Good Government Requires a Civic Minded Population

Recently I was a speaker at the Young Conservatives of Texas annual convention in Austin, Texas and, as I waited for my opportunity to present, I had the opportunity to hear Dr. Rich Brake of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) discusse the status of America's civic education. Brake eloquently reminded the audience that our country has a republican form of government. That means that we must have a population that understands individual responsibility and is capable of making sure the government stays within the limits so clearly stated in the Constitution. We are not a nation that is ruled by the mob, but by the law. The people must hold those who govern accountable to that law. So how are the American people doing?

ISI, through its American Civil Literacy Program, produced a report entitled "Failing our Students, Failing America." It's purpose is to hold "colleges accountable for teaching America's history and institutions." The survey was of "some 14,000 freshmen and seniors at 50 colleges and universities. Students were asked 60 multiple-choice questions to measure their knowledge in four subject areas: America's history, government, international relations, and market economy." The finding of the report are very disturbing, including:

• College seniors failed a basic test on America's history and institutions. According to the report, these students made an "F" on all four basic areas, with a score of 54.2 percent. Harvard seniors did best, but their score was only 69.6, which was a mere "D+."
• Colleges actually slow down, and even stall, student learning about America. The report found that from K-12, the "average student gains 2.3 points per year in civic knowledge, almost twice the annual gain of the average college student." Worse still, some students actually lose civic knowledge as they go through school.
• Ironically (considering the costs and other factors), America's most prestigious schools were the worse performers. In fact, colleges that perform well in popular rankings (such at US News & World Report) are actually quite poor at advancing civic knowledge. Seniors from four of the top 12 schools in US News had weaker scores on the test as they left school, compared to when they entered.
• Not surprisingly, the study indicated that inadequate college curriculum contributes to failure. Obviously the number of civic oriented courses (and their quality) a student takes will have a bearing on how well they would perform on such a test. The average senior only takes four such courses while in college.
• Finally the more people learn about government, the more active they will likely be as citizens. Simply put, those who know more are going to be more likely to vote and be involved in other civic activities.
  

The average score of these students was 53.2% and the simplicity of the questions these test takers failed on, is disturbing. For example the takers of this multiple choice test could not provide a simple chronology of the most important events in US history (what came first, the Constitution or the Cuban Missile Crisis?), the purpose of Martin Luther King, Jr's "I Have a Dream" speech, and they could not define the free enterprise system.

Parents are spending thousands of dollars helping their children to make a living and to make a life. They clearly deserve a refund from their colleges when it comes to the type of education these students are receiving to prepare for the responsibilities of protecting that quality of life.

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.

Steve Stockman on the Radio

Just when you thought it was safe to turn on the radio, Steve Stockman has his own show. The former Republican Congressman will be on every Monday through Friday from 4 to 6 PM on CNN 650.

I have known Steve for years. He and I were both members of Young Conservatives of Texas and I found myself on the front lines helping to fight for his reelection in 1996 when I hosted a radio show in the heart of his Congressional District. A fight he almost won in spite of the enormous amount of resources thrown at him by the Democratic Party that year (he was the number one Congressional target).

Stockman will bring an unusual amount of honesty and experience to the radio, especially for a former Congressman. And he won't have any problem telling listeners the way he feels about today's political issues. He will easily speak his mind. Knowing Steve, this is a mere first step for something bigger, it will be interesting to see how his program goes.

Until Stockman, I have been one of the few political voices on CNN 650. Sure, there are others on the station with opinions, but few seem very passionate. I think Steve is an excellent added voice.

Hear a recent interview between Steve Stockman and Kevin Price here.

For a copy of the free audio program and free report, "Why Your Marketing Isn't Working," email Info@HoustonBusinessShow.com and put "marketing" in the subject line.

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.

William F. Buckley, 1925-2008

I met William F. Buckley only one time in the early 1980s . I was Chairman of Young Conervatives of Texas at Abilene Chrisitan University and was a young college student on the quest to change the world. Before I met Buckley I had been exposed to some of his excellent works. He was a brilliant writer whose nonfiction meant more to me than his fiction (of which he was famous).

When I met him, I was young and arrogant and felt I had so much more to offer the world than my actual worth. I believe people needed to know me and my opinions were vast and my knowledge was limited. What impressed me was how Buckley was a gentleman. He listened, politely as I pontificated about the way the world was and should be. He actually encouraged me in my enthusiasm and wish me well in my endeavors. He actually gave me the contact information of one of his assitants if he could ever be of assistance.

The funny thing was, I wasn't very impressed by the fine treatment I received. I expected no less. It was after many years and reflecting back that I realized how honored I was to meet the person that many call the intellectual godfather of the modern Conservative movement.

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

See How They Run: Sizing up the Three Tiers of Republican Candidates

The current discussion of two groups -- the "Big three" (or is it four now?) and everyone else doesn't accurately size up the break down of the Republican Presidential hopefuls, in my opinion. The following is my spin on the eleven candidates for President, what tier they are in, and what chances they have (if any). Again, this is my perspective, I look forward to the comments of others.

Tier I (in alphabetical order)

Rudy Giuliani. Rudy's strengths are that he is attractive to libertarians who favor the war and traditional conservatives who are willing to over look his positions on social issues "for a time such as this." He would be unacceptable in 2000, but must be taken seriously today. His negatives are that he is untested on national issues, people will have reluctance about choosing a former mayor, and NYC mayor has a history of being a "dead end job."

My view: He has access to deep financial pockets. He goes in deep in the election and I wouldn't be surprised if he's on the ticket, some where.

John McCain. On the up side, he had a strong organization and high name identification. Furthermore, his strong position on the war is attractive to traditional conservatives who might other wise dislike him. On the negative side, he's old and sounds old. His total lack of understanding on tax policy is unacceptable.

My view: He is sinking fast, many supporters or going to be bailing out in the days to come. Check back next week, the "Big Four" could be a "Big Three" again, minus him.

Mitt Romney. Romney is attractive (maybe too much so?), was able to get elected in the most liberal state in the country as a Republican (can you say Reagan Democrats?), he is a former governor (historically one of the strongest positions to run for President), and has virtual unlimited access to money (like his own pockets). On the down side, he "matured" on issues too late in life to make most Conservatives comfortable, his religion makes many traditional Conservatives nervous, and he's from Massachusetts.

My view: His money will have him last quite a while in this race, but I don't see him ever "catching on" to the Party in general. However, if a Giuliani gets the nomination, he might be seen as a good balance on the ticket. He won't be, however, because Republicans will have a very difficult time winning without a Southerner on the ticket. This, of course, leads to...

Fred Thompson. Thompson (photo) has access to significant amounts of money, is a very solid Conservative, is from the South (crucial for anyone to win the Presidency these days), is a former Senator (meaning he has proven ability to win bigger races), and knows how to act like a leader. His negatives are less obvious, but I'm concerned about how he will do on the campaign trail. Also, the Senate is not nearly as strong as the governorship for getting elected President (the chief executive role seems to be very important).

My view; Fred Thompson is the guy to beat. Period. His numbers are stronger than people who have spent millions and he simply comes across as more Presidential.

Tier II


This is were I am sure I will get some arguments. All those who believe there guy should have been in "Tier II" will be upset. However, it should be of comfort to all of you, that "Tier II" dwellers won't likely get the nomination, unless something seriously wrong happens to the group above. Again, this list is in alphabetical order:

Sam Brownback. The Kansas Senator is, in my opinion, on the bottom part of the Tier II list. He is a fine as US Senator and should really do us a favor by staying there. We can use quality people in that body. He lacks the maturity and ability to relate to be a serious candidate. Furthermore, he seriously lacks access to money.

Jim Gilmore. The former Virginia Governor comes from the South (a big plus) and had that crucial chief executive role. These are two major pluses. Beyond these two big positives, Gilmore simply doesn't cut it. I think he may be running for an appointment in a new administration. He also seriously lacks money.

Mike Huckabee. Huckabee is a relatively young Southern (recently) former Governor, who comes from a state that has strong, Democrat roots. If you keep your observations to this brief overview, he looks excellent, but his chances are really quite poor. He has a mixed fiscal record as Governor, very limited access to money, and doesn't come across as particularly Presidential. He's on the high end of the Tier II and could pull off a miracle if the top Tier implodes, but don't hold your breath.

Tommy Thompson. I like Thompson, personally, although he is not Conservative enough and he fails to come from a region that has produced a popularly elected President in decades. Thompson is innovative (his views on Iraq are very interesting, in my opinion) and he is a former Governor, which is very important in politics today. His down sides include limited access to money and a weak connection to voters (he's something of a technocrat). In many respects, running for President of the US is more like running for "class president" than virtually any other political office. He simply doesn't get the popularity factor.

Tier III

This is the group that would do us a collective favor by getting out tomorrow. These three candidates are two traditional right wingers (Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo) and a libertarian (Ron Paul) and they are only diluting the support of the real Conservatives in the upper tiers. I wish there were a couple liberal or moderate Republicans in this group.

I could easily dismiss these three for one simple reason -- they are members of the US House of Representatives. We haven't elected a US House member since 1880 (James Garfield who was assassinated just a few months in his office) and I honestly think we are less likely to elect someone from that spot now than then. The office doesn't give potential supporters much hope that he can muster the national support essential to win. They have extremely limited access to money, poor organization, and simply don't look serious.

Duncan Hunter. The California Congressman is actually an old friend of mine (I mentioned that to a campaign member and they now count me as one of his supporters). When I was involved with a think tank I helped to start in DC, he served on the Advisory Board and had a study I wrote with Dr. Larry Adams (who is now with the University of Virginia) published in the Congressional Record. I like him, but I can't support him. He doesn't have a prayer and I believe he is too pessimistic on economic policy to be a successful President.

Ron Paul. I was an early member of Young Conservatives of Texas (back when I made my first vote for Ronald Reagan) and Ron Paul was a very good friend to that organization. I believe he has a great deal of personal integrity and I have liked his position on many domestic policy issues. However, his "blame the US" views on foreign policy are a disaster that discredits many of his positions on the economy. I wish he would get out, but I'm afraid we might see him running as a Libertarian again. He's a sad story, in my opinion.

Tom Tancredo. Tom seems to me to be a single issue candidate -- immigration -- in a party that is still divided on the best approach to that issue. In many ways, he is just like Duncan Hunter, but if you put the two together you still wouldn't have a dime. He's a fine Congressman, I wish he would stay there.

That's how I size up the candidates, I look forward to seeing the comments of others.

When It Comes to '08, Conservatives are in Big Trouble

When I was in college I was involved with an organization called Young Conservatives of Texas. It was, and appears to remain, an excellent organization for young people to think seriously about politics and to affect change based on that worldview. I'm one of the old timers, recruited by the founder, Steve Munisteri, himself. Recently there was a reception in Houston, Texas for the alumni of the organization.

I attended the event with the hope of hearing some encouragement about the upcoming election. What I got was a great deal of disappointment as virtually every member told me, flatly, they had no idea who they were going to support. I joined YCT back in 1980. As you can imagine, the choice was easy and every member I knew proudly and tirelessly supported Ronald Reagan. What makes me nervous is that Young Liberals (if such a group exists) appears to be in uniform agreement behind Barack Obama (with rare exception). When I was with YCT we weren't always correct, but we were certainly always RIGHT (sorry, I just had to say that and yes, we were correct about Reagan). And the enthusiasm for Reagan wasn't like anything I had seen, until the recent rise of Obama.

It is still early in this election cycle and victory is anything but sure for the Democrats. But Conservatives better get a clue or they could easily find themselves with a moderate nominee that will lack the grass roots appeal that is necessary for winning a Presidential election. After all, I'm sure we all remember Bob Dole.

The Best Cities for Jobs

With unemployment hoovering around 4.5 percent, unemployment is relatively inconsequential in general. However, some cities are better than others. Recently Forbes Magazine listed the top 100 cities for jobs and I noticed they have a few things in common.

* They are in low tax states, such as Texas, Florida, Arizona, and Virginia.

* They are in the South and West. This is why these states are booming in population growth as well. All of the top ten cities are in the South and West (Hawaii being the far West). Some would call DC a northern city and although it has characteristics of such, the demographic includes Southern cities in Virginia. Furthermore DC is a boom city for jobs because of government, which can only happen in the nation's capital. Everywhere else, government is a job destroyer. The next ten cities are also all in the West and South except for number 11 which is made up of cities in Maryland. They, too, are near DC and make money off of big government. The South and West remain the primary job drivers through out the list. Florida is particularly strong, including Orlando, Florida (Home of Disney World, above).

* They are all mostly in states that are predominantly governed by Republicans in the State Houses. These Republicans largely have created jobs through their tax, regulatory, and licensure laws that are friendly to business. Some of these Republicans got beat in the last election cycle, I suspect that people that came from poor performing states inadvertently booted them out. I discuss phenomenon in a previous blog entry.

* These cities are growing rapidly. This could change if the policies in the states they are in change (as the governments have) and become anti-jobs.

I hope people take more than a casual look at the growth of jobs in this country and recognize what the cities (and states) that foster growth have in common. Furthermore, I hope governments practice the policies of low taxes, sensible regulations, and reasonable licensure laws. All of these are factors that contribute to positive job growth.

Which States Are Hot? Which States Are Not? And Most Importantly, Why?

Recently, Bloomberg announced which states are hot -- in terms of population growth and decline -- and which states are not, but there is not a great deal of explanation as to why. The top 10 states for increasing population (between July 2006 and July 2006) are:

Arizona 213,311 3.6%

Nevada 83,228 3.5%

Idaho 37,098 2.6%

Georgia 231,388 2.5%

Texas 579,275 2.5%

Utah 59,729 2.4%

North Carolina 184,046 2.1%

Colorado 90,082 1.9%

Florida 321,697 1.8%

South Carolina 74,316 1.7%

There are several unique characteristics about these population shifts:

* They are often huge. Texas gained over 500,000 in one year! This is absolutely significant. This is not only due to the horrible affects of Katrina that hit in the summer of '05, but because of the huge number of businesses that have relocated to the state.

* All of these states lean Republican or are very Republican. Republican strategists lips salivate when they think of these population shifts to their state. This means more Congressional seats moving to their states and away (as you will see later) from Democrat states. However, they may be surprised by the long term results, as I will explain later.

* They are all in the West or (even more so) the South. This has been a trend that has persisted for decades and continues to be the case. Politically, the implications of this are significant. All of our Presidents since John F. Kennedy have been from Texas, California, Georgia, and Arkansas. The only exception to this trend was Gerald Ford, who was from Michigan. But remember, he was not elected.

What about states that have seen decline?

Connecticut 4,108 0.1%

Mississippi 2,044 0.1%

Ohio 7,321 0.1%

Massachusetts 3,826 0.1%

New York -9,538 0.0%

Michigan -5,190 -0.1%

District of Columbia -519 -0.1%

Rhode Island -5,969 -0.6%

Louisiana -219,563 -4.9%

So what can we observe about the decline of these states?

* They are in predominantly Democratic states. Five of these bottom 10 are strong Blue states. Only two are consistently Red (Louisiana and Mississippi) whose decline can be attributed to Katrina, which hit in the summer of 2005. This, again, makes Republicans excited and Democrats concerned, but the long term implications could prove different.

* They are on the East Coast and Midwest. With the exception of Louisiana and Mississippi, all of these are in the East Coast and Midwest, which have also suffered when it comes to political prestige.

What are the lessons learned?

I believe that the political and economic environment of many of these states have become so hostile to entrepreneurship and economic growth, people are voting with their feet in a quest to find better jobs and opportunities. Michigan has taken a pounding for decades (my family was among the "Michiganders" who flew South to flee the rust belt in the 1970s) and continues to face economic pressures due to unions that international competitors never have to encounter. New York and Connecticut are noted for their constant regulatory pressures they apply on business, forcing many to have little choice but to leave. The list goes on, people are leaving these states on the quest for economic freedom and they feel as though they are finding them in the above top ten states.

I believe Republicans, who appear to be the winners in these shifts, should be cautious in their enthusiasm. I remember when I worked as an aide for US Senator Gordon Humphrey (R-NH). That state had become extremely Republican by the 1980s and was enjoying growth as people fled the disastrous political and economic situation in Massachusetts just to the South. Eventually New Hampshire became Democratic as people moved who knew there were things wrong with their home state -- taxes, crime, etc. -- but didn't realize that the people they were voting for was the source of their problems. So once they moved to a new promise land, they brought the same terrible policies with them.

The future looks bright for Republican states on paper, but this will only be the case if new voters support the very policies that have made these states so attractive in the first place.