"It’s the economy, stupid."

That phrase, made famous by James Carville for Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign 16 years ago, still rings true to this day. It always has and always will. When it comes to selecting who will run our nation voters are more often than not predominantly concerned with the economy and its impact on their livelihoods. Other issues, as important as they may be, take on a secondary importance to the individual. In the last presidential election George W. Bush won solely based on national security, but that approach has become almost passé in the current race. Security and warfare have taken a backseat to the economy which is, depending on who you ask, in or heading into a recession.

The Big Three candidates have been talking a blue streak about blue-collar jobs and the importance of strengthening the American economy. Their talk is all bark and no bite because past actions speak for themselves. One of the niceties of having a trio of Senators running for the presidency is that you can analyze how they’ve fared in handling issues of national concern. They have a defined track record that shows what bills that they’ve introduced and what bills they’ve voted for and against.

Unfortunately, all three of this year’s leading candidates have very poor voting records when it comes to a happy business climate. They all have pushed along legislation that has increased the three "-ations" that inhibit a strong economy by imposing burdens on employers: regulation, litigation, and taxation. As those factors rise so do the structural (non-labor) costs of doing business in America, making foreign production - and now service! - more attractive to once-American firms. Jobs leave our borders for areas - not necessarily people – that are much cheaper.

In 2003 the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) released a report indicating the non-labor cost of production in the United States was 22% higher than that of our nine largest trading partners. At the end of 2006 they released an updated analysis showing that disadvantage had grown to a whopping 32%. This has little to do with unfair trading practices (the list of partners includes Canada, Japan, Germany, the UK, and France) and everything to do with the aforementioned "-ations" levied by our own government.

This sudden and frightening growth of costs occurred under the watch of all the candidates. Their responsibility for the mess can be determined from analysis of their voting records as provided by groups that are business-friendly or interested in small government. The NAM annually issues a report that gives ratings to elected officials based on how well they voted in favor of American manufacturing. The National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) does the same for all businesses. With its "Freedom Index" the John Birch Society (JBS) focuses on small government with their annual study of how Washington votes. All three groups working independently found vast weaknesses with the candidates during the 109^th and 110^th Congresses.

It was a given that the Democrats and their big-government, high-cost mindset would fail miserably. The NAM rated Barack Obama at 16% in the 109^th and 0% in the 110^th while the NFIB had him at 12% and 0% The JBS had him at 30% and he received yet another zero. Hillary Clinton received identical ratings from the NAM and NFIB and was barely better in the eyes of the JBS at 30% and 10%.

One would think that John McCain as the Republican would have fared much better. Theoretically, he’s supposed to represent the interests of these groups because, well, his party’s values were at one time based in a pro-business and small government mindset. But, reality is something quite different: His results were pitiful at best, nowhere near the standards of the GOP of old. The NAM had him at 63% in the 109^th Congress and in the 110^th he did not even take the time to vote on 6 of 7 bills. The JBS had him at 60% and 43%. His saving grace was that the NFIB had him at 100% in both sessions.

As you can see, all three candidates are proven opponents of the American economy and are in part responsible for the exodus of manufacturing and service jobs from our nation. Their voting records prove that they all would make for poor presidents in the realm of economics, furthering ruining our standard of living. As the next few months unfold when a democrat drops out and the two-party debates become hot and heavy you’ll hear them say otherwise, lying to every one of us, only pretending that our jobs matter in an effort to win our votes.