Shales points out that "the worst thing about John McCain's new ``crisis'' advertisement is that it suggests a strong man -- and not a strong country -- is the answer. Here President George W. Bush's response, that he had faith in our economy, was more useful." I couldn't agree more. The US already has the highest corporate tax rates of any modern economy in the world besides Japan. Cutting taxes is the fastest way to get the US back on its feet.

Our economy needs more ownership and responsibility, not paternal regulations. We need more incentives to make good decisions and not obstacle courses to avoid bad ones. I am convinced that if these candidates try to win the regulatory game as the solution to our economic woes, the losers will be Wall Street and Main Street.

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.