Blog Changes

I've been taken to task by friends of mine who say they like what I write, but I'm not writing a blog. Instead, most of the time, I'm writing articles. They said I should do that somewhere else. So, with that, expect to see the transformation of this thing into a true blog. What does that mean?

According to people who clearly know better than me, that means you will see many more entries much more often. I'm going to make every effort to put something on here daily. It isn't that I don't have something to write about, I simply whether if I have enough to write a whole article each time. According to the rules of blogs, I need to change my thinking.

Also, these entries will likely be much shorter. A couple sentences, a few paragraphs, whatever is necessary to get my thoughts "on paper."

Below is my most recent entry and it is on Carolyn of the Apprentice. Between that article and next Friday, you will hopefully see many more items.

Newsweek Changes its Image, But can it Change the Future of Magazines?

Newsweek is joining a list of other publications that are trying to reinvent themselves as it undergoes a major design and image change that includes a look that is similar to The Economist magazine. Many publications are making similar efforts, whether they will be successful in remaining economically viable is doubtful.

I love print publications. Any time I discuss the subject of the decline of magazines or newspapers, I always feel compelled to throw that in. I'm not exactly sure why I do it. Maybe it is to explain that I don't have an agenda against print publications, but I think it is to point out that I find its demise as sad as anyone else (with the exception of those who make a living from such).

I'm now largely old fashioned, I own a Blackberry, while my most of my friends are "clicking along" with their IPhones and GPhones. Yet my old Blackberry (which I am up grading in a few months) is more than adequate to find all the information I need on what is going on in the news and more opinion columns than I will ever use. Furthermore, the content I find is usually up to the minute. Weekly magazines, like Newsweek, are typically outdated before the ink even dries. I find it very funny that publications like this have a date from a week out on its cover. I know, it isn't saying that it covers what is going to happen (it covers how long it is suppose to be on the stands), but the whole thing seems ridiculous.

The New York Times recently wrote about the changes and noted that "a major change in its identity, with a new design, a much smaller and, it hopes, more affluent readership, and some shifts in content." In my opinion, it will be in this latter area if Newsweek makes a difference.

The Times also reports “There’s a phrase in the culture, ‘we need to take note of,’ ‘we need to weigh in on,’ ” said Newsweek’s editor, Jon Meacham. “That’s going away. If we don’t have something original to say, we won’t. The drill of chasing the week’s news to add a couple of hard-fought new details is not sustainable.”' I like this. because we are so deluged with the exact same headlines and the exact same stories on a daily basis. Something has got to give. "Giving" us a unique perspective, something not being offered by other news publications, would be refreshing. I'm delighted to read about the commitment, but will be more exciting if they can translate that into a reality. Talk is cheap and there is plenty of that online, in print, on TV, etc.

Part of changing its editorial approach should mean a serious look at philosophy. Currently, Newsweek has a reputation of being among the most "radical" among mainstream news publications. Inviting writers from a different perspective certainly couldn't hurt.

It is funny, because as Newsweek visually strives to look like the Economist, it is also trying to be more like it in content. The Economist has long been one of the most current, creative, and serious contributors to original content. I actually think that, in spite of the fact it has struggled like other magazines, that it will remain relevant. I am not so confident about the future of Newsweek.

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.

From the Houston Business Show Studios...

I'm writing today's blog entry from the studios of the Houston Business Show high above the city of Houston (at CNN 650). Yes, it sounds glamorous and it is true that we are high in the sky (around the 19th floor and fantastic view), but the actual studio I do the show from is smaller than my closet. In fact, a regular joke among personalities associated with the station is that we "come out of the closet" after each program.

On today's program, the first live one from 2007, I visited with Jim Stein of the Bank of Houston, which is a title sponsor of the show. The Bank of Houston is built on the concept that "everything old is new again." Back "in the old days," banks were born out of the neighborhoods they operated in and were built on the concept of relationship banking. Today, that largely seems to be little more than a nifty advertising slogan for most financial institutions. That is where the Bank of Houston differs, it truly is a bank of and for Houston.

Being a new year, I wanted to help individuals get organized with our first program and with that I had Holly Uverity of Office Organizers and Shahara Wright of The Wright Law Firm on about getting one's office and legal issues, in order for 2007. Both of these ladies are also Houston Business Show Advisors with articles at the Houston Business Review.

Holly emphasized the importance of making the beginning of the year a great opportunity to get one's business together. That process usually begins with developing the necessary systems to make your business more organized and effective. Being organized saves a business both time and money and makes it more productive.

Shahara discussed the fact that people are under going constant changes, but often fail to make sure their legal situation keeps up with them. Often, when a new business partner is being added to a firm or an individual gets married, people seem too busy to have the legal paper work reflect those changes. Spending time evaluating the previous year, and considering what changes are necessary, is a great way to begin the month of January.

Remember, you can hear the Houston Business Show 24/7 and around the world by visiting our archive.

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.

Is Obama Forcing Businesses to Leave the US?

Before Obama was even elected, the United States had the dubious distinction of having the second highest tax rate on business of any industrialized country in the world. Since being elected, the President has waged economic genocide on the US economy and industry.

Barack Obama has decided to declare war on U.S. companies that are allowed to defer paying U.S. taxes on the profits they make on their overseas investments and enjoy a provision that allows companies to make foreign subsidiaries disappear for tax purposes. These provisions exist in order to protect companies from the threat of double taxation and keeps them more competitive.

According to International Business Times (IBT), businesses that are subject to the changes "argue that Obama's plan will leave U.S.-based companies vulnerable overseas because foreign rivals won't have to pay the 35% U.S. corporate tax rate—instead paying the tax rates, in effect, overseas, where they are generally considerably lower." Much lower, as indicated, since the US is ranked near the top in this category and with Obama's recent commitment to raise taxes for those who make over $250,000, I think it is safe to say that the US will be taking the number one spot. I was visiting with my wife about this in our car and I laid out the scenario. I basically pointed out that, thanks to the Laws of Comparative Advantage, some countries offer things that certain businesses need to make competitive products or services. For US companies it is certain types of labor. As a result, companies often stay corporately located in this country, but have other parts of their business in other places.

So, I asked my wife, "what do you think these companies will do when they are double taxed by the US and the other countries where they have businesses?" She answered, "they would likely move to those other countries with lower tax rates, DUH!" She thought it was a stupid question. It wasn't my fault, Obama raised it, not me. So in an effort to keep businesses from exporting jobs overseas, Obama will actually export the entire companies.

I asked my wife, "so where did you get your degree in economics?" She said, "a degree in economics? Who needs that, all you need is a little common sense." Now that is something we need in public policy today.

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. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

The US uses Zimbabwe as an Economic Model

Americans are being bombarded on numerous fronts -- AIG executives getting outrageous bonuses with taxpayer dollars, the government is bolstering illegal immigrants, Obama is placing pressures on states to restore the welfare state, etc., etc., etc. However, the biggest issue of concern to all Americans may be happening and getting a complete pass by the mainstream media. That is the paying for massive new government programs through the mass production of worthless money. Money, according to the New York Times, "printed out of thin air."

The United States government is using inflation, which is the most harsh form of taxation of all, to pay for its out of control spending. Inflation isn't merely "high prices," although that is a symptom of such a policy. Instead, inflation is "too much money chasing too few goods" and in this case for the purpose of paying for government. If the number of dollars go up, the value of that currency goes down. This results in higher prices, a decline in investment, and economic instability.

All of us are familiar with the history classes where we have seen Germany's inflation that resulted in a wheel barrell of money being required to pay for a loaf of bread. This inflation created such economic havoc that it created the perfect environment for Adolph Hitler to rise to power. It became so bad that it was easier and cheaper to use money as wallpaper than to go to the store and buy such.

In addition to destroying the value of our money, inflation is a horrible form of taxation. When our prices begin to go through the roof, our largely uneducated public will often blame business over government for the terrible changes we will witness. Inflation is the government's cowardly way to pay for its irresponsible programs.

Very few legitimate countries use inflation as a means to fund their governments. That policy is typically relegated to places like Iran (17 percent), Burma (35 percent), and Zimbabwe (231,000,000 percent). The last country's situation is such a disaster, it has 85 percent unemployment and the people are grateful it is only that high, with a worthless currency fueling that job market.

Just this week the United States took a chapter out of Zimbabwe's playbook by pumping $1.2 trillion into the money supply in an attempt to pay off its bills. Many Americans have (rightly) been alarmed by the more than $1.5 trillion we have seen in bailouts. According to the Washington Post, these inflationary efforts have the potential of being much more far reaching, noting that "combined with the billions already deployed by the Fed, the new money dwarfs even the biggest government bailouts of financial companies."

When the currency is ravaged by an inflationary money supply, the first place to turn to is to precious medals. Jay Hancock of the Baltimore Sun noted that "yesterday the Fed announced it would inject more than $1 trillion in the economy by buying longer-term Treasuries and mortgages. As Yves Smith notes, even the $300 billion the Fed pledged for Treasuries may not have much effect, given the huge supply of bonds the government needs to sell to finance the ballooning deficit. Gold is soaring, presumably on the expectation that the Fed's move will undermine the dollar and stoke long-term inflation. It's up $60 this morning. Has there ever been a bigger intraday or daily increase?" Precious medals should only go higher.

History has shown that "pumping money" into an economy to pay for government programs has always resulted in massive damage to a country. It is typically the last resort of third world governments on the brink of economic ruin. We have entered a very dangerous stage in our nation's history.

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.

Socialized Medicine on Strategy Room

My second appearance on Strategy Room (FoxNews.com) this past week moved to a topic that hits close to home to me -- socialized medicine. Eric Bolling had already navigated the panel through his 3 PM hour through a plethora of topics and they were primed by the time I got on the show.

My mother came right off the boat from England. She was a war bride who left her family to join her spouse in the United States. She was young when she did this, a mere 18 years old. Maybe, as a result, she was one of the biggest fan of England you would ever find. She would go on and on about the "virtues" of British socialism and how "terrible" it was that people in this country were responsible for their own health insurance. Having had visited with members of my family in "the old country" many times over the years, my instincts tell me that my mother would have likely had a very different view of British socialism if she lived under it.

My aunt (her sister) use to tell me how such a huge portion of every paycheck was devoured by the socialized health care system, she was amazed by the large number of people who were subsidized to not work, and was disgusted by how it became almost impossible for the average Brit to buy their own home. Regarding health insurance, she said national health care is "great until you need it." It provides "enormous peace of mind" until you actually get sick. Ironically, this aunt eventually died in the British health care system. She was diagnosed with cancer and could not believe how slowly the government dragged its feet in her treatment. Things were even worse when it came to my grandfather when he became ill. Doctors informed my family that treatment options were "limited" because he no longer paid taxes. My aunt was convinced my grandfather died because of the rationing of health care (a common problem when the government controls or owns anything).

This anecdote hits close to home, but the facts support her argument that socialized medicine does not work:

• According to England's own National Institute of Health, eleven percent of the population of England has very expensive private health insurance. This allows them to get treated as a person, rather than a crowd, and to be able to hold their doctor accountable in a way you can't have when the government is your vendor.


• In countries such as Canada it is common for people to head to the US for much of their health care (particularly urgent). Many individuals will go to a veterinarian to get tests, like MRIs, because the waiting lists are too long with government doctors.


• In Australia's socialized health care state, more than half of the population has private insurance.


• More than 60 percent of innovations in health care are from the United States with a much smaller part being carried by the rest of the world. If the US chooses a socialized system, innovation will be severely damaged because it is the incentives in our system that promotes changes and improvements.

One of the best discussions I have had on the subject was with David Asman of Fox Business when he was a guest on my show (then called the Houston Business Show). While visiting in England his wife had a stroke and barely survived. Because of his resources he was able to get her the best care possible in that country, but concluded that an indigent person in the United States has a better opportunity for recovery than the best insured in England. The harsh reality is very simple, why would we believe that a government that can do so few things effectively, could handle the huge task of providing for all our health care needs?

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. 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.

I'm Back and Happy New Years!

I predicted very accurately that I was stuck and would be until I returned. We had a great trip, visited the San Antonio River Walk (which looked beautiful with its many Christmas lights), played several board games (including Risk, which brings out the worst and best in me), and ate way more food than is necessary. This last point led me to make many resolutions that, sadly, I have already broken. But there's always next year!

2006 was one of the most productive and exciting years I have enjoyed in a long time. I saw enormous changes in my family and business -- most of which were very positive -- that should provide much to build on in 2007. One of the more enjoyable things I've done and one that has contributed significantly to my professional life, has been this blog I've now seen excerpts of it in foreign languages and quoted around the world, showing how powerful the Web is and how small it has made the planet.

It is my hope that 2007 is a great year for you, one that makes you prosperous and productive and I look forward to spending much of it right here with you at this blog. Happy New Year!

Tax Policies in a Small World

The cliché that the "world is small" has increasingly become fact and not merely a clever statement. In fact, one of the most important books on the changes the world has faced in recent years is "The World is Flat" by Thomas Friedman. In it, Friedman points out that the lag time between information and decision making is at a all time low. Not only do people know where the best places are for the best deal on a car or a TV, they know the best states and countries for doing business.

Ireland went from what was practically a "third world" country in Europe to one of the fastest growing economies in the world. That was directly linked to its efforts of pursuing the lowest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world. Meanwhile, in the same time frame, Japan's economic situation has only become more dire as it continued to pursue high tax policies and garnering the dubious distinction as having the worse tax environment for business among modern economies.

The problem facing governments is simple, because in addition to being able to find our information fast on changes in government policies, people are able to move capital at a more rapid rate than any time in history. This is particularly true for the very wealthy (who have the resource to move money), who are always a popular target for high tax policies. The problem is not only among countries, but among regional or state governments (depending on the country).

Take the problem facing Maryland. The Wall Street Journal notes that the state of Maryland was in a terrible fiscal crisis and the government decided to saddle the deficit on the backs of the rich and "created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were 'willing and able to pay their fair share.' The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would 'grin and bear it.'" The article goes on to point out that a year after the tax increases, "One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a 'substantial decline.' On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates."

There is no doubt that the recession is playing a role in the problem of less revenue coming into the states. However, the amount of revenue that Maryland is losing far out paces the majority of the states in the union. The rich are people and not blocks of wood. Unlike an inanimate object, when people are attacked (in this case "the rich" in the form of high taxes) they "fight" (which is why they join the many other income groups adversely affected by government in protests) or they "flight" (capital leaving to find safer or more profitable places).

Obama has waged a war on those he deems affluent. This is beginning to include those who make less than $250,000 a year as seen in cigarette taxes and Cap and Trade. Even before many of Obama's policies have been put into law, businesses are responding. USA Today reports that Federal tax revenue "plunged" by the largest amount since 1981." There is no question that many of the dollars disappeared due to the recession, but there appears that much may have taken "flight" to safer places.

If the US is serious about increasing its revenues, it will need to develop tax policies that allow it to compete with other countries that are fighting to improve their economic circumstances. Just as companies have to compete with low prices, countries now have to compete with lower taxes.

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.

Wrapping Up 2007

On today's Houston Business Show I visited with Andy Valadez of Marketing Dynamics and Jim Driscoll of the Houston Business Media Group and GoalAchieversClub.com to discuss several things, including how to bring the year to a close with a bang.

Of particular interest was our focus on goals versus resolutions, which is always an interesting topic. At some point virtually all adults have made resolutions, which I define as often vague statements about the way people wish things were. As people age they typically no longer pursue such, not because they don't want the changes, but because resolutions don't work. Enter the need for goals.

The difference between goals and many resolutions is multi-fold:

* Goals are achievable. They are something that the person who makes such is capable of accomplishing. Such isn't always the case with resolutions. This is because resolutions often come with poor planning as they will try to "solve" all of their problems in one sweeping move.

* Goals are quantifiable. This means they are specific and can even include a minimum goal and a superior goal. Resolutions are often vague and lack a specific measure.

* Goals have a specific time frame. They state when the desired changed will be accomplished. Some times the goals are short term, mid term, or long term, but they are always dated. Goals without dates are really mere dreams. This is the most important attribute of goal setting, in my opinion.

* Goals are written. This helps memory and makes one accountable.

They are more attributes to goal setting that Jim Driscoll will be writing about in his blog at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Keep track of his content and other information at the What's New Page of that web site.

The bottom line is that the change you desire is worth pursuing. The best way of pursuing such is through very specific goals.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show on CNN 650 (M-F at 11 AM) and can be heard live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Keep up with all of our media activities by subscribing to the Houston Business Review. The above video is of Jim Driscoll, Calvin Brown, and Steve Chaloupka being interviewed by Kevin Price on the Movers and Shakers Segment of the HoustonManufacturers.com TV Show. Each are Business Show Advisors at HoustonBusinessShow.com.

Horror Stories are the Tip of the Rationed Care Iceberg

Americans have been discussing concerns about rationed (or government driven) health care for years. In the early 1990s, when Bill Clinton pursued such a program, we heard daily about the problems of long lines and lack of doctors that were common in government programs. Now we are hearing stories about the much lower success rates in countries with government care when it comes to combating major diseases. This goes against one of the fundamental reasons people argue for government care -- without fear of cost, people will go to the doctor quicker, get diagnosed earlier (or better still do the things that will prevent disease), and live longer and healthier lives. The facts are not supporting this hypothesis:

• The average time frame between a general practitioner and treatment in Canada's socialized health care program is more than 4 months (17.3 weeks) according to the Frazier Institute.


• 20% of curable lung cancer patients in the UK die due to long waiting lists, according to the Manhattan Institute. This is also the case in other conditions as I can speak from my own personal circumstances in which I lost my grandfather and an aunt due to Britain's famous lines.


• According to Investors Business Daily: "In France, the supply of doctors is so limited that during an August 2003 heat wave — when many doctors were on vacation and hospitals were stretched beyond capacity — 15,000 elderly citizens died."


• According to Forbes Magazine, the prostate cancer survival rate in the US is 80 percent, in the UK it is 44 percent.

These areas are huge in and of themselves, but the bigger issue is the impact rationed care will have on the development of new drugs, technology, and other innovations in health care. The poor quality of service seen in socialized systems cited above are largely would be even worse if not for the innovations created by the US system. Imagine how much more difficult quality care will be to achieve when all but the most altruistic incentives for improvements disappear. The profit driven health care system of the US drives innovation.

The Federal Reserve Bank did an evaluation of the ten leading innovations of 2001. These included improvements and discoveries in several areas, such as changess in MRIs, development of drugs for high blood pressure and heart disease, cholesterol reducing drugs, innovations in breast cancer diagnosis, surgery for heart failure, eye surgery, and more. In the ten different major areas of discovery, the United States dominated the list with its involvement in eight. The only other countries that played a role were the United Kingdom and Japan, each having only two innovations each.

Self interest has always driven innovation. The US has stood alone as a country that has made such a primary driver in changes in health care. It makes sense to wonder what the effects of worldwide health care socialism has already had on health care. Imagine what it will be like when the last bastion of innovation, the United States, loses the profit motive that has made this country the leader in health care discoveries for decades.

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.

Conservative Bloggers Fight Back

The conservative movement has successfully dominated the radio air waves since the 1980s. While much of the country had written off the AM dial, talking heads like Rush Limbaugh were just about to fire those dying stations up during the Reagan years. The result is Right wing dominance of this media. Talk radio's success and value to conservatives was driven by the fact that the mainstream media had largely become elite and hostile to conservative values. Talk radio was listener driven (through callers) and changed the way people got their information.

Fast forward fifteen years ago and you have a new player on the media scene, which is blogging and it is starting to dominate its industry. For some reason, liberals embraced this vehicle as a tool for change and for quite some time they have been the leader. Conservatives have found themselves limping along. I'm sure that there are multiple more liberal bloggers for each Conservative.

The problem isn't merely in numbers, but infrastructure. The left has developed support mechanisms, liberal organizations recognized bloggers as media long before conservatives, and their web platforms are far more numerous and sophisticated.

Positive changes are on the way, however, and are seen on a micro level at the 2008 Texas Republican Convention. For one thing, the party itself made it easier to for bloggers to get media credentials than in any time in the past. Unfortunately those credentials may become devalued over time if "anyone" can get them. I am sure more vetting will need to take place over time as the number of bloggers grow, but erring on the side of generosity of credentials simply makes sense at this time.

More exciting than a friendly environment for bloggers is the efforts of the Texas office of Americans for Prosperity in developing RightOnline.com. This will be more than another blog, because its unique state focus will help bloggers fight their battles on several government levels. The site and project are early in their progress, but I hope that it breaks down categories in a way RedState.com does, but includes a section for states and even regions. In addition to that, the organization created a "media room" at the recent convention (actually a very elaborate booth) where boggers were provided wired work stations surrounding an attractive stage where elected officials and candidates could be interviewed by the bloggers. It included an excellent PA system, video cameras and the videos from the conferences will show up on YouTube.com. A large screen TV makes it for an even more "polished" event. I will have a slide show about it in the next few days.

The organization is planning an event for conservative bloggers that is designed to help them improve their craft in Austin, Texas on July 18th and 19th and its list of speakers is most impressive. The event seems to be designed to be both informational and inspirational and speakers include conservative writer Michelle Malkin, former Maryland Republican Governer Michael Steele, Erick Erickson of Redstate.com, and many others. You can get more information about it at RightOnline.com.

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.

Are the Rich Necessary?

Hunter Lewis, author of the provocative Where Keynes Went Wrong, produced another winning book in Are the Rich Necessary?. Clearly policy makers in Washington, DC do not seem to think so and seem to have a very hostile view of the affluent. The "goose that lays the golden egg" is certainly in season. Lewis asks several tough questions that people need to ask in order to get a better understand of the economy and the world..

Lewis is a prolific writer who has written for The Atlantic, The New York Times, and the Washington Post and is the author of six books including the before mentioned Where Kenynes Went Wrong. He co-founded Cambridge Associates, a global investment firm whose clientele reads like a who's who of leading endowments and families, and includes the most prominent American universities. he has also served on boards and committees of fifteen leading nonprofits including the World Bank. He has appeared on "The Today Show," NPR, Fox and the BBC. He lives in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Lewis tackles many important questions, including:

Does Obama's objective of limiting charitable deductions for the rich make sense?

What impact is Wall Street having on politics (and vice versa)?

Is the income gap actually widening and if it is, what can be done to reverse that trend?

Has anything really been done to prevent another crash like the one in 2008?

Was the crash attributed to our profit system? Are there viable alternatives to such?

Should we tax average Americans to bailout major financial corporations?

Are the rich even compatible with a free society?

His answers are thorough, thoughtful, and even humorous. He loves to challenge conventional wisdom and does so on virtually every page of the book. The book is thorough and covers many areas of economics and could actually be an introductory text or compliment to such in an introductory economics class. Unfortunately, in our current academic culture, that is largely a dream and not likely to be found in your local college. This is all the more reason why you need to find it yourself.

The best may have been saved for last, in this important book. There, Lewis argues a new way to fill the gap between the rich and poor, of those who want free enterprise and those who want to make sure there are safety nets for the needy. His answer is to foster massive growth of nonprofits through changes in the tax structure. His ultimate goal is to raise nonprofits to the same stature as government when it comes to being a source of help in the eyes of the public.

Lewis brings to light the stark realities that mandate that we need informed voters who can help restore a healthy attitude towards the engines of prosperity that are currently an endangered species. Are the Rich Necessary? is an excellent place to begin that journey.

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.

What Type of "Future Judge" is Sotomayor Trying to "Inspire"

The hearings regarding Sonia Sotomayor's appointment to the Supreme Court are among the most interesting I have seen in quite some time. Not only does this particular appointee stir controversy when it comes to specific issues (e.g., Abortion, which is always a hot topic), but she brings a complete paradigm shift on the way the court conducts itself. In particular, this judge raises the question, "will justice remain blind?" Justice being blind is one of the fundamental rules of law that has guided this Republic. It is being seriously challenged by Sotomayor.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, has provided some of the most important questions to the changes in the law Sotomayor appears to want to pursue from the bench. Session stated in his questions to Judge Sotomayor:

"In 1997 when you came before the Senate and I was a new senator, I asked you this. In a suit challenging a government racial preference in quota or set-aside, will you follow the Supreme Court decision in Adarand and subject racial preferences to the strictest judicial scrutiny," close quote. In other words, I asked you would you follow the Supreme Court's binding decision in Adarand v. Pena. In Adarand, the Supreme Court held that all governmental discrimination, including Affirmative Action programs, that discriminated by race of an applicant must face strict scrutiny in the courts. In other words, this is not a light thing to do. When one race is favored over another, you must have a really good reason for it, or it's not acceptable."

"After Adarand, the government agencies must prove there is a compelling state interest in support of any decision to treat people differently by race. This is what you answered: "In my view, the Adarand court correctly determined that the same level of scrutiny -- strict scrutiny applies for the purpose of evaluating the constitutionality of all government classifications, whether at the state or federal level, based on race," close quote. So that was your answer, and it deals with government being the City of New Haven."

"You made a commitment to this committee to follow Adarand. In view of this commitment you gave me 12 years ago, why are the words "Adarand," "Equal protection" and "Strict scrutiny" are completely missing from any of your panel's discussion of this decision?"

Sessions essentially established that Mrs. Sotomayor lied when she sat for approval to the Court of Appeals in 1997. She lied, knowing that she would possibly be appointed to a higher court and that her radical decision against blind justice, would likely be over ruled (which it was in Ricci vs. DeStefano). Also, 80 percent of her decisions have been overturned by the Supreme Court. She is a radical jurist who will now be defining precedent in the Supreme Court. The future of the law will be one in which racism will be sanctioned.

Much of the concern lies in statements that she has made about "wise Latina" females making better decisions than white males. What motivated her to make, what can easily be described as a racist statement? She told the Senate Judiciary Committee that "I was trying to inspire them to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system, because different life experiences and backgrounds always do." In essence she is trying to inspire future lawyers. Lawyers who will consider racism as an acceptable framework for making legal decisions.

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.

Creating the New Media

The Internet has turned the world upside down. Brick and mortar has been rapidly replaced by click and portal. People have huge businesses without a building and the hottest TV networks are online.

For example, YouTube wasn't just another "website", but was the first new major network of the 21st century. Clever websites are not purchased by companies like Google for over $1.6 billion. A completely new media platform that has the convenience of the web and the visual qualities of TV apparently are.

The changes going on through the Internet are becoming an obsession of mine, something I discuss on my radio show (see video above), write about in this blog, and even think about when I'm alone (while looking at websites that fuel this interest).

Adding to this Internet debate is a website I recently stumbled on called Brightcove.com. The purpose of the site is to help people and businesses to create online TV networks of their own. Their client list is impressive, including A&E and CBS News (broadcast and cable), The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal (newspapers), as well as Time and Prevention (magazines). However, the site's value isn't limited to companies in the media, but to any company trying to develop creative ways to attract and keep customers.

What is most interesting about Brightcove is that you don't have to be a mega corporation to create your own online network. Instead, they offer options that allows small businesses to have the platform at no cost and share revenue for advertisements that they can run on the site they give you (with plenty of room for additional inventory). This makes it possible to have a very powerful media platform with minimal investment.

In addition, the site offers several lengthy articles on how to make the most of this impressive tool. I've spent hours on the site and I suggest you spend time there too.

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

Remembering Louie Welch

As most readers of this blog or listeners of my show know, I graduated from Abilene Christian University. ACU is well respected -- a top 3 for Master's level universities in Texas and in the top 25 in the South and West according to US News & World Reports, but it isn't well known. Furthermore, we lack the list of prestigious alumni that universities tend to hunger for.

One of those alumni that made a difference was Louie Welch, former mayor of Houston. Welch served four years on the city council before finally winning mayor. Who wouldn't leave that latter position until he finished an impressive five terms. He took over that spot during the turbulent 1960s and his tenure was filled with defusing the tensions between a white population that wasn't ready for equal rights and the African American population that rightfully demanded such.

In the end, he made significant progress on that front, quietly playing a part in protests on the behalf of minorities and overseeing major changes in attitudes. He was, without question, one of the most progressive Southern mayors in the 1960s.

He tried a political comeback in the 1980s and found himself in trouble over statements on homosexuality. In spite of this controversy, Welch is remembered fondly by the Houston community and is a great ACU alum who has made a difference.

I got the opportunity to meet Mr. Welch while we were both waiting for planes at the airport. He was polite and extremely friendly. He was absolutely thrilled that we both shared ACU in common and that I appreciated his service to the city. He was just that kind of person.

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.

"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 Bright Future Through the Eyes of Wired

Any reader of this blog knows my thoughts about Wired Magazine. It offers very optimistic insights into the future and helps readers to best prepare for that future than any magazine on the market today, in my opinion. It isn't always done through powerful and persuasive articles (although there are plenty of them), but even through a simple picture like the one in this post. I apologize for the size, but you need it large in order to truly appreciate it.

If you look closely you will find:

Patient: Maggie Bond
Tumor Ex 30MG
Tablet
Take one tablet by mouth 3X daily for treatment of lung cancer. Tumor should disappear by day 20.

It goes on to mention quantities, the doctor, refills, etc. The date? 1/18/14. Right around the corner. Although this is fiction, I believe that the dramatic changes going on in medicine today supports such optimism.

Everything we read and hear shows that cancer is on decline, even as people are living longer than ever and we have our largest population in history. Furthermore, the treatments are becoming less invasive and with more dramatic results.

Sure, at this point, this is wishful thinking. But it is the type of optimism grounded in fact. This epitomizes the style of Wired Magazine. That is why it is one of the only magazines I literally wait for with great anticipation. This feature is called "Artifacts from the Future", which is a reoccurring theme in the publication. This picture speaks a thousand very optimistic words and offers hope and excitement about the future. That is also what Wired Magazine does for its readers each month. At $10 a year for 12 issues, it is a very wise investment.