If you’re a good guest, that is.

I’ve spoken to lots of live audiences, some numbering in the thousands, but I know nothing about appearing on the radio. And I suck at it.

So I asked Austin Hill, author, consultant, and host of Austin Hill’s Big World of Small Business, for tips on how to be a great radio guest.

Assuming you know your subject–because if you don’t, you shouldn’t be on in the first place–here are ways to make the audience and the host enjoy your appearance: To read more of this article from Jeff Haden at http://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/how-to-be-a-great-radio-guest.html

Relax and be yourself.

You were booked because of who you are–not who you think you should be.

Realize it’s called a “show” for a reason.

Many experts and writers try to be too serious and display all their knowledge all at once. They forget that they need to be entertaining as well.

Interview shows are thoughtful and substantive, but if what you say doesn’t entertain listeners on some level–make them laugh, make them cry, get them fired up or angry and excited or motivated–they’re not going to stick around.

Spoken word content is consumed differently than articles, magazines, websites, etc. Radio consumption is active, but if it doesn’t meet my needs right now I will punch to something else.

It’s called a show for a reason, and when you’re the guest, it’s show time.

Think bites, not meals.

Serve up your content in digestible, easy to understand morsels. Think three steps, or five habits, or four tips… not only is that good for the audience, it helps the host guide the show.

Chunking is also a great way to help the host establish a nice flow. Say you will describe three steps to starting a business. Say, “First of all, put together a business plan… and that’s step one.” The host will step in to either ask a question about step one or prompt you for step two.

By signaling that you will chunk your information it creates a nice framework for the audience and provides room for the host to create a natural give-and-take.

Allow for listener familiarity.

Radio listeners generally go with what is familiar and comfortable. “Take my show,” Hill says. “It’s been on for about two years and is heard on several stations. I’m a familiar voice.

“Listeners who switch to the station and hear me might think, ‘Hey, that’s Austin, he’s the guy who talks about business…’ and be likely to stick around to find out what we’re talking about.”

But if a guest talks non-stop for an extended period, the listener might move on to something more familiar.

Help listeners see the host is smart and insightful.

Respond to questions with statements like, “That’s a great question…” or, “That’s something most people don’t recognize…” When the host shines, you do too.

If possible learn a little about the host and fit that knowledge into the conversation. Say, “I saw the story you posted on Facebook and it reminds me…” or, “In your book I noticed…” or, “You made a similar point on your blog…”

The host will appreciate the gesture and the implicit credibility boost.

Show the listeners some love, too.

Occasionally reference the listeners. Say something like, “Austin, as your listeners know one of the toughest start-up challenges is finding capital.” Affirm the listeners’ knowledge.

Help the audience feel good about themselves while you inform them.

Learn from the best.

Hill was still in his first year of doing Monday through Friday talk radio in 2000. Wink Martindale (game show host and DJ) had just released his autobiography. He was on local radio in Los Angeles when Hill was growing up and was a national TV star. “I just wanted to talk to him so I booked him,” he says.

“We went live and he said, ‘Hey Austin, it’s great to talk to you, how have you been?’ Later he said, ‘Well, Austin, that’s a great question.’ And, ‘Austin, I’m glad you raised that point.’”

At the end of the interview he said, “Austin, buddy, it’s always great to be on your program…” “To the listeners it sounded like we were old friends,” Hill says. “He could not have been more gracious. I had never spoken to him before.”

On the other hand, earlier this year Hill interviewed several of the presidential primary candidates. In one instance he went a full nine minutes with Newt Gingrich. He never once said Hill’s name, and, while certainly astute, nonetheless sounded like he was reading from a list of talking points. “It felt like he had no idea who he was speaking with or where we were at–not me, and worse, not the audience,” Hill says.

If you sound like you are the host’s friend you put the host at ease. You fit into his or her show. And you make your appearance more comfortable and enjoyable for the audience, too.

The audience always enjoys a conversation between friends a lot more than a one-sided presentation. And if you connect with the host–and as a result the audience–it’s more likely that you will be asked to appear again.

While campaigning in the swing state of Ohio, President Obama’s supporters began to boo last Friday when he uttered the name “Mitt Romney.”

“No, no, no,” the President shouted, “don’t boo. Vote. Voting is the best revenge…”

Those who support the President’s re-election are to seek revenge on others. That’s quite a directive from the President of the United States, and it is quite a departure from the candidate of four years ago who promised to unite all Americans in the pursuit of higher purposes.

But it is nonetheless an example of that for which President Obama has become known -turning American against American. It’s more than an “our campaign versus theirs” remark. The implied message is that I will be made to feel better, if you are sufficiently maligned and impugned.

In particular it is meant to convey that if my government punishes you by taking away more of your money, then my life will somehow become more wonderful. It is a false premise that has emanated throughout Mr. Obama’s campaign for re-election and throughout his nearly four years of policies as well.

Reaction this weekend to the President’s “revenge” admonition was eerily similar to that which followed his famous “you didn’t build that” vitriol aimed at business owners last spring. Romney and Ryan made it a talking point from the stump, while the President’s surrogates went in to the usual “he was taken out of context” and “what he really meant was” explanations.

But consider how the President’s propensity for “revenge” on certain categories of Americans is at the epicenter of his economic ideas and rhetoric. Even back four years ago when he was promising to “bring us all together,” candidate Obama nonetheless consistently expressed disdain – and yes, an attitude of revenge – towards successful business enterprises.

Speaking to a stadium full of adoring followers in August of that year, then-Senator Obama went-off with a tirade about how American oil companies were making too much money! As the crowd cheered him on, he said, in part:

“…You’ve got oil companies making record profits…no… no companies in history have made the kind of profits the oil companies are makin’ right now…they..they…….one company, Exxon Mobil, made eleven billion dollars…billion, with a “b” ….last quarter….they made eleven billion dollars the quarter before that…makin’ money hand-over-fist…makin’ out like bandits…”

From there, Senator Obama went on to introduce his new “energy policy.” He wanted to raise taxes on oil companies (because, obviously, it is unfair if a company is “too profitable”), and use that “extra” tax revenue to give “working Americans” a thousand-dollar voucher that they could use to make gasoline purchases.

Senator Obama made no mention of the untold numbers of shareholders who invest their money in oil companies, nor any reference to the men and women who invest their talents and efforts into oil companies. And he certainly made no reference to fact that that oil companies actually provide us all with an essential product. No, Barack Obama is not given to such essential truths. Americans in 2008 were feeling fearful about the economy, and oil companies were enjoying success all at the same time – it was an opportunity to gin-up the desire for “revenge” that couldn’t be ignored.

Fast-forward to 2011. After signing landmark bills that sought “reforms” (read “revenge”) on banks, credit card companies, and – of course- health care providers, President Obama was feeling the heat over an economy that was still was not producing the much-needed job growth that had been promised. And while much of the business community had at that point refrained from admitting that we had a problem in Washington, DC, Las Vegas-based hotelier Steve Wynn finally broke the silence.

In July of that year, Wynn stated on a corporate conference call with his “Wynn Resorts” corporation what millions of us knew in our hearts.: “… This administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime…my customers… are frightened of this administration… Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America…those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don’t want to say that. They’ll say, God, don’t be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama’s deal and it’s Obama that’s responsible for this fear in America…”

After acknowledging the Obama-driven “fear” among America’s entrepreneurs and investors, Wynn further states that “the guy (President Obama) keeps making speeches about redistribution and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don’t invest, they’re holding too much money. We haven’t heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody’s afraid of the government and there’s no need soft peddling it…It is the truth. And that’s true of Democratic businessman and Republican businessman, and I am a Democratic businessman… And I’m telling you that the business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States… until he’s gone, everybody’s going to be sitting on their thumbs…”

And here we are, two days away from another election. Those with the means of investing and growing the economy are indeed “on the sidelines,” shielding themselves from the President’s “revenge,” and we all are suffering as a consequence.

Governor Chris Christie (R-New Jersey) was speaking on behalf of Mitt Romney in Virginia last week. He was talking about, and to, Barack Obama. “…If you don’t think you can change Washington from inside the White House, let’s give you the plane ticket back to Chicago you’ve earned.” With President Obama and his challenger running so close – and with so many states in-play – fiery rhetoric from the campaign trail is to be expected.

Yet Governor Christie raises a legitimate question. Besides the obvious reasons – first term Presidents are eligible to run for a second term (and most of them to), and President Obama thinks he is better suited to be President than Mitt Romney –what, really, is another four years of Barack Obama supposed to be about?

Americans who are the least bit interested in anything remotely resembling economic recovery and prosperity – yes, even Democrat Americans – should take a look at the facts. The evidence is overwhelming that President Obama’s policies over the last three and a half years are stifling our economy now, and will likely send us in to a slowdown in 2013.

That’s not mere partisan political rhetoric. Last week Reuters business news reported that Americans will face a “tougher 2013,” economically speaking, and they identified two of President Obama’s policies as the direct reason for the added difficulty.

For one, payroll taxes are set to rise on January 1. President Obama agreed to a temporary payroll tax cut back in 2009, but he insists that it needs to be raised again, and has insisted that he’ll let this lower payroll tax rate expire at the end of this year. According to the analysis reported by Reuters, this will take an estimated $125 billion out of our private sector economy, and will likely mean less consumer spending, less profitability for businesses, and a lower GDP.

And then there’s Obamacare. The President himself isn’t even trying any longer to pretend that his “health reform” law isn’t a tax, and thoughtful analysts in the world of business news can’t pretend either. According to Reuters, the new taxes on healthcare providers, insurance companies, and employers that provide health insurance to their workers will cause healthcare costs to shoot up nearly 7% in 2013 alone. This, combined with already stagnant wages, and the estimated $125 billion taken out of private household budgets because of the President’s payroll tax increase, all add up to more economic hardship for middle and lower income Americans.

In the same week, CNN Money published a report entitled “Entrepreneurship Is Weaker Than Ever.” The report noted that across the country, local government regulations are damaging small businesses and new start-ups. But it also claimed that “uncertainty in the market” – fears of rising taxes, IRS agents penalizing individuals and businesses for alleged Obamacare violations, and the lack of investment capital – were creating huge disincentives for would-be business owners to jump in.

And then there was The Atlantic, and Yahoo! Finance, that both jointly published an in-depth article with a striking title: “What Kills Small Business? Let’s Ask Them.”

The article states that “69 percent of small business owners and managers say that complicated government regulations are ‘major impediments; to the creation of new jobs.” The article also provided this analysis:

“When over two-thirds of job creators tell us how to create jobs in an economy that desperately needs them, candidates and elected officials should not only listen, they should also tell us precisely where they stand on these ideas. How government regulates commerce — and not just whether government regulates commerce — should be a major issue in this election. It would tell us a lot about how the candidates, if elected, would make critical day-to-day decisions that shape law, regulation, and, ultimately, the economy.”

These are some powerful words. And they are not emanating from “conservative” media outlets – if The Atlantic has any ideological leanings, it’s generally regarded as “left of center.” And while Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer is well known for her unquestioning support of President Obama and the Democrat Party, even the business news division of her media content operation can’t ignore that the President that she has helped to bankroll is doing serious damage to the economy (that’s how bad things have become).

Back in January of 2011 (after the President’s self-described “shellacking” at the polls in November of 2010), President Obama spoke at a General Electric plant in Schenectady, NY and tried to convey that he really does support free market enterprise, stating that “we’re going back to Thomas Edison’s principles… We’re going to build stuff and invent stuff…” The sad irony was that the speech was made days before the Obama Administration officially outlawed one of Thomas Edison’s greatest inventions, the incandescent light bulb.

Now, as he campaigns for re-election, the President clings to his “Forward” and “We can’t go back” phrases, and reminds us that he killed Osama bin Laden. Yet the stifling of our economy from the Obama Administration’s legacy of threats and fees and fines and taxes and bans on businesses, is undeniable.

Entrepreneurs and business owners are crying-out to be saved from the Obama oppression. Do American voters care?

 LISTEN HERE

If re-elected, Barack Obama says he’s “open to amending” it.

But regardless of who wins the presidency next month, conscientious voters need to know this: Obamacare is already costing taxpayers lots of money, and within the next few months it will cost millions of dollars more.

It’s bad enough that President Obama’s “if you like your Doctor, you can keep your Doctor”promise has proven false. And it’s bad enough that his promise to “bend the healthcare cost curve downward” has proven to be fictitious, as well (according to MIT Economist Jonathan Gruber prices for private insurance will likely increase 30% by 2016 – this, despite Gruber’s support of the President’s claims in 2009).

Now, state governments are spending taxpayer-funded time and resources figuring out how to comply with the federal mandates. The Obamacare law has imposed a deadline of November 16th, whereby the states must explain to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services what they intend to do about the establishment of their respective “healthcare exchanges” – the government organized group of standardized health insurance plans from which citizens private citizens and organizations will be permitted to purchase health plans – and the states are deciding now how to proceed.

According to the law, each state can choose one of three options when it comes to setting up an exchange: A) the state can establish an exchange on its own; B) the state can let the federal government set up an exchange on the state’s behalf; or C) the state can choose a “hybrid” approach, and co-mingle both state and federal authorities and resources and produce an exchange together.

Back in August of this year, members of the U.S. House of Representatives heard testimony about the exchanges from Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. Cannon noted at the time that, given the way the Obamacare law is written, the sitting Secretary of Health and Human Services (whomever that happens to be at any given time) has broad authority to impose requirements and restrictions on a “state exchange,” regardless of whether the individual state government constructs the exchange or if the federal government does it for the state. In cases where a state seeks to set up an exchange, the federal government will ultimately determine which health insurance plans will be “allowed” to be bought and sold in that state, and what those health insurance plans will cover.

Cannon spelled-out this reality in no uncertain terms: “If what you want is a federally run health insurance exchange in your state – a government agency controlling the private health insurance market – if what you want is the federal government to control your state, the best thing you can do is establish an exchange” he told the congressional members. He also noted that once a state makes the overture towards creating an exchange, there is probably no turning back on that decision, legally speaking; the state at that point will have forfeited its sovereignty and will likely not regain it.

For states that don’t want a “federally run health insurance exchange,” Cannon had a fascinating suggestion: don’t do anything. “If the state does not establish an exchange then there might not be an exchange at all” Cannon noted. The reason for this is simply because Congress never approved any funding for the state health insurance exchanges, and given how politically unpopular Obamacare is today, Congress probably won’t approve any such funding for the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile, state government officials are consulting with outside “experts,” and each other, in hopes of determining how to proceed. Just last week, a task force selected by Idaho Governor Butch Otter met and heard over six hours of testimony from both private consultants, and officials from other states.

Bruce Greenstein, secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, told the Idaho task force that Louisiana has chosen not to create its own exchange.“There is really no way to effectively estimate the state’s costs for creating an exchange and the provisions in the law are vague,” he said. His associate, Carol Steckel, added that “we view this law as a ‘one size fits all’ effort that cannibalizes the private insurance markets. It doesn’t work for us here in Louisiana.”

Jonathan Hurst, a policy advisor to Texas Governor Rick Perry, described the insurance exchange mandate as a “logistical and administrative nightmare,” and noted that “90 percent of the rules that will govern these things have yet to be written” (the hastily drafted Obamacare law makes reference to “future rules” that haven’t been established yet). Hurst said that Texas is not pursuing a state exchange, noting that there are “too many risks and unknowns” in the law, and a state that pursues an exchange today could be held liable for violating rules that will be established sometime later.

Perhaps most striking was the testimony heard in Idaho from representatives of KPMG, the global accounting and professional services firm. Hired by Idaho to research the costs of creating a state exchange, KPMG reported the price to be approximately $77 million to design and implement the exchange, with recurring operational costs estimated to be $10 million annually.

When asked by one of the Idaho task force members what the state would get in return for this estimated $77 million expenditure, KPMG representative Andrew Gottschalk was vague: “It’s hard to explain exactly what you get…It’s hardware, it’s software, there’s infrastructure, there’s people and staffing” he stated. “There would likely be a call center. It’s all kinds of things… there’s a lot of stuff….but it’s hard to be specific.”

But there are two things we can be specific about. As states spend taxpayer dollars crafting programs and plans, the cost of healthcare continues rise.

With those remarks, business magnate and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes drew thunderous applause from his audience last Wednesday. Headlining the “Power Up!” business and motivational seminar with Sarah Palin, Rudy Giuliani, and Indian-born Zig Ziglar protégé Krish Dhanam, Mr. Forbes was speaking before a crowd of ten thousand at the Idaho Center indoor sporting complex.

Forbes had just finished explaining why a confluence of cheap credit, billions of dollars in stimulus spending, lots of new taxes and government regulations, and the ensuing government debt have all failed to stimulate our economy. He was confirming with his technical explanation, what many of us know instinctively in our hearts: the reality that no organization- no individual or family, no business, no government – can spend its way out of debt and re-distribute its way to prosperity.

We should all hope that Forbes is right – that “as free people, we won’t stand for it.” Because if we continue to vote for politicians who viciously take expanding portions of wealth from our society’s producers and selfishly redistribute that wealth to those of their choosing, eventually the politicians will run out of other’s people’s money to redistribute and we will all suffer the consequences. The social disorder and collapse of Greece and Spain could be our future in the U.S., if, “as free people,” we don’t choose more wisely.

For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, examples abound in this present day of how not to construct a national economy. Greece and Spain qualify, yes, and so does Venezuela. Yet even within the last week the news from France, another bureaucratic, debt-laden, and not-so-free-anymore part of the free world, should be a wake-up call to all Americans.

After five years of service from President Nicolas Sarkozy who sought to reduce government controls of the economy and to stimulate private enterprise, French voters tossed him aside last May in favor of a presidential candidate who was nominated jointly by both the French Socialist Party, and France’s “Radical Left Party.” Francois Hollande campaigned with a set of 60 propositions – referred to as his “manifesto” – which included raising taxes on corporations; raising taxes on banks; raising taxes on “rich” individuals; lowering the official retirement age back down to age 60 from 62; hiring 60,000 new government school teachers; and establishing government subsidized “youth jobs programs” in regions of high unemployment.

Today, many French citizens seem horrified that – shock! – President Hollande is doing precisely what he pledged to do. “The situation is very serious” noted Laurence Parisot, head of France’s largest labor union MEDEF in an interview with the London Telegraph last week. “Some business leaders are in a state of quasi-panic” he claimed, as the Telegraph reported that “France is sliding into a grave economic crisis and risks a full-blown ‘hurricane’ as investors flee rocketing tax rates.”

In less than six months, President Hollande has managed to raise capital gains taxes from 34.5% to 62.2%. According to Reporter Ambrose Evans-Pritchard at the London Telegraph, this compares to 21% in Spain, 26.4% in Germany, and 28% in Britain (capital gains taxes reach as high as 35% here in the U.S.).

Mr. Parisot claims that President Hollande has yet to understand the “extreme gravity” of the nation’s “crisis.” Additionally, a private enterprise coalition has launched a nationwide protest movement which they call the “State of Emergency For Business,” claiming that President Hollande’s “confiscatory tax rates” threaten lasting damage to their country.

So let’s be clear about what’s happening in France. A major, national labor union leader (Laurence Parisot) – arguably a counterpart of Teamsters leader James P. Hoffa here in the U.S. – is upset because a Socialist President is taking more money from “the rich” and re-distributing it to others via government employment programs. Such policies would seem like a dream come true for the AFL-CIO, yet the union leader in France seems to understand that the “rich” in his country play a vital role in other people’s livelihoods, and simply seizing more of their money is damaging for everybody. Mr. Parisot takes his criticisms further, stating that “aligning taxes on capital with those on wages is a profound economic error; it is scandalous that the French have been left in such economic ignorance for years” (a stinging indictment on France’s unionized public education system).

So is Atlas “shrugging” in France? When labor union leaders panic over taxes being too high, it suggests that, yes, the trains may soon stop running, in a matter of speaking.

Here in the U.S., it might not be so much of a proactive “shrug” right now as it is a more passive abandonment, a “sitting on the sidelines,” “waiting to see what happens” phenomenon with those who could otherwise be starting new businesses (a subtle “death by a thousand cuts,” perhaps). If he’s re-elected, President Obama will get his “Francois Hollande moment” as he can allow income and capital gains taxes to skyrocket on January 1 (which he has pledged to do) and watch lower and middle income Americans reel from the infliction of Obamacare taxes and penalties.

Let’s hope that Steve Forbes is right – that this is not our “new normal;” that we will reject politicians who are vicious with society’s wealth creators; that we will choose to remain a “free people” – and that we will reject President Obama in November.