When the problems of Greece hit close to home

Americans have been in shock watching the images of buildings — and even people — in flames as the government of Greece implements austerity measures to stop the bleeding caused by decades of irresponsible fiscal policies and socialism. We Americans naturally think, "thank God I still live in the US. That could not happen here."

Recently Dale Hurd of CBNNews.com has painted a dark future of our own republic if we do not change our spending priorities. Furthermore, he points out several scenarios — none of them pleasant — if we fail to fundamentally change the direction our country is going.

Hurd points out in his column that the "federal debt as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product now stands officially at around 60 percent. But with the course the country is on, it will hit 150 percent in 10 years, and 300 percent by 2050" (emphasis added). He goes on to compare our situation with the one in Greece, which began to spiral when its debt reached 115 percent of GDP. We will reach and surpass that number in less than ten years. Because Greece is a member of the European Community and its currency is tied to the Euro like most member countries, other countries have (at least) a short term incentive to bail the country out in order to protect the value of their money. Those countries are, in fact, doing just that. Who will bail out the United States? Considering the disdain by other countries towards the US, one should not have any hope that others will come to the rescue.

The columnist quotes Anne Vorce of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, who said she is not sure when America will enter economic crisis, but noted that "The problem is you don't know when you reach a tipping point until you reach it, but we're well beyond normal peacetime historical experience already." If the US entered into any additional major national security conflicts or faced any series of natural (or other disasters), we could find our situation deteriorate rapidly.

What I found most disconcerting about the article was the words by Hurd about the future of the United States of America. He said we only have to look to our friends in Argentina to find a disturbing window of the future. "Before World War II, Argentina was one of the most prosperous nations in the world. With a strong industrial base and thriving middle class, it attracted immigrants much like America. But within 15 years, Argentina went one of the richest nations to one of the poorest. Argentina President Juan Peron, who some historians say was a fascist, fomented class warfare and bashed business, banks and the wealthy. He made labor unions his allies and unleashed massive social spending that the nation couldn't afford." This sounds eerily familiar as we have a sitting President with certain obvious "corporatist" inclinations and disdain for those in the entrepreneurial (most of whom are middle income) class.

So what does the future hold? Experts point to several possible scenarios, none of which offer much to be optimistic.

Long term economic stagnation. We as a nation simply get use to doing without. High unemployment becomes the rule rather than the exception and the idea of an expanding economy and growing opportunities becomes something for the history books. Many experts see this as one of the better scenarios.

On the opposite end — and the worst case scenario — we have a government that goes into default. This means it cannot fulfill financial obligations, pay its bills, and it leads to a rush on the dumping of its Treasury bonds as countries no longer see us as a good investment.

Another possibility is hyperinflation. On a single day last year the US Government pumped $1.4 trillion into the money supply in order to offset the high cost of bailouts. This "funny money" has the potential of devaluing all dollars that are out there and it appears this approach to monetary policy could become a permanent part of our economic strategy.

The bottom line is that the US is going to have to make tough decisions about the future of our spending or the consequences of our behavior will make decisions for us. "Doing nothing" is a course that was followed by countries like Argentina that was propelled from a major economic player into third world status. There has to be a better way for the United States of America.

Kevin Price is a nationally syndicated columnist and host of the Price of Business on CNN Radio. Learn more about him and his activities at www.PriceofBusiness.com.

One Simple Election Reform Could Stem Tide to Socialism

The United States government has, for years, put a premium on the act of voting. The idea is, the more people voting, the better. Are you getting your license renewed? Apply for a voters registration! Are you applying for Food Stamps? Go ahead and register to vote! This idea, however, goes completely against the grain of trying to maintain a responsible government. Our Founding Fathers believed in the idea of "quality of vote" versus "quantity of vote," which is the mantra we have today.

We all know that in the early days of our republic, an entire gender (females) and ethnic group (Blacks) were not allowed to vote. What most of us are not taught, however is that the vast majority of the population (regardless of race) was not allowed to vote in those early years. Voting was largely determined by states and virtually all of them had property ownership requirements that excluded, by many estimates, as much as 90 percent of the population. The discrimination practiced by the early leaders was not nearly as inclined toward race, as it was making sure that those who participate had a vested interest in the process. Those with property had to pay taxes directly, giving them (in the eyes of the early leaders) a right to participate in the process.

The classical economist John Stuart Mill argued that, if any person was receiving money from the government, they should be prohibited from voting until they were financially free from any assistance. This idea would not be merely welfare recipients, but corporate "fat cats" getting subsidies from Uncle Sam. Mill argued that there was no way to maintain a small and reasonable government if people could vote benefits for themselves. It was similar to serving on the board of an organization and being allowed to vote on something that directly benefits you. That would be bad form and everyone would expect you to "abstain." "Abstain" we all should do if we are eating at the trough.

Unfortunately, that was then, and this is now. Such a proposal would not be politically palpable. What if there was a third way beyond the "anyone with a pulse can vote" mentality pervasive today and the elitist position found earlier in our nation's history? It is against the law for candidates to campaign for office within a certain distance of voting locations. That is why, when you walk up, you are bombarded with people offering you flyers up to an invisible line. Yet, the single most important information -- party affiliation -- is actually seen on your ballots. Worse still, we allow people to vote "straight ticket," requiring absolutely no thought at all.

To restore integrity in the ballot box, we should remove party affiliation from every ballot entirely and from voting locations. This will require every person who goes in to vote to know exactly for whom they are voting and why. They should not be provided a "cheat sheet" in the form of the ballot for the most important test they take for liberty each election cycle. Those who cry "foul" will be implying their followers cannot read or lack the faculties to make such decisions. What an insult to their constituents. Without party identification, our elections will become a sober task in maintaining our liberty and not a celebration of ignorance. Will we have fewer voters? Most definitely, but we will have more thoughtful voters.

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.

Term Limts are Wrong Answer to the Right Problem

For years, many conservatives have been pleading for limits on how long people can serve in office. They are tired of the rampant corruption, the influence of money, and the "cronyism" pervasive in politics today and they feel the need to do something...anything. Term limits are among the most popular of promoted "solutions."

It seems to make sense, keeping people in office for a limited period of time, instead of them becoming too comfortable, complacent and, most importantly, too powerful. We have politicians who have money in the freezers, with bridges to "no where," and inappropriate relationships with interns. Something has got to change. On the surface, term limits seems like a brilliant proposition. However, this idea mandates that we dig a little deeper. Term limits are a fairly simple concept. Members of the US House would likely serve up to four terms, according to most term limit proponents (eight years), while US Senators would serve two, six year terms. According to the theory, these politicians would serve their time and since it is short, they would hurriedly run back to their home town and go back to contributing to their communities and economies. Unfortunately, the theory doesn't seem to hold up against the harsh realities.

When I use to work for Senator Gordon Humphrey (R-NH) back in the 1980s, I had a surprising experience one day that humorously displays how difficult it is to get traction as a legislator in Washington. I was busy away typing a response to a constituent's question when an exasperated Rudy Boschwith (then, a Senator from Minnesota), flew into the room and with a dazed look, asked where the rest room was. He looked shocked and he acted as though he was going to a public rest room. It wasn't, but one of the many ones in the offices of US Senators for their staff. He was a Senator, I wasn't going to correct him, but the story has drawn many a laugh from other Hill staffers who have enjoyed their own new Member story. What is most amazing is that this happened in 1983. Boschwitz had been in the Senate for five years and still didn't know where the rest rooms were.

I know tons of stories like this. There is the new Congressman who told M. Stanton Evans how much he enjoyed his articles with Robert Novak (wrong Evans). I also cannot forget the member who insisted on not wearing her Congressional pin and expected every member of the Capital Hill police to recognize her. The list continues. My contention is simple, Congressional bureaucrats would rule Capitol Hill and Members of Congress would largely blindly follow. The stock of those who represent us would crash, while the unelected bureaucrats would grow in influence.

An even bigger problem is its potential impact on government spending. Take the lowly citizen (whom we will call "Mr. Smith") who decides to run for his state's legislature. It takes an enormous amount of time, energy, and money to get elected. Upon getting to the House, he realizes he wants to do more and help more people, and do it without the pressure of having to run again every two years. He gets elected to his state Senate and before he knows it, Smith wants to put his sights on the US House in Washington, DC. Once he gets there, he notes the new term limits and he knows that eight years will be here in no time and he immediately begins to focus on statewide office... the US Senate, Governor, or other office. In order to have “a name” through out the state and favors to bear, Mr. Smith will send pork to the entire state from day one. As candidates feel forced to run for higher office, they will feel forced to share the wealth.

Instead of solving the "power problem" common in Washington, term limits will likely make it worse. Since the problem is power, solutions should be found in the way they govern. This could be seen in "super majorities" required for new taxes and spending, sunset commissions that require all spending bills to be reevaluated every two years, required changes in both committees and chairmen over certain time frames (this would certainly disrupt the influence of lobbyists). Most importantly, such reforms would address the real problem, which is power and not the length of time they are in office.

Power limits, not term limits, is the right answer to government out of control. They should be the priority for anyone who is serious about getting government under control.

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.

When It Comes to Voting, It is Quality and not Quantity

We hold the right to vote in such high regard that we now allow anyone, even Mickey Mouse, to vote in our elections. The attraction of voting is so powerful that untold numbers of dead people suspend their resting in peace to show up and make their choice for President. Yes, elections are very important.

I don't know about you, but the above references to scandals related to ACORN actually shows that voting is becoming a sham. It is not revered, but a vehicle to purely promote political agendas and not preserve our freedoms. Yet virtually everyone extols the beauty of the vote and the more voters the merrier. I think it is time to defend the quality of the vote.

Every state has limits on the campaigning that can be done during elections. For example, there is a distance that has to be maintained between where people vote and signs promoting specific candidates. You have seen this when you pulled up at your neighborhood elementary school with signs being displayed for virtually every candidate all the way up to the magical line where no more campaigning is allowed. After that, voters are protected from further external political influence. Or are they?

The reality is, the single most important political information is in the room where they vote. Not, it isn't on the wall or in fliers handed out on the instructions used for the machines. The most important political information is on the ballot itself. Every office has the party affiliation clearly labeled on each candidate. Furthermore, you can typically press one button and vote straight party ticket.

Removing party affiliation would be a very significant step that the government could take to reduce voter fraud and abuse. With the elimination of straight ticket voting, there is no longer "press seven and go to heaven" or "press nine and all is fine." People would actually have to know who they are voting for before casting a vote. What a novel idea!

This idea will have any of its proponents seen as elitists and anti-democratic by the media, I am sure. The truth is, there is nothing about it that should make voters feel disenfranchised. Are there those who are saying that voters are casting ballots, but they do not know for whom? Are those the ones that will be punished by a system that requires a little knowledge and accountability before they actually cast a vote? In my view, if they don't know a candidate by anything but party affiliation, they are not qualified to vote.

A few candidates for major offices will not be affected by this simple reform, but the quality of voting in general would be much higher in a system such as this and would lead to a decided increase in the quality of voting. That is exactly what our country needs.

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.