The less observed consequences to government health care

Socialized medicine through out the world has the following characteristics:

• It leads to delays where, as in the case of Canada, patients wait for 17 weeks on average from the time a general practitioner says indicates that something is wrong until one visits a specialist

• It leads to rationed care, where people not only wait for years for things such as hip replacements, but often find themselves forced to pay for such out of their own pockets in foreign countries

• It has a negative effect on mortality rates, as we see those who suffer from certain diseases such as cancer, surviving half as long in countries like England compared to patients in the United States

• It has been linked to "economic euthanasia," in which individuals are allowed (or even encouraged) to die because they are no longer economically viable since they no longer pay taxes. That is exactly what happened to my own grandfather in England • It leads to no recourse, as government officials "apologize" for their negligence or horrible mistakes, but there is no viable way of pursuing damages

These are fairly obvious and well known and observed by medical and policy professionals around the world. In spite of how horrible they are, their proponents tell us that "socialized medicine is better than nothing." In fact, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer used those words recently. Our indigent population is provided for better in our current and flawed system than those under socialized medicine, so the reasoning simply does not make any sense.

To make matters worse are those effects that are less noticeable. I do not want to sound like a conspiracy therapist, but their implications are far reaching and threaten to undermine both our robust health care system and, historically, the most vibrant economy in the history of the world.

Socialized medicine is part of a "cradle to grave" approach to governing that puts enormous financial strain on individuals and undermines individual responsibility. The mega rich can be taxed to pay for the cost of such programs and still have plenty of resources to do what they want with their money. They can still start enterprises, buy additional businesses, buy new toys, and more. But for the vast majority of individuals in the upper middle class and lower, such excessive costs can literally drive people into a lower income bracket in terms of quality of life and spending power purposes. Such costs make it all the more difficult for people to invest in new tools, to transition from employee to self-employed, and to pursue the climbing of the rungs of the ladder towards economic success.

In essence, these types of programs actually protect the very wealthy from aspiring entrepreneurs that are attempting to achieve economic success of their own, this is among the reasons the rich support big government programs. They might be an inconvenience to them, but are devastating for those who want to be rich. It should not be a surprise then that, in the last presidential election, the highest income group supported Obama 3 to 1 over McCain. It is not only because they can afford to support it, but because it is a small price to pay to stay "competitive."

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.

Public Funding of Elections Provide Predictable Results

Many have been crying for government funding of elections as a vehicle to make elected office more accessible for those who are not rich and to weaken the influence of money on the policy process. A new report by the Goldwater Institute indicates that may not be the case. The Goldwater Institute is a state public policy foundation for the state of Arizona and its recent report shows that public financing has empowered substantially more "big government believers" than supporters of smaller government to the process, according to the Director of its Center for Constitutional Government, Nick Dranias.

The report takes a rather objective look of the impact of public funding on candidates by grading and ranking state legislators based on their commitment to small government as demonstrated by the bills they supported. The institution's philosophy is best described as classical liberal, meaning that government simply should tax, spend, and regulate as little as possible. Like those report cards you received in school, the grading looks familiar -- an "A" for those who would vote like the organization's namesake (Barry Goldwater) and an F of those who reflect the views of the current sitting President, Mr. Obama.

Here are some of the facts from the study:

• As shown in the Institute's report, publicly-financed candidates in both the State Senate and House disproportionately receive failing grades.


• More publicly-financed candidates rank in the bottom half than in the top half.


• And publicly-financed candidates that rank in the bottom 10 are nearly double the number of publicly-financed candidates in the top 10.
  

The report went far and wide in its scope and its grading scale made the legislature's work very clear. The report was also quite thorough, going through over 1,200 bills, memorials, and resolutions introduced this pass session. It gives a solid framework for individuals to determine what work their elected officials are about: protecting taxpayers or exploiting them.
The National Center for Policy Analysis summarized the report by pointing out that, "Scores for the 49th Arizona Legislature remain around the 50 percent mark, indicating a near equal amount of votes that undermined liberty as upheld it. While legislators with the highest scores received a letter grade of A, it should be remembered that this rating represents a percentage score of 80, leaving much room for improvement. Likewise, these scores illustrate legislators' relative commitment to liberty. They are not absolute measures of a legislator's merit, and do not constitute any endorsement, says Dranias."

In my opinion, this study's findings should not surprise anyone. If one uses welfare to get elected (public funding), how can one expect them to hold a tough line on welfare for the general population once elected. That would be the epitome of hypocrisy. The moral legs necessary for supporting smaller government are wiped out by the power of government subsidies for these candidates. Like virtually every other area of discussion, more government in election funding is not the solution to our problems.

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.

Capitalism and Morality

I am a fan of Glenn Beck. I like his shows, website, and enjoy his books. Recently I spent some time with his latest, Arguing with Idiots. The book is excellent, although I choose to not waste my time with idiots since there are so many "sincere undecideds" that I believe are open to a better way of thinking about policy issues. He tackles several of the key headline issues that we hear about daily and clearly shows the insanity on the left when it comes to approaching our national problems. However, I had a very difficult time with his view of capitalism.

Beck's book tackles the question of capitalism from a purely utilitarian perspective, in my opinion. Capitalism, he argues, is not right or wrong, but is simply the most efficient. He recognizes the role of human behavior and the fact that capitalism clearly leads to better results, but in the end he says it as neither bad nor good. I could not disagree more. Capitalism is the most moral economic system in the history of the world.

Command economies -- be they communist, socialist, democratic socialist, or whatever -- have the following immoral characteristics:

• The government is a common vehicle for theft, taking money from one group to give to another in pursuit of political, social or other objectives. The taking of money from some to give to others is little more than stealing. Just because it has taken the power to do it, it does not make it right. Government expenditures are only "moral" when they benefit everyone and show special interest to no one. Furthermore, it must be in areas that the government is the only one that can do it.


• These types of governments have monetary policies that print money to pay for government programs (inflation), which devalue all other money in an economy. When individuals or crime syndicates do this, we call it producing counterfeit money, when government does it we call it business as usual. A truly capitalistic economy would depoliticize the currency and link it to gold or other precious metals to preserve the currency's value.


• These economies create social distortions on a macro level that we would never want on a micro level. We would not want families to be subsidized in a manner that encourages divorce so the children would receive more money, we would not want to reward poverty and waste or discourage individuals from increasing their income. These type of distortions are common in these types of command economies, but are contrary to free markets.

Few can honesty argue against capitalism's power to produce jobs, new technology, better opportunities, and personal economic growth. But these are only part of a much more important system. I guess it is fine if one wants to reduce the virtues of capitalism to efficiency, but to me it is selling one of the most powerful -- and moral -- systems far too short. Capitalism embodies liberty, efficiency, and morality. The most important and persuasive, is its morality. That is a high ground that should be taken in the war of ideas.

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.

"Gradualism" works Better for Socialism than Freedom

The United States today is a mere shadow of the once free republic that was known as a beacon of freedom through out the work and economic power house that was without comparison. This happened because our federal government deferred to the states and the citizens on the vast majority of decisions that had to be made. We seem to have a very different country today.

Much of the world is rapidly moving away from command economies while the US pursues such at a now rapid pace. This didn't happen over night, but has happened gradually over many generations. Frankly, the US of 50 years ago was not as free as it was a century before; the "good old days" are becoming a distant memory. From the early days of the republic until the early 20th century, state and even local government officials had more real power than those who held most federal offices. Those in Congress -- and the White House -- had their hands tied by a constitution that put firm limits on them.

We can look at historic Supreme Court decisions and even major events (like some of the effects of the Civil War) and see the power shift from a federalist system with sovereign states to the strong national government system we are experiencing today. The court decisions were driven by policies that were designed to make the federal government stronger. These policies included a redefining of welfare (which historically meant had to be beneficial to everyone or was not welfare), how people were taxed, the expansion of regulation, and much more. There was not a massive change over night, but the change has indeed been huge.

These changes happened because people want more things (or money) paid for by others. The late Russell B. Long may have put it best, stating "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax the guy behind the tree." People want "free" schools, unemployment benefits, subsidy programs, etc., as long as they don't have to pay for them. This natural inclination makes it easy for government to expand. This isn't the case with reducing the size of government. Cutting a program even slightly is seen as Draconian -- even cruel. This is logical, if a benefit or program is justified at all, shouldn't it be justified in abundance? This goes back to the federal system that we were talking about earlier. This is why the Founding Fathers so greatly limited the government’s activities to around 17 items in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

The only answer to our current situation is to challenge those who want government to grow at a slower speed (the vast majority of Republicans it appears), to begin to demand that those who take the oath of office take it seriously (regardless of how odd their platform seems compared to the many politicians who have trampled over this oath), and to begin using the language of "restoration" and not conservatism. What is there, after all, left to conserve? Bloated budgets, the decline of freedom, and the confiscation of wealth? Conservatism now means only slowing down our trek down the "road to serfdom." We should instead pursue a different path.

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 Last Thing the GOP Needs is an "Alternative" Health Care Plan

Just when you think the Republican party is prepared to draw a line in the sand and put up a fight against the hostile take over of our health care system by the government, we are now hearing about a likely GOP alternative to the Democrat's rationed care system. This is, of course, business as usual. One party will propose a bill and the other party will offer alternatives in an effort to slow down the direction in which the country will be heading. Democrats might offer an alternative to a policy that is too "free market" for their tastes, while the GOP may offer a plan that might slow down the pace towards socialism. That is the problem, particularly when it comes to socialized medicine. To produce their "knee jerk" policy alternative to socialized medicine, which will be filled with government intervention of its own, will merely make the case for a lighter form of socialism, when a case for the free market needs to be made.

Instead, the GOP should take a different approach. Republicans should go on their own offensive and attack what the government has done to health care to date, what government will do to innovation in the future, and how rationed health care has devastated the lives of others around the world. Republicans need to read the growing sentiment of the American people who are looking for Constitutional government and not merely a slower vehicle towards totalitarianism. The following are some bullet points that might help those who want to resist this government expansion:

• Make it personal. Do you know people who have received poor treatment under socialized health care in other countries? How about those who received government care in this country? My mother's family was from England and had relatives die due to socialized medicine, so it is easy for me to make it personal. Spend a little time researching socialized health care horror stories. Conservatives for Patients Rights is an excellent source of information.


• Talk innovation. According to Forbes magazine, 80 percent of all innovations in health care are from the United States. For decades, the prevailing technology that has been used through out the world are from the USA. The reason for this is simple, this country is one of the last with a financial incentive to improve health care. When we remove the incentives in health care, we will naturally see technology slow to a trickle


• Talk about the law. Remind Members of Congress that the Constitution doesn't have a provision for socialized medicine. Furthermore, Article I, Section of the Constitution states what the federal government can do. Point out that this is an issue that is suppose to be left to the states, according to the Tenth Amendment. States such as California, Massachusetts, and Oregon each have comprehensive health care programs. Other states can develop their own, where such is allowed, each state can observe what others are doing and increase the likelihood of developing something that works. Republicans who are afraid of opposing socialized health care should say "I am open to such reforms as long as it is done by the states, where it is allowed."

Obama's health care agenda is immoral. Period. It is stealing from some to pay for others. The state of Hawaii had a universal program that lasted only seven months. Why? "People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program" he went on to say. Whatever amount the government claims it will cost is a mere fraction of what it will actually be. It will be ineffective, expensive, destroy innovation, and be a massive waste. This is a great opportunity for Republicans to take the offensive and fight for the rights of patients.

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.

Time to get Over the "S" Word

Recently, a very good friend of mine and nationally known economist (and frequent guest on the Price of Business Show) told an interviewer on Fox News that he liked to "avoid the 'S' word." This economist is one of the most passionate and best informed advocates of freedom that I personally know. His credentials in the cause of liberty are without question. With that, I find it hard to believe that he and other free market economists have a problem with the "S" word. It is time to get over the word, and focus on its consequences.

Let's begin by demystifying the word "socialism." If you recall back in your basic economics class, we are told that socialism is "government control or ownership of the means of production." Let's break this already basic definition into even more simple terms. We largely know that the phrases "Government control" and "ownership" are self explanatory. It doesn't have to be both, simply one or the other. The other part is the "means of production." This can simply mean people, businesses, machines and any thing else that adds to the economy.

So is the United States becoming a socialist country or is it already there? Who would believe we would have the President of the United States firing the CEO of an American automobile company? Who would imagine the United States government becoming the major stock holder of untold numbers of American companies? Who would think that the United States would arbitrarily and retroactively break contract law with companies (e.g., the government's taking of bonuses of AIG executives, when they clearly originally agreed to such).

The US didn't have an election in November and then wake up to a socialist regime in January. As Fredrich Hayek pointed out in his The Road to Serfdom, these processes do not have to happen over night. Our road has been, arguably one that has taken over a century (maybe longer), but we are reaching that point where socialism will soon be the commonly accepted worldview. A few years ago politicians shunned in fear the "liberal label," now politicians coolly dismiss comparisons of our countries with European socialism. In fact, they almost appear to be saying, "That is a problem?"

This "road to serfdom" for our country could be a rather lengthy book, but I'm going to only give a few examples:

• Our Founding Fathers originally prohibited income tax because they believed that the federal government had no business knowing how much people made or even how they made it. Furthermore, income taxes are a tax on wealth creation, which is the type of tax that makes economies weaker. Why would any government want to do that?
• The Constitutional Convention was made up of representatives of the thirteen states. Their over riding objective was to protect those states from a federal government that could grow out of control. Most Americans don't even realize that the US Senate was comprised of individuals chosen by the state governments to represent their interests. This was the practice until the 20th century. Furthermore, our US Constitution could not get ratified by the states without the first ten amendments. These Bill of Rights that are now claimed by the federal government as a tool for its protection, were designed to protect the states and the American people.
• In the 1930s there was a complete perversion of the role of government from one of an umpire (making sure that everyone was judged by the same rules) to a parent (attempting to "create" equality in results), which is a contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

The very first step in dealing with any addiction or disease is to own it, so you can battle it. The first step on the road to get the US back where it belongs is to recognize the "socialist" label so we can find a path to liberty.

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.

"I Believe in Free Enterprise, Except..."

For almost two decades I have been sitting across the table from politicians, authors, business leaders, and economists as guests on one of my radio programs. There have been the occasional crazies who want to socialize everything, but the vast majority of them -- like the majority of your neighbors and co-workers -- claim to support free enterprise.

These conversations about the virtues of the market go the same way. "The free market is so amazing and powerful, it is able to create jobs and new industries. It is terrible that government seems to do everything in its power to undermine the economy's potential." However, you dig a little deeper and then you start finding exceptions. Most of the time those exceptions are based on what they do for a living. Attorneys who represent clients who have suffered property damage will say, "they support free enterprise, except when it comes to the regulations they place on insurance companies." The farmer will tell you, "I definitely support free enterprise, except when it comes to agriculture subsidies." Scientists definitely believe the economy is best left alone "except when it comes to research grants." You get the idea.

Our entire socialistic system has evolved over the decades to accommodate exceptions like these above. Now we have millions of Americans who support free enterprise, "except." That "except" is bankrupting us and destroying our freedoms.

One of the most inspiring things I ever witnessed was the "Damn Right" campaign for President of Pete dupont in 1988. In that year, I actually voted for the former Delaware Governor while managing a Congressional race in West Texas. I have the feeling I was the only one who casted that vote in that town. He lost big time in the ballot box, but his message is as potent today as it was then. Pete duPont had no problem telling farmers, seniors, scientists and anyone else that they were part of the problem and that everyone would have to sacrifice in order to restore our freedoms. It was "damn right" for people to carry their own weight and not seek government as a solution.

Those who founded this Republic were aware that it was the tendency of government to expand over time. That is why they believed in the dispersion of power and they wanted to make changes in policy hard to achieve. The states would not ratify the Constitution with its "necessary and proper clause" that could be used for all form of abuses, without a Tenth Amendment that makes it perfectly clear that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." They envisioned a nation of nations, with each state offering their own unique approaches to solving problems, all of them checked in their excesses because people could leave that state to another that provided more freedom. The decline in our liberties and the increase in socialism, are all linked to the undermining of the political institutions in government designed to protect us from an authoritarian federal government.

So, where does the long path towards the restoration of freedom begin? John F. Kennedy is famous for saying "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." We need to ask ourselves, what "exception to freedom can I give up for my country?"

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on CNN 650 (M-F at 11 am), AOL Radio, and CBS Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com.

European Leaders Begin to Size up Obama

It seems like it has been years since Obama gave his speech in France in front of thousands of raving fans. People came in mass to stand at the feet of "the Messiah" who pointed towards a new era in international relations. Obama's polling numbers were off the chart through out Europe and leaders on the other side of the Atlantic were anxious to enter a new era with a new US leader.

We are now just a couple of months into the Obama Administration and reviews are beginning to come in from those same leaders who were very recently singing his praises.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy believes that Obama's approach of focusing on bailouts is fundamentally flawed and short sighted, declaring, "the problem is not about spending more, but putting in place a system of regulation so that the economic and financial catastrophe that the world is seeing does not reproduce itself."

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that "the prime minister of the Czech Republic slammed President Barack Obama's plan to spend nearly $2 trillion to push the U.S. economy out of recession as 'the road to hell' that European Union governments must avoid." Furthermore, "all of these steps, these combinations and permanency is the road to hell," Mr. Topolanek said. "We need to read the history books and the lessons of history and the biggest success of the [EU] is the refusal to go this way. Americans will need liquidity to finance all their measures and they will balance this with the sale of their bonds but this will undermine the liquidity of the global financial market," Mirek Topolanek said.

The Telegraph, a British newspaper recently had the headline, "Can Obama win Us Back?" It is sub titled "President Obama is losing friends - and the G20 will be a further test." The newspaper was referring to the lack of preparation the US put into its embassy positions. Clearly, for the US, international relations was on the back burner in the minds of British leaders.

Not all of the criticism is towards Obama directly, but the disagreement in approach is still obvious. Sweden was been facing a problem with its automobile industry that is very similar to what the US has faced, yet had a very different response to its problems. The New York Times reported that the "enterprise minister, Maud Olofsson, put it recently, 'The Swedish state is not prepared to own car factories.'" Saab lost over $340 million last year and has begun the process of "reorganization," which is one step short of bankruptcy.

Headlines through out Europe are generally taking a more negative, or at least, cautious tone and are increasingly doubtful about Obama's ability to move the US in the right direction. What is interesting about the criticism is that it is coming from countries that have been noted for being socialist for decades, but are now concerned that the US is taking an approach that is to the left of them. These are strange days indeed.

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 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.

Sweden, US, and Answering the Socialism Question

The economic lessons the vast majority of us received in high school and college is grossly inadequate. Most people can't answer the simple question as to whether the US is making a dramatic move towards socialism. In fact, most can't even explain what socialism is. Socialism is simply defined as "government control or ownership of the means of production." What are the means of production? You and I are, of course, as are the businesses we own and work for.

Recently and with questionable Constitutional authority, the Congress has financed (largely through fiat money) the massive taking over of numerous financial institutions. So ambitious is the government's reach, Congressional leaders are "naming names" of individuals who received bonuses from companies that garnered a bailout to an angry mob and retroactively taxing these executives in an effort to punish the businesses they claimed a commitment to protect.

Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner and company are not finished yet. The Associated Press are reporting that he and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke "sought broad new powers Tuesday to regulate tottering nonbank financial companies like insurance giant AIG, and President Barack Obama said he hopes 'it doesn't take too long to convince Congress' to grant them.'" These powers don't merely transfer to the Fed and to Treasury, but to the President himself. Furthermore "Along with the new authority to regulate and, if necessary, take over giant financial companies whose collapse might endanger the broader economy, the administration wants increased oversight and controls of previously unregulated markets such as hedge and private equity funds." The government's reach will even go into financial institutions that didn't participate in the bailout programs.

I remember when Americans were shocked back in 1979 when Chrysler successfully negotiated a bailout from the federal government that was a fraction of what GM received in January, which was a very small fraction of what the government gave in bailouts in general.

Historically, when we typically think of socialism, we think of Europe. Furthermore, the most socialistic of all the European governments is arguably Sweden, which is famous for its "cradle to grave" government programs. But recently George Bush, without Congressional approval, gave $15 billion to help bailout the Automobile industry. Sweden's government had a very different message to its struggling and iconic Saab motor company. The New York Times reported that the "enterprise minister, Maud Olofsson, put it recently, 'The Swedish state is not prepared to own car factories.'" Saab lost over $340 million last year and has begun the process of "reorganization," which is one step short of bankruptcy.

Ironically, the Washington Times has noted that "Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Monday that the administration decided on its public-private plan to rescue the U.S. financial system because "we are not Sweden," the country known for nationalizing troubled banks and other sectors of its economy. We are the United States of America, we are not Sweden," Mr. Geithner said.

Geithner is right, Sweden had enough sense and, maybe a commitment to free market principles, to avoid socializing the automobile industry. One thing we know for sure is that there is no question the US is making a dramatic move towards becoming socialistic and seems to be trying to surpass, rather than merely catch up, with Europe's poster child of socialism.

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 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.

It is the "Cubaization" and not the "Europization" that We Should Fear

Conservative pundits have rightly pointed out that President Barack Obama is moving rapidly towards socializing the US economy. In making this case, we are told that Obama is working towards the "Europization" of the United States. Obama simply smiles at such comments and you can almost hear him say "thank you."

Most Americans have heard and seen decades of propaganda from the mainstream media about the "virtues" of socialism in Europe. We are told about how wonderful it is to have "free" (if not rationed) health care, the beauty of 30 hour work weeks, and the splendor of employers being unable to fire employees when they deem it necessary. Furthermore, many Americans have gone to beautiful cities like Paris, London, and Rome and think these are great places. Such places are often wonderful to visit, but not to live in. What we haven't been told, or seen in our visits, are the chronic economic problems such policies foster. The Europeans would find our current unemployment rather low and would call this economy that we deem weak, rather strong. If we get down to it, very few Americans would want a European style for the United States. Neither does Barack Obama.

While Obama bombards us with the socialization of our health care, education system, and energy industry, he is quietly creating a political infrastructure designed to keep him and his friends in power for years to come. We are so busy looking at the policy decisions, we are missing the potentially dramatic changes in the US political system.

Obama, quietly, moved the Census Bureau tasks to the White House from the Commerce Department, in what could be a ploy to distort Congressional Districts in favor of his Democratic colleagues. Historically, this important function of government was left in Commerce because that department faces Congressional accountability. Conservatives are not the only ones to fear this, liberal Senator Robert Byrd described Obama's movement of Cabinet functions to the White House by saying that "'too often, I have seen these lines of authority and responsibility become tangled and blurred, sometimes purposely, to shield information and to obscure the decision-making process." This isn't limited to the Census, but also energy, health care, education, and other major policy initiatives.

Obama's "stimulus" package is designed to ensure his long term power. Obama cut his teeth as a political activist and used the radical ACORN organization in his rise to power. That organization, which used political pressure as a powerful force behind the issuing of mortgages to people who could not afford them, will receive over $4 billion from Obama's so-called stimulus package for "educational purposes." This is not the only radical group to be able to eat at Obama's trough, it is just one of the most notable. It is safe to say that the majority of those dollars will go to help candidates and organizations that support Obama's policies. The bulk of the Obama package is not economic stimulus, but political payoffs designed to keep the pockets of his supporters lined and the Democrats in office for years to come.

Instead of being alarmed by our current economic crisis, Obama is delighted. In fact, I believe he needs more bad news to pursue his agenda. Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel reflected the sentiment of the Obama Administration when he said "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before." Obama is bombarding Congress and the American people with so many different policy and political changes, we can't even begin to keep up with them. That is by design and not by accident. Very few of the things Obama is pursuing would survive the due diligence process one issue at a time. So like rats trying to evacuate a room all at once, they are all scrambling for the door with the knowledge that some of them will get through.

In Emanuel's logic, this crisis is not nearly as bad as it needs to be. Instead of being alarmed by a stock market that has tanked to levels we haven't seen in over a decade and rising unemployment numbers, Obama continues to talk down the economy in a relentless effort to make this situation look as bas as possible so he can pursue his radical agenda.

Be it increased tax creation on the income groups that create jobs, additional financial burdens for companies that try to offer employees health benefits, or the undermining of our political institutions that help keep us free; all of these items are part of a larger agenda towards making the US look more like Cuba or Venezuela and not like Europe. The Europization of the US? We couldn't be so lucky.

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.

Barack Obama: More Pork than Promise

Recently, AOL did a survey of the 10 people that are admired most. The list wasn't limited to modern times or the United States. In fact, Jesus Christ himself made the list and he was second only to Barack Obama. With those kind of ratings, expectations are very high.

So, tonight, when "the Messiah" entered the Halls of Congress, the American people were expected to get "wowed!" What that got was a lengthy list of promises that stand contrary to his commitment to cut the deficit in half in four years (one of his more recent commitments). The following are some "highlights" of what the President intends to do in order to not only "improve the economy," but to also fundamentally change the way we are governed.

The following are two examples in the Obama agenda of why only 13 cents of every dollar actually goes to job creation and raises concerns that the American people have bought into a questionable bill of goods.

Education

"Because of this (recovery) plan, families who are struggling to pay tuition costs will receive a $2,500 tax credit for all four years of college. And Americans who have lost their jobs in this recession will be able to receive extended unemployment benefits and continued health care coverage to help them weather this storm. "

This is the kind of aggressive spending program that will do little to add to jobs, but will do a great deal to add to the deficit. Getting a college education in this country is already more achievable than many other parts of the world, which is why we have so many people from around this planet in our universities. Some financial burden in pursuing a degree will heighten the "ownership" attitude of those who are pursuing it. Don't get me wrong, I can tell one first hand that this has been a challenge for my family (my wife and I have eight children). Some times they start at community college, they have to take a little longer to finish, but all of these things lead to better students and, I believe, a better education system. Besides being costly, adding tax credits like this will also cheapen the educational system.

Health Care

"This budget builds on these reforms. It includes an historic commitment to comprehensive health care reform - a down-payment on the principle that we must have quality, affordable health care for every American. It’s a commitment that’s paid for in part by efficiencies in our system that are long overdue. And it’s a step we must take if we hope to bring down our deficit in the years to come... I suffer no illusions that this will be an easy process. It will be hard. But I also know that nearly a century after Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform, the cost of our health care has weighed down our economy and the conscience of our nation long enough. So let there be no doubt: health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year."

His vision of Health Care Reform is socialized medicine. Besides being terribly inefficient (I have an aunt and grandfather who died as a direct result of the British health care system, these programs are expensive. The Health Systems Innovations Network (HSI) "estimates the Obama plan would cost $452 billion per year, or more than $6 trillion over a 10-year period. The dramatic difference between this estimate and others is largely a result of HSI's assumption that under Obama's mandate to cover children, the federal government would subsidize virtually the full cost of coverage. Also, HSI finds that the employer mandate would add sizable costs to the federal government."

Obama has been saying that we have reached "the beginning of the end" of government as we knew it and he is right. Instead of a country that gave some regard to economic freedom and individual responsibility, we are becoming wards of a nanny state that plans on taking care of us through systems that are too costly, inefficient, and fundamentally opposed to the values that made us great.

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.

Remembering the Real Meaning of Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving has become my favorite holiday. As an adult with many children, Christmas has lost some of its charm and there are few things more enjoyable than getting fat and watching holiday specials. However, one of the things I do not enjoy is the propaganda my kids share with me about the meaning of Thanksgiving. They often tell me about how the Indians taught the Pilgrims how to grow food and that, in spite of a rough beginning, these early Americans enjoyed an abundant harvest. Essentially the Pilgrims were thanking the Indians for their generosity.

In reality, the colony's governor, William Bradford noted that "the experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them." People didn't want to work, because they were not individually rewarded for their efforts. Bradford knew there had to be a better.

The governor stated that "All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression." It is interesting that the problems of welfarism was as great in the beginning of our country as it is today. A little incentive goes a long way.

As a result of those changes, the Pilgrims went from hunger and famine in 1621 and 1622 to widespread abundance. The only difference was a simple change in policy that increased incentives to work and not be slothful. When Washington and Obama discusses such today, they need this important reminder from history.

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.

Obama Calls for Black Reparations

Ever since the conversation between "Joe the Plumber" and Barack Obama, people have been up in arms over the Illinois' Senator and his socialist leanings. Obama declared he wanted to "spread the wealth" and do so with the earnings of those with higher incomes.



Now, John McCain and his allies are looking for examples of Obama's socialistic leanings at every opportunity they can find and, unfortunately, missing an equally alarming and dangerous story. Currently, McCain supporters are referring to a 2001 radio interview in which the then Illinois state senator was discussing the civil rights movement. During the interview he pointed out that: "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society… and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."

The radio interview (click the image above) does make it clear that Obama supports the redistribution of wealth. He is a socialist. Socialism, unfortunately, has been a part of the liberal mantra for years. The list of Marxist sounding quotes by Obama's Democrat opponent, Hillary Clinton, is exhaustive in its own right. During her run for the Presidency, Clinton said:

• "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
• "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few..... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."
• "(We) ....can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."
• "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground."
• "I certainly think the free-market has failed."
• "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

Therefore, "socialism" has become a common Democrat agenda. Obama, in this interview, goes further. He is discussing the targeting of specific ethnic groups for payment to another ethnic group. He is a socialist that believes that the majority population today should be forced to pay for the treatment that black people received generations ago. This is ethnic and class warfare at its worst. In a culture that has become too comfortable with the redistribution of wealth, this largely missed story among the socialist rhetoric rampant today could actually make Americans think twice.

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.

Are Democrats Declaring Capitalism Dead?

This is one of those posts that are very hard to write. It is the kind of thing that I would prefer to "rant" about rather than approach with calm, because the situation really is quite upsetting. Things that is so important to our culture, our history, and our affluence is being declared dead by members of the Democratic Party. Free enterprise, limited government, and private property are being treated like old and dead ideas. Democrats see them as concepts that didn't work and should be swept away.

In the early 1990s I traveled several times to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union conducting seminars on how to convert their economies to free markets while I was a Fellow with the American Economic Foundation. Today, all of the economies in the countries I addressed with the exception of Belarus have lower tax rates than the United States today. It appears our universities and political leaders need similar seminars in our country.

Governor David Paterson of New York told Fox News today that it is time to begin the public works programs similar to what we had under Franklin Roosevelt. He joins numerous Congressional Democrats making similar proclamations. In a candid encounter with a man on the streets, Presidential candidate Barack Obama said that he believes that "spreading the wealth" is a "good thing."

Historically, the purpose for taxes is to pay for those programs that were designed to be beneficial to all and provided special privileges for none. During the Great Depression, the idea of helping those due to extraordinary circumstances came into practice after early attempts by the Supreme Court to stop such policies, failed (Roosevelt out lived enough members of the Court and appointed those with a similar worldview to take their place and the majority). This was soon followed in the 1960s by a "War on Poverty" that became more like an assault on the poor that led to an increase of economic despair annually until the policies began to be reversed in the 1990s (which has led to a reduction in poverty). We are right back at the point of going back to the government creating a paternal relationship with its citizens. Are we like sheep? You bet!

Irresponsible organizations like ACORN fund individuals that include Sen. Barack Obama, who in turn "organized" his "community" to pressure local banks to back loans that lead to our subprime crisis. As a result of the efforts of people like Obama, the unaccountable banks gave more money to his campaigns than any member in the history of the Senate with the exception of the Banking Committee Chairman, Chris Dodd. Obama leads the effort to undermine the fundamentals of our financial system and he will be rewarded with the highest office in the land. People are "entitled" to home loans we are told, let the standards that keep banks operating healthy be disregarded. Now we are being told to bailout the banks that have taken such a route.

This massive push towards socialism isn't entirely the Democrats fault. In fact, John McCain has done an excellent Democrat impersonation by saying he wants some of the $800 billion to go directly to home builders who are struggling so they can pay off their loans. Let's reward those who bit off more than they can chew, he argues, but there will be no benefit to those who had adjustable rate mortgages and figured out how to maintain their obligations. Talk about moral hazard!

Republicans aren't losing the election today because voters have denounced free enterprise, it is because they can't find a serious candidate that is promoting such. Republicans have done a terrible job of defending economic freedom since Ronald Reagan and voters are lost as to where they can find those who will support economic liberties. I have said for a long time that if Republicans are going to act like Democrats, you might as well vote for the genuine article. Republicans need to get prepared for that probability as we approach the election.

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.

Maxine Waters Gets Honest

I worked in Washington, DC many years ago; first as an aide to now retired US Sen. Gordon Humphrey (R-NH) and later as a policy analyst to DC think tanks and as a political consultant. What is hard to find among the politicians I dealt with and what seems harder to find today are those who are noted for being candid. With that, I stand impressed with the unusual amount of honesty displayed by Congresswoman Maxine Waters of California.

Waters is a liberal. Maybe the most liberal in Congress. Most Democrats have read the party's official playbook and know that it simply isn't safe to describe one as a liberal. Barack Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate, according to the National Journal, but won't let that word leave his mouth regarding anyone, let alone his own record. You simply don't do it. Maxine Waters did though. She recently told oil executives what "this liberal" intended to do to them. Those words alone caught me by surprise, but she didn't stop there. Oh no, not there.

She went on the say that she had every intention to work towards the government socializing the oil industry. That's correct. Socialize. She paused when she said it (see video, above). "Did I go too far?" her face seemed to be asking. She tried to change the spin a little, by saying "taking over" the industry, but the word was out there and her correction was almost more ominous than her initial statement. Her colleagues sitting by her were honestly shocked by her words as well.

But Waters isn't like most politicians. She described the riots in South Central L.A. following the Rodney King verdict as a "rebellion" that was justified. She was ranked among the 13 most "corrupt" Members of Congress (out of 535 in the House and Senate combined) by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. She has represented California 35 for almost 20 years, but it is still one of the poorest areas in the state with a median income that is approximately half of the rest of the state. In spite of all these things, Waters gets reelected by over 80 percent every election cycle. I guess with that type of good fortune, in spite of remarkably poor performance, you can call yourself a socialist -- er, liberal -- without much cause of concern.

According to recent surveys on marketing, most advertising attracts sellers (others who want you to buy more ads) and not buyers. Do you want to know why? Email info@HoustonBusinessShow.com and put "marketing audio" in the subject line and we will get it to you.

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.