Within hours of his big win in Florida, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney again raised questions about whether he is in touch with the American people, telling reporters, “I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it.”

Really?

The nation has 13 million unemployed, another 4 million who have given up on looking for work, and another 10 million who can’t find full time work. As a matter of fact, millions of Americans are becoming poor, but Romney’s not concerned because there’s a “safety net”?

The welfare state will not even pay for a basic mortgage, as evidenced by the millions of Americans still facing foreclosure. But even if it could somehow ever be adequate or repaired, is that really what helps people get ahead? Which is better: welfare or the dignity of a real job?

At this stage in American history, of course, Americans need jobs, not welfare.

But let’s leave that aside. Giving Romney the benefit of the doubt, presidential candidates meet with thousands of reporters, and are bound to make some gaffes. It’s to be expected. Just ask Barack Obama, who was visiting 57 states on the 2008 campaign trail.

What is perhaps more important is how Romney dealt with his gaffe.

Did he talk about what it would take to create millions of jobs here? No. At the first sign of trouble on sensitive economic issues, Romney renewed his support for automatic hikes in the minimum wage indexed to inflation, something that has never been attempted before at the federal level.

That means Romney’s first instinct was to run to the left and to pander, in this case dangling higher wages for jobs that no longer exist in this country.

It’s a plan that has been tried in a few states with no positive impact.

Perpetual hikes in the minimum wage — like everything else that raises the cost of doing business in this country — have driven businesses overseas where costs are lower. By indexing wages to inflation, Romney would by definition raise producer costs, creating a vicious cycle of higher prices and fewer jobs.

Instead of leaning on supply side economics, Romney lifted a page right out of the playbook of Keynes.

About 70 percent of Republicans remain wary of a Romney candidacy nationally. And this episode may show why.

Overall, on bailouts, the individual mandate, and the Tea Party, Romney is certainly out of touch with conservatives and libertarians who he would need to be enthused going into the general election.

But with everyone else, Romney is walking right into Obama’s class warfare trap. He is vacillating between being insensitive to millions of Americans looking for work and pandering to them to make it look like he “gets it”.

He doesn’t get it. Who runs for president and doesn't try to speak to all Americans in the first place? Why would he then play into the politics of class division by pandering? Is this how he thinks?

If so, Republicans had better figure that out soon. They’re about to nominate somebody who is ultra-sensitive to criticism from the mainstream press, and as a result, won’t stick up for taxpayers when it counts. And he’s supposed to be the safe bet?

Bill Wilson is the President of Americans for Limited Government.

You can set your watch by the media stories that always come out in each election bemoaning the amount of money that is spent by campaigns. It’s always the same, no matter the changes in laws that seem to happen rather routinely. There is always too much money being spent and serious reforms to limit that money would make elections more palatable, the media elites claim.

But is this so? Is there really too much money being spent to win elected office?

Consider the election for the presidency. If one becomes President, they immediately are perceived to be the most powerful man in the world. The winner becomes the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. armed forces and can deploy the military wherever they please — whether or not that is spelled out in the Constitution is another debate — but nonetheless, the winner controls the world’s most powerful military force. The winner also gets to veto any legislation they want from Congress and has the potential to change the landscape of the Supreme Court. And you also get to live in the White House.

All of the above and many more powers and perks can be yours for a price of about $1 billion and enough support from the electorate. And the $1 billion comes from donors, not all of it is from your own bank account!

If you ask me, that seems like a remarkable deal!

Consider what companies spend to run a successful marketing campaign. When McDonald’s launches a new product, they spend hundreds of millions of dollars just to get people in the store to purchase the latest McSandwich. When Microsoft rolls out their latest products, they spend hundreds of millions of dollars to make sure you upgrade your computer. And who even knows the price tag for running a successful marketing campaign for Coca-Cola.

But when it comes to becoming the most powerful man in the world, we are supposed to believe that money should not be a factor in attaining the power of the presidency?

There are many people out there that cling to a romantic belief that candidates for government offices need to be completely disconnected from special interest groups or corporations solely being a person of the people if you will. This stems from another romantic notion that politicians need to be selfless beyond any stretch of the imagination and only act in the best interest of the nation as a whole and never in the interest of a particular sector of people, such as politicians routinely do. Just pay attention to which segments of the electorate receive the most benefits from government and then compare that with the voting behaviors of this group and you can see for yourself that these romantic notions of how government should work are based on fiction, completely detached from the reality of how government and campaigns work.

The fear of special interests destroying elections or corporations buying candidates is quite overblown.

Just consider a single person making a donation to the candidate of their choice. Are they weighing the costs and effects that this candidates policies might have on each citizen of the nation when they make that donation? Not likely. They make donations to candidates that they believe will act in their own best interest. So each person that makes a donation, whether it be for $1 or for many thousands of dollars, is acting in their own self-interest by sending money to the candidate that they want to win.

And now that Super PAC’s have become the latest boogeyman on the campaign trail the rhetoric of too much being spent on elections is in overdrive. With yesterday’s financial disclosure reports from Super PAC’s coming public, the media was in a tizzy to report on what is supposedly absurd amounts of money being spent to market a person to be elevated — solely on receiving the most votes in the electoral college — to be the most politically powerful person in the world. And as I said earlier, compared to marketing of most other products, becoming President is one of the cheaper endeavors.

I suspect that time could be better spent by those who stay up at night worrying that campaign finance is out of control researching the effects of transferring wealth from one group to another group and correlating the increase in votes that politicians then receive to remain in office. That seems to be where the real corruption is.

Adam Bitely is the Editor-in-Chief of NetRightDaily.com. You can follow Adam on Twitter at @AdamBitely.

ALG Editor’s Note: In the following featured commentary from Zerohedge.com, the Congressional Budget Office’s analyses may be influenced by special interests pushing their own agenda:

In the past, when discussing the goalseeking C-grade excel jockeys at the Congressional Budget Office (or CBO), we have not been technically full of reverence. After all when one uses a phrase such as this one: "What do the NAR, Consumer Confidence and CBO forecasts have in common?” If you said, "they are all completely worthless" you are absolutely correct", it may be too late to worry about burned bridges. We do have our reasons: as we pointed out last year, following the whole US downgrade fiasco when the Treasury highlighted the CBO's sterling work in presenting a US future so bright, Timmy "TurboTax" G had to wear shades, we said "according to the same CBO back in 2001, net US indebtedness in 2011 would be negative $2.436 trillion, the ratio of debt held by the public to GDP would be 4.8%, total budget surplus would be $889 billion, and GDP would be $16.9 trillion." As we know now they were off only by a modest $17.5 trillion on that debt forecast. Yet we never attributed to malice and bias and outright corruption, what simple stupidity and gross incompetence could easily explain. Until today that is, when following a WSJ article, we are left wondering just how deep does the CBO stench truly go and whether its employees are far more corrupt than merely stupid?

As a reminder, the CBO is "a nonpartisan arm of Congress—employs analysts and economists who are charged with trying to estimate the potential financial impact of proposed policies and legislation." So far so good - they also happen to be beyond worthless at their job, and if they were in the private sector they would be fired with extreme prejudice. Of course, they are government workers, so anything goes. Which is where the problem arises: because while as the WSJ says, the CBO should be impartial, it turns out it is anything but:

“Republican staffers on three Senate committees are pressing a congressional office that scrutinizes federal budget issues and proposed legislation over how its assessments are compiled. The inquiries of the Congressional Budget Office, which haven't been made public, concern the CBO's analyses of some of Washington's most complex and controversial measures, including bills on financial regulation, health care, small-business lending and efforts to aid the housing market, said people familiar with the matter.

“As part of the inquiries, some Republican committee staffers are examining whether CBO officials adequately monitored and disclosed the role of Wall Street banks, academic researchers with government ties and other outside advisers, the people said. They are pushing for greater transparency in the CBO's dealings with advisers, to shed light on the role of outside interests in shaping the office's views, the people said.”

Realistically, it is true that the CBO can be the target of either party if and when its conclusions do not resonate with proposed policy.

“The CBO regularly comes under fire from members of both political parties—particularly when their goals for proposed legislation are undermined by the agency's analysis. It is ‘an easy target’ because of its role in shaping legislative debates, said John Wonderlich, policy director for the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit focused on government transparency. He said the CBO should be more open with the economic models it uses, and should produce documentation detailing its use of outside advisers. ‘That oversight is entirely appropriate,’ Mr. Wonderlich said.”

As is precisely the case now:

“Republican Budget Committee staffers are questioning the CBO about disclosures of details related to projected costs of health-care legislation and broader economic policies, say people familiar with the matter. People close to the matter say the CBO in recent months has resisted efforts by Republican staffers to obtain documents and communications stemming from the office's views on a long-term care provision. Administration officials in mid-October declared the provision not viable, after previously supporting it.

“‘The Budget Committee has been engaged in routine conversations with the Congressional Budget Office over how best to estimate the fiscal impact of the President's health law,’ and hasn't been pursuing an inquiry into the CBO's ‘professional conduct,’ said a spokesman for the committee's Republican staff.”

So far so good: incompetence, with a dose of politics, explains all of the above.

Yet what is not explained anywhere is the following revelation:

“In another inquiry, investigators working for Sen. Charles Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, are probing allegations made privately to the investigators by a former CBO economist that she was fired for producing work at odds with Wall Street research favored by her supervisors, according to people familiar with the matter and documents related to the inquiry.

“The ex-employee, Lan T. Pham, alleges she was terminated after 2½ months for sharing pessimistic outlooks for the banking and housing sectors in 2010, according to correspondence and other documents related to the inquiry, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, and her lawyer, Gary J. Aguirre. Ms. Pham, 40, alleges supervisors stifled opinions that contradicted economic fixes endorsed by some on Wall Street, including research from a Morgan Stanley economist who served as a CBO adviser. As part of the review, Sen. Grassley's staff is examining whether Wall Street firms or others exert influence that compromises the office's independence, say people familiar with the matter.”

And here we were thinking that only John Paulson fired his analysts for being too bearish (true story). But that is not the issue: what is most troubling is if indeed the CBO is nothing but merely another front for Wall Street to work its propaganda magic on the administration. Because at the core of every policy are numbers, usually with dollar signs in front of them, numbers which have to make sense and have to be projected into the future, no matter how grossly laughable the resultant hockeystick. And it is only logical that the grossly incompetent CBO "analysts" will lick the boots of Wall Street's "strategists" only to get a glimpse of those complicated (if also utterly worthless models: remember that Goldman call for a new U.S. renaissance by Jan Hatzius in December 2010, roundly mocked by Zero Hedge, and which even Goldman subsequently apologized for?) models which always paint a rosier picture, as is necessary in a Ponzi scheme which, like a shark, must always be moving, every higher, or else the house of cards collapses. It also means that Wall Street's means of peddling influences are far more insidious than originally thought, and that they have penetrated the very number crunching machinery that while merely a front, is a critical component of every legislation.

Alas, none of the above is surprising: just like the SEC, where the dregs of the analytical and legal world end up, praying that one day the very people they prosecute will hire them (at a salary multiples higher than what they get paid currently), so the CBO workers will do all in their power to come up with some results which appear at least modestly objective yet are entirely driven by neither the Democrat nor Republican agenda, but that emanating from the financial region in New York.

And just to put a final nail in the objectivity of anything to have come out of the CBO in the past decade, and probably ever, here is another chart by John Lohman which shows that just like the BLS, which probably also one day will be discovered to get its financial "tips" from Wall Street, the CBO does nothing better than hope for the best, and prepare for the even better.

Finally anyone wishing to listen to the boss of this latest infiltrated by Wall Street political organization stammer, can do so tomorrow: "Mr. Elmendorf will testify at a Senate Budget Committee hearing Thursday on the budget and economic outlook." We are quite confident he will have only glowing things to say about the future.

By Howard Rich

As originally published at Investor’s Business Daily.

Klaus Schwab, a German academic and founder of the World Economic Forum, recently proclaimed the death of capitalism as we know it — a curious critique coming from the head of an organization whose motto finds "entrepreneurship is in the global public interest."

"Capitalism, in its current form, no longer fits the world around us," Schwab declared at the most recent installment of his globalist gathering in Davois, Switzerland, adding that the world's business and political leaders "have failed to learn the lessons from the financial crisis."

The latter half of this observation is indisputable. The doctrine of chasing good money after bad has reached dangerous dimensions on both sides of the Atlantic — yet leaders continue to plow ahead with new deficit spending and fresh bailouts regardless.

But is refusing to acknowledge the increasingly-costly failure of this ever-escalating interventionism really an indictment of capitalism? It would be easy to condemn Schwab for conducting a botched autopsy on the capitalist economic model, but what he's really done is more intellectually dishonest — he has misidentified the "victim."

Capitalism is far from dead. As proof we need only examine the ongoing rise of the global black market — which employed 1.8 billion people (half of the world's work force) and did $10 trillion worth of business in 2009. Within a decade, this "shadow economy" will employ two-thirds of the global work force and represent the largest economy on the planet.

More conventionally we ought to consider China — which has embraced free market reforms and seen its economy expand 16-fold over the last 30 years. In the last two decades this rising tide has lifted an estimated 440 million Chinese out of poverty.

Meanwhile in India — another country which has abandoned central planning — an estimated 230 million people have been lifted out of poverty over the last five years alone.

Not only is capitalism very much alive, as long as there is supply, demand and self-interest in the world it cannot be killed. But it can be severely constrained — as we are witnessing.

The fact that the European economy is unable to perpetually prop up an overextended banking system responsible for underwriting the unsustainable expansion of the continent's sovereign governments is not an indictment of capitalism.

Instead it is an indictment of botched command economic planning and the unchecked expansion of the welfare state — which are conspiring to undermine the ability of the free market to create wealth.

Therein lies Schwab's fundamental error — the economic system he's attempting to pen an obituary for isn't capitalism, its pseudo-socialism.

Rather than permitting the invisible hand of the marketplace to optimally apportion resources — thereby creating a naturally-ascending cycle of innovation, expansion, creative destruction and reinvention — sovereign leaders have chosen to put the doctrine of Keynesian intervention on steroids.

Rather than permitting the free flow of ideas, goods and services within the economy, these leaders create new taxes, new mandates and new activist bureaucracies — all while manipulating currencies and making speculative investments with public money.

On a more fundamental level these leaders have completely shredded the notion of equal opportunity — one of the basic building blocks of the capitalist system — and replaced it with a presumption of entitlement.

The promise of a "fair shake" has been replaced by the expectation of receiving one's "fair share," which of course is predicated on government's desire to redistribute wealth evenly among the masses while simultaneously preserving a well-connected government-financial oligarchy.

So on the one hand we have corrupt politicians, bureaucrats and labor leaders manipulating the welfare state's purse strings in an effort to expand the reach of the dependence economy.

On the other we have select corporations and global financial institutions eliminating their own risk through a variety of taxpayer-funded guarantees and bailout mechanisms — pocketing the winnings from good investments while passing the debt from bad investments onto the shoulders of already-overburdened taxpayers.

Again, that's not capitalism, but pseudo-socialism — a system the world has already conclusively discredited.

If Schwab's organization truly intends to foster entrepreneurship around the globe, then it must first correctly identify the forces that are working against it. Beyond that it must advance policies that seek to reinvigorate the free market as opposed to repressing it further.

Howard Rich is chairman of Americans for Limited Government.

Reflecting Europe is nowhere near agreement on how to “rescue” Greece — let alone prop up Italy and Spain — German Chancellor Angela Merkel again delayed finalizing any deal on Jan. 30, telling reporters, “We won’t have a thorough discussion of Greece because the troika is in Greece and we don’t have a result of the talks with the banks.”

Greece cannot receive what remains of the original €110 billion bailout refinance loans, nor an additional €130 billion pledged in October, unless an agreement is reached with both Greece and private banks that lent the money to begin with. With €14.5 billion of debt coming due on Mar. 20, time is running out to resolve these issues.

At issue is Greek control over its fiscal sovereignty, and whether private investors will be forced to accept losses as much as 70 percent while governmental institutions such as the European Central Bank (ECB), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and other sovereigns that purchased Greek debt bear no losses.

Germany has demanded quite explicitly a “transfer of national budgetary sovereignty” to a “budget coordinator” appointed by European authorities to administer Greece’s budget that will “veto decisions not in line with the budgetary targets set by the Troika,” referring to the tripartite organizations administering the bailouts: the European Commission, the ECB, and the IMF.

Greece has, to its credit, rejected these demands. A government source told AFP, “It is out of the question that we would accept it, these are matters of national sovereignty.”

Another told Athens News Agency, “We can never accept this. A similar proposal was made in the past by a Dutch minister. We do not even discuss about it.”

So, Greece is not willing to cede sovereignty to the Troika, even if it means a certain default. Thus far, it is true: Greece has not met the targets it agreed to as a condition to receive bailout funds. It has not reduced its budget deficit at all. Instead it grew from €16.6 billion to €19.1 billion.

But that makes a good case for default, for debt restructuring across the board, for significantly reforming Greece’s socialist system, and even for leaving the Euro system altogether. It does not make the case for the end of Greece.

With the Drachma, Greece could work out new terms of repayment for its creditors and a new conversion rate. It could set its own rules for balanced budgets or not. It could use its central bank, print money, and pay the debt that way. After all, if the government there wishes to leave its people with crushing inflation and a debt that cannot be paid honestly, that’s really its problem. Anyone foolish enough to lend money to such a mess will get what they richly deserve.

The trouble is that would mean the Troika, in addition to private investors, would likely face losses on their debt holdings, too. The ECB could be bankrupt. It holds €55 billion in Greek bonds, and has given Greece another €101 billion in loans from the ECB system. The IMF has lent €23 billion to Greece. The European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) has also lent €53 billion.

Coupled with the €34 billion that remains of the original 110 billion bailout, that means governmental institutions have assumed €165 billion of Greece’s €340 billion debt — when they did not have to — rather than let losses be realized by European financial institutions, primarily in Germany and France. Now, they are poised to assume another €130 billion at any cost, even if it means the end of the liberty and sovereignty of the Greek people.

Oddly enough, okay with this approach is the U.S. government, which sacrificed hundreds of thousands of Americans in the World Wars to protect democratic self-determination in Europe. Is this what they fought to bring about?

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said recently that the nation would be comfortable with participating in bailing out European banks that bet poorly on sovereign debt if “Europe is able to find the political will to build a more effective firewall”.

But, so far, that has proven unacceptable to the Greeks. They are not alone.

A recent poll in Ireland found that 72 percent of Irish demand a referendum on the adoption of a new permanent bailout treaty, the €500 billion European Stability Mechanism (ESM). A group of lawmakers there is now attempting to petition to force such a referendum. They fear the new treaty, which will indeed cede significant sovereignty to the Troika, will be adopted without the people having any say.

Opposition to the growing European tyranny is not confined to the bailout states. American Enterprise Institute scholar Alex Pollock called attention to a recent protest in Warsaw, Poland against the ESM, with thousands of Poles waving red and white flags shouting, “We want sovereignty, not the euro.”

The fight for liberty is right now. Free peoples are attempting now to save their countries from a menace that, once let loose, will assuredly smash the unity of Europe, perhaps irreparably — and bring an end to democracy there.

That is not an acceptable outcome just to avoid a default on sovereign debts, or to bail out international financial institutions that made poor investment decisions. Greece can save itself — and its neighbors — from this tyranny by sticking to its guns and just saying no.

Bill Wilson is the President of Americans for Limited Government.

On Feb. 1, Indiana became the twenty third state in the nation to pass a right to work law, and the first in the formerly heavily unionized rust belt to do so.

After signing the legislation, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels released a statement saying, “The only change will be a positive one.”

“Indiana will improve still further its recently earned reputation as one of America’s best places to do business, and we will see more jobs and opportunity for our young people and for all those looking for a better life.”

The state of Indiana’s decision to allow workers to choose whether to join a labor union is likely to put competitive pressure on neighboring states like Michigan and Ohio to follow suit.

Bill Wilson, President of Americans for Limited Government, called Indiana’s achievement, “a milestone that in ten years we will look back upon as the dam breaking in a tidal wave against forced unionization.”

The other bad news for Big Labor is the Commonwealth of Virginia’s state legislature’s passage of legislation to end Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) on Jan. 31.

PLAs require that a government only award contracts to unionized firms. It is estimated that PLAs add between 17-20 percent to the costs of construction projects due to higher labor costs.

If, as expected, the legislation is signed by Virginia Governor Bob McDonald, it will effectively open up competition for government contracts saving Virginia taxpayers millions of dollars.

Wilson, who has been at the forefront of the debate surrounding labor unions role in America said, “PLAs are nothing more than government promotion of labor union membership to the detriment of the people. They benefit the coffers of labor unions who then contribute some of that money back to those government officials who support them. If Virginia ends this pernicious practice, it will end the cycle of political payoffs that big labor depends upon for its survival.”

The Indiana and Virginia actions follow the state of Wisconsin which successfully balanced its budget without laying off workers by changing the collective bargaining rules related to their public employee unions. Ironically, the jobs of the members of the very unions that opposed the Wisconsin changes were saved by the aggressive and historic actions by the Wisconsin state legislature and Governor Scott Walker.

Wilson added, “It has been a very bad week and indeed a very bad year for Big Labor. In spite of their attempting to use their power in the Obama Administration to push through illegal appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, and use that Board to shift the employment rules to their advantage, their losses in Indiana, Virginia and Wisconsin signal that the days of Big Labor’s rule are coming to an end.”

The Department of Labor reports that about 7 percent of the U.S. private sector workforce are members of labor unions. The impact of the Indiana decision and the resulting job creation bonanza, is likely to put additional pressure on elected officials in neighboring states to revisit the issue of forced unionization.

A very bad week for Big Labor indeed.

Rick Manning is the Communications Director for Americans for Limited Government and the former Public Affairs Chief of Staff at the U.S. Department of Labor

RE: On January 4, President Obama purported to appoint three individuals to be members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) (two of whom were only nominated two weeks before and had not even completed the necessary questionnaire required by Senate) and one person to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). All of these positions require confirmation by the U.S. Senate.

ISSUE-IN-BRIEF: The Constitution allows the President to make “recess Appointments—bypassing the Senate under only one circumstance: “The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.” But the Senate did not adjourn its session and still had officers to receive nominations from the President. Again, the Constitution is very clear on this point: “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days.” In December the House did not consent to the Senate taking a recess.

There are three objections to what are basically illegal appointments by President Obama:

1. The Senate was not in “recess” as required by the Constitution and therefore the President lacked the authority to make “recess” appointments. The President cannot require Congress to act on his priorities—the Constitution established the principle of separation of powers as an important check and balance on the federal government.

2. This contempt for the Constitution by the President demonstrates a pattern of disregard for the Constitutional responsibility that accompanies the oath of office. Earlier in his administration the President decided he would not defend the Defense of Marriage Act—even though it was passed by bi-partisan majorities and signed by President Clinton in 1996. The endless use of appointing “Czars” to direct cabinet departments and thusly also circumventing the Senate confirmation process has been questioned by members of both political parties.

3. If President Obama would disregard the Constitution’s “advise and consent” clause as he sees fit prior to an election—imagine what he would do if he happened to be re-elected and would not face the voters again. By making these illegal “recess” appointments the President is saying he can appointment any person, at any time, to any position he chooses without the advice & consent of the Senate.

The President’s ends do not justify the means. Legal challenges as well as Congressional Review of these illegal “recess” appointments are proceeding in the courts and on Capitol Hill and should continue.

For Additional Information on the President Obama’s unconstitutional recess appointments please click on the links below:

http://www.nrtw.org/en/print/4064

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2012/jan12/12-01-25.html

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/barone-obamas-1-man-rule-thumbs-nose-founders/313961

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/a-constitutional-crisis/

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/12/whitewash-on-illegal-appointments-wont-work/

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/282490/20120116/obama-recess-appointments-first-legal-challenge-health.htm

http://online.wsj.com/article/main_street.html

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2012/01/manhattan-moment-expressly-illegal-appointment-violates-obamas-oath/20813

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cdw-presidents-nlrb-recess-appointments-unconstitutional-137315993.html

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2012/01/obamas-nlrb-guy-was-corrupt-unions-lawyer/2086391

http://www.newsmax.com/US/obama-recess-appointments-martin/2012/01/09/id/423534

http://netrightdaily.com/2012/01/former-senator-ted-kennedy-opposed-recess-appointments

http://www.grassley.senate.gov/judiciary/upload/Recess-Appointments-01-06-12-SJC-members-letter-on-OJC-input-on-recess-appointments-signed-letter.pdf

http://www.northeastteaparty.org/tea-party-web/grassley-not-buying-doj%E2%80%99s-non-recess-appointment-apologia

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/06/dem-nlrb-recess-appointments-rushed-dont-appear-on-white-house-nominee-list

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203471004577142540864703780.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_08_1457

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/01/05/the-white-house-is-wrong-the-senate-conducted-business-during-its-recess

http://www.franchise.org/Franchise-News-Detail.aspx?id=55701

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/01/white-house-wont-say-if-justice-department-blessed-109639.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-are-unconstitutional/2012/01/05/gIQAnWRfdP_story.html

http://sz0071.wc.mail.comcast.net/zimbra/mail?app=mail#36

http://workplacechoice.org/2012/01/09/obama-recess-appointments-the-worst-kind-of-politics/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Workplacechoiceorg+%28WorkPlaceChoice.org%29

http://workplacechoice.org/2012/01/06/obama%E2%80%99s-nlrb-%E2%80%98recess%E2%80%99-appointees-circumvent-background-checks/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Workplacechoiceorg+%28WorkPlaceChoice.org%29

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/06/obamas-nlrb-recess-appointments-circumvent-background-checks

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48593

http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=273759

http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2012/1/hatch-on-president-circumventing-senate-on-national-labor-relations-board

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATISM VISIT: WWW.THEMOUNTVERNONSTATEMENT.COM

Why does Barack Obama play the politics of division on the income tax question? At the State of the Union Address Obama was at it again, quick to point out that “Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.”

It’s not that hard to understand once one looks at the numbers. It’s less about who pays taxes, or how much they pay, than it is about who doesn’t. Most voting-age Americans do not pay income taxes — approximately 50.6 percent.

That includes 53.91 million Americans who pay nothing in income taxes, and 64.7 million who get refunds in excess of what was owed. That’s 118.61 million out of 234.6 million Americans 18 years and older, based on data compiled by the Joint Committee on Taxation and the U.S. Census Bureau.

As a subset, the non-income taxpayers include 35.1 million who do pay payroll taxes but do not make enough or have enough deductions and credits that they do not have an income tax liability, based on data compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showing 148.8 million Americans who have jobs full-time and part-time.

That leaves 116 million Americans who do pay income taxes, 49.4 percent of the voting-age population.

Further weighing the argument in his favor, when Obama talks about raising taxes on the upper-income brackets, he’s talking about just 3.9 million Americans who make $200,000 or more in Gross Adjusted Income according to the Internal Revenue Service. When he invokes the Buffett Rule, proposing raising capital gains taxes for those who earn more than $1 million, he’s only talking about 450,000 Americans.

That’s less than 2 percent of the voting-age population. And Obama’s betting that even if every single one of them voted against him, appealing to the 98 percent of voters whose tax rates would remain the same will help him get re-elected.

That is, if the tax rates of the wealthy become a front and center issue in the 2012 election. If they do, the political advantage will shift to Obama.

To disarm the Obama class warfare strategy, Republicans in 2012 will need to focus not on fairness in the tax code or over who pays taxes — which is to fight the battle on Obama’s terms — but to shine the spotlight on Obama’s lousy economic and fiscal record.

The fact is, the Obama economy has failed to create enough jobs to even keep pace with the growth of the population. Since Obama took office, the civilian labor force participation rate has dropped from 65.7 percent to just 64 percent, resulting in a loss of about 4 million people from being counted as unemployed even though they are of working age — because they’ve given up.

If those 4 million were included in the labor force, the effective unemployment rate would be closer to 11 percent, and the underemployed rate 17 percent, instead of 8.5 and 15.2 percent, respectively. Overall, there’s about 27 million working age adults who cannot find full-time work but would like to.

Since the jobless fall within the 118.6 million non-income taxpayers, Republicans can eat into Obama’s advantage by speaking to their plight. Overall, they can make a compelling argument that they are better off with real work than government benefits.

Specifically, despite record numbers of unemployment benefits and food stamps being given under the Obama Administration, those taxpayer-funded checks have not been enough to help folks make their mortgage payments, and millions of Americans are still losing their homes.

The solution is not to perpetually increase welfare for Americans — which with a debt of $15.2 trillion is not a sustainable proposition anyway — or to tax the wealthy, but to reduce the cost of doing business here, making the nation globally competitive again, and creating jobs.

That can be accomplished by cutting the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, rolling back the harsh regulatory environment — particularly in the areas of energy, the environment, health care, and labor — lifting restrictions on creating capital, and strengthening the dollar.

In contrast, Obama’s entire agenda includes planks that make it more expensive to do business here, making it less likely that those 27 million unemployed and underemployed will be finding full-time work any time soon.

Obama wants to raise taxes on job creators.

His Environmental Protection Agency is set to restrict carbon energy emissions, making all products and services dependent more expensive, in addition to Americans’ home energy bills. His Obamacare legislation and regulations are already making private care more expensive and less accessible.

On creating new businesses — the heart of creating new jobs — the number of Initial Public Offerings for new companies has dwindled to almost nothing under his watch.

When it comes to sound money, or the lack thereof, Obama’s Federal Reserve has created close to $1 trillion out of thin air, fueling inflation on family staples like food and energy.

To the jobs question, Obama’s solution has always been government-directed spending. But, there’s already 22 million government workers nationwide at the federal, state, and local level. The dwindling number of taxpayers cannot afford to employ millions more. Only a dramatic expansion of the private sector can save us, which is what Obama’s policies are blocking.

The fact is, Obama is out of touch when he is more concerned with what Warren Buffett’s secretary pays in taxes than with what it would take to turn the economy around. Raising Buffett’s taxes will not do that.

And playing class warfare will not create the millions of jobs Americans need to sustain their families. But it might help Obama get reelected if Republicans are not prepared to counter it with the supply side of the equation.

Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of Americans of Limited Government.