The Washington Post

The Tax Policy Center study found that Anericans earning less than $200,000 will pay higher taxes despite the President’s 2008 pledge to the middle class unequivocally stating that they would see absolutely no increase in taxation. The result will be less disposable income and a hit to charitable giving.

The tax increases come in three forms: an increase to tobacco taxes, changes in personal exemptions and a recalculation of inflation.

As more low-income earners smoke than higher-earners, the increase in taxes on cigarettes will be necessarily regressive – hitting the poor much more than anyone else. Obama’s budget nearly double the federal tax from $1.01 to $1.95 per pack.

Exemptions will diminish in value each year as a new inflation calculation formula forces middle-income earners into higher tax brackets each year.

Being forced into a higher tax bracket will leave less disposable income for those of moderate incomes. With more money being funneled to an inefficient federal government, middle class families will have fewer dollars to spend how they see fit.

As more earners get pushed into higher tax brackets, the amount they can claim for charitable giving diminishes. Combined with fewer dollars left after taxes, charities are likely to see more funds going to government programs that used to be directed to them by willing citizens.

The President’s budget reflects a core ideal: the government can take care of people better than private charities. As more government programs, like the Obamaphone give-away, are shown to be wasteful, taxpayers should question the redirection of money that would otherwise have likely gone to charities.

This is the second increase in taxes the middle class has seen from the President in recent months. Earlier this year, most Americans saw their paychecks shrink as the President discontinued the Bush tax cuts.

The hardest hit in Obama’s budget are those making more than $200,000. The same group the President targeted in his January tax increase.

Democrats say that the tax increases don’t go far enough and point to the liberal plan from the Senate that raises taxes by more than twice what Obama’s budget calls for.

Republicans see no spending cuts at all. The budget doesn’t reduce spending year-over-year, only the rate at which spending will increase each year. In fact, Obama’s budget adds $1 billion for 15 manufacturing innovation institutes, additional funds for high-speed rail, and free pre-school for low-to-moderate income families.

Both sides are concerned about the tax increase on the middle class.

The only entitlement reform, the method most economists agree is the only way to save those programs, is to change the way inflation is calculated. Currently, inflation is calculated based on price increases in a set basket of goods. The president’s plan would switch to chained-CPI which takes into account the behavior of switching to alternative, cheaper products as the price of an item increases. The resulting inflation rate is slower. Inflation calculations are used in determining the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for government programs like Social Security and for determining increases in the tax brackets.

Democrats are concerned that using chained-CPI will result in seniors seeing their Social Security checks not keep up with actual cost-of-living. Republicans are concerned that more middle-income earners will be pushed into higher tax brackets or above the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) threshold and forced to pay higher taxes.

Senate Democrats are threatening to give Obama yet another zero-support vote and House Republicans have called the plan “dead on arrival” in the people’s chamber. Since this plan closely resembles the failed “grand bargain” from 20011, there is little hope that it will materialize into an actual budget.

There are also concerns over the supposed spending slow-downs in the budget. Much of it depends on cost savings due to Obamacare.

With this year’s delay of implementing the exchanges, skyrocketing implementation costs, quickly rising premiums and the projected shortfalls in available care, rampant cost overruns are the expectation. Even the Department of Health and Human Services was caught off-guard by the complexity and costs of the President’s marquee health care legislation.

The President’s budget plan also removes charitable deductions and home mortgage deductions for higher earners. Non-profit groups that rely on huge donations from wealthy contributors are understandably concerned that the new budget plan, if enacted, could decimate their efforts to help others. Add in middle-earners being hit with higher taxes and the two groups that mainly fund charitable efforts will be far less likely to do so.

Low-income families are often heavily-dependent upon charity groups for food and clothing. The President’s plan will likely do more harm to lower and middle-income earners than anyone else.

“What I will say is that this is not the president’s idealized budget,” said Carney,  “It is not what he would do if he were king, or if only people who supported his proposals were in Congress.

Have we ever had a president who more wished to be king instead of having to deal with those pesky other equal but separate, branches of government?

Gosh darn those Founding Fathers.

President Obama is likely to focus on immigration reform – something that is much more likely to yield bi-partisan support than most of the items he focused on during his two terms. The White House is confident that growing numbers of Hispanic voters, many who watch Spanish language television, will help to pressure Congress into passing an immigration reform bill.

Obama has publicly supported legislation that would seek a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the United States.

Obama had spent most of the first part of 2013 trying to paint sequestration as a doomsday device put in-play by Republicans despite press reports and noted journalist Bob Woodward’s expose demonstrating that the White House pushed for sequestration. Recently, the White House cancelled tours of “The People’s House” and threatened the East Lawn Easter Egg Hunt pointing to sequestration as the cause – all while Joe Biden had been taking weekend trips back home, the Obama’s continued to vacation like Hollywood elites, and the Vice President blew over a half-million on a hotel stay in Paris.

The Administration’s attempts to show that budget cuts are painful failed miserably. Sequestration didn’t actually cut the budget, it only reduced the size of recent increases in federal spending of tax payer dollars. With only minuscule cutbacks coming from sequestration, no real change to services or the economy are palpable. Obama’s credibility has taken a tremendous hit as his fiscal cliff turns into a non-event.

The President had also spent the last few months pushing for an outright Federal gun ban. Limitations on shotguns, pistols and incorrectly-labelled “assault weapons” were desired by the Commander-in-Chief – until now. With Harry Reid not wanting to lose his seat as Senate Majority Leader, he was forced to pull the gun ban from the gun bill – instead focusing on background checks and enforcement. Sen. Reid did not want to force Democrats from rural states to have to vote on a gun ban bill which would just about guarantee lost Democrat Senate seats and a Republican Majority Leader come 2014.

This month, even more negative impacts of Obamacare have been brought to the attention of Americans. More doctors are retiring early, fewer are seeking medical careers, the costs of the legislation are skyrocketing, healthcare claims costs will rise 32% on average and more than 80% in some states.

Obamacare, gun control and the budget – all important and highly-visible issues with voters. All issues the President would have liked to have define his Presidency. All of them not headed in directions in Obama’s favor. But not all of them the most important.

According to a March 26th Gallup poll, the economy, federal spending and healthcare are the top three issues with American voters. Obama is now pivoting away from federal spending, trying to pretend Obamacare isn’t really as bad as recent press says it is and has been failing on the economy overall since taking office.

Serving in his second term, President Obama presides over a nation more divided than any time since the 1960′s.  Racial tensions, class warfare, and an economy taking much longer than expected to recover have left America with a melting pot in shambles. Hoping to prevent a two-term legacy of outright failure, Obama is seeking to use Spanish language television to get at least one thing accomplished that may be looked upon favorably in history’s eyes.

Second Amendment: The Battle Rages On

It’s hard to believe that in 2013 there would still be an attack on Constitutional rights…but there is. The most recent(and surprisingly well sustained) is against our right to bear arms.

This past week President Obama re-upped his gun control push calling on Vice President Biden and NYC Mayor Bloomberg, who held press conferences, to push his initiative.

What’s more, on Wednesday, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper signed bills that require background checks for private and online gun sales and ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds(via Politico).

While some view this as “common sense” legislation there is no argument that can convince most Americans that infringement of any of their rights is common sense. With more and more restrictions on the Second Amendment, we are left wondering what rights we will be forced to give up next.

Senate Democrat Budget

On Saturday Senate Democrats approved their first budget in four years. But not without opposition. It passed Democratic approval with just a 50-49 vote showing a deep divide within the formerly solid Democrat ranks.

The main problem: failure to address the deficit problem. Just last week Obama went on the record saying, “My goal is not to chase a balanced budget just for the sake of balance.”

Apparently not all Democrats feel the same way. Many of the more moderate politicians on the left are beginning to see the importance of balancing the budget. Which could prove to be a major point of contention going into talks with House GOP.

As Senator Mark Begich (D.-AL) put it, “Passing this off to our children is not an option.”

And many other Democrats are starting to see that the ridiculous deficit and failure to balance the budget is not only failing to solve a current problem but also perpetuating a problem for future generations.

So, where does that leave us? Four *short* years later and a proposal that Senate Democrats can still barely agree on. Clearly, we’re not much further than where we started.

Obamacare Turns 3…!

At least that’s the excitement on the left. In spite of the fact that the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare has begun to wreak havoc on citizens from small business owners to private practice doctors and everyone inside, outside or in between; there are still many who are pleased with what they have been offered.

Of course, the biggest following of Obamacare is the hundreds of thousands of American women who may now receive free birth control. Women everywhere can rest assured that they do not have to be responsible for themselves because the government will take care of it.

I guess a loss of jobs, closing businesses and smaller paychecks are worth it after all.

Thanks Obama xoxoxo.

To Paris With Love

…$585,000 that is.

VP Biden is getting more than we bargained for. On a recent trip to Europe the Vice President is said to have accrued a $585,000 bill for a one night stay in Paris. Not to mention, another nearly $800,000 for additional trip related expenses for limousine service and a night in London.

According to Fox 2 News, rooms are rented out for staff, Secret Service, military and there are security expenses involved. While this is said to be standard operating costs, there is still a lot to be said for trips equaling millions of dollars on the taxpayer’s dime.

Yes, foreign relations are necessary and yes, the safety of the President, the VP and their teams is important but is there no way to trim these costs? With trips like these is it any wonder our country is in the position it is?

Cigarette Ban in NY

Quick folks, hide your Big Gulp…I mean cigarettes! With the overturn of the ban on drinks, Mayor Michael Bloomberg is back with a new ban to rile up NY residents. This time, it’s cigarettes.

Mayor Bloomberg has submitted a proposal to the NY city council to hide cigarettes from public view. He cites health concerns, particularly in underage smoking, as the primary reason for the ban.

Now, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, parents, in case you didn’t know(and the government believes you don’t) it’s your job to keep your kids from doing bad things. Not the government’s. There will always be arguments about children hiding cigarettes or drinking or drugs from their parents but if they can keep these things from ever attentive parents, rest assured, playing peek-a-boo with cigarettes in convenience stores isn’t going to keep them from smoking.

Biden: Giffords Mortally Wounded

If there was ever a #HeadDesk moment this would be it.

On Thursday during a gun control press conference Vice President Biden said, “Think about what happened out in — when Gabby Giffords, my good friend, was shot and mortally wounded.

Now, I’m not one to judge a poor use of vocabulary and/or grammar but it would seem that the man who is next in line as leader of the free world would know the difference between “mortally wounded” and, well, just wounded.

 This is the first weekly installment of TWOTL showcasing the attacks, laughs, and gaffes from the left. Proving why the smart money is on the conservative vote.

Follow me on Twitter @ReneeRankine

There are more stories about this than I have toothpicks and we owned a restaurant. (Trust me, you end up with a lot of toothpicks after closing a restaurant.) I have a much different take on things but first “the facts:”

“No worries America”

When you think about it – I mean really think about it – can you even imagine having the desires (plural), let alone the time and energy of what’s left in a 24-hour day, to think of all the places you could go or of all of the friends you could take or could you find enough hours in what’s left of that day to spend $585,000 for a one night stay – even in Paris with an entire security entourage? And just who’s running our country without this brain child of gluttony at the helm?

Rush Limbaugh hit this nail on the head: People like this self-serving hooligan could not and would not (because they could not) do such things with their own money. They couldn’t afford to, even on their Congressional pay and perks. OUR money is paying for this amoral gluttony and whether you are a Liberal or Conservative, if you aren’t mad as hell about this waste and excess then there’s something seriously wrong with you – get out of here. Now.

“The Facts”

Joe Biden’s $585,000 hotel bill makes no sense, MSN Money

Biden did spend an evening in Paris in early February, but there are no details in the document about whether this contract is accurate or what the final hotel bill came to. A standard room in the hotel costs about $475 a night, and the royal two-bedroom suite runs about $3,900 a night.The Weekly Standard also points to another government contract for Biden’s London hotel stay in early February. The contract, to the Hyatt Regency London, totaled $459,339. An associated document with that contract said it was for 136 rooms for 893 room nights.

Few expenses are spared when Vice President Biden hits the road, racking up five-star hotel bills of $500G, Daily News

It can cost in the neighborhood of $500,000 a night — and that’s just for the hotel.Biden’s one-day visit to Paris on Feb. 4 required more than 100 rooms at the five-star Hotel InterContinental Paris Le Grand.

The lodging cost taxpayers $585,000.50, according to federal contracting records that emerged Friday.

Joe Biden runs up bill of $585,000 for just ONE NIGHT in five-star Paris hotel (and taxpayers will pick up the tab), Mail Online

When Mr Biden and his hefty entourage stayed in Paris for an evening in early February and it cost $585,000.50 for that single night. The Vice President likely rented out more than 100 rooms in the Hotel Intercontinental Paris Le Grand, though they must not have gotten a group discount rate.

Biden One-Night Hotel Tab: $585,000, The Weekly Standard

The documentation for this contract is not as detailed as the London one, so the cost per room is not available.  However, just like his London hotel, the Hotel Intercontinental Paris Le Grand is a five star hotel. Again, security concerns prevent these type of contracts from being open to bidding, but if the government was able to do some comparison shopping, the Hotel Intercontinental has a special offer, “Find a lower price elsewhere and your first night is free.” The Vice President stayed in Paris for one night.

Biden One-Night Hotel Tab: $585,000, The Washington Free Beacon

Biden and his wife, Jill Biden, spent three days traveling Germany, London and Paris in February.They stayed at the five-star Hotel Intercontinental Paris Le Grand then spent $459,388.65 at the Hyatt Regency London the next day, also according to the Weekly Standard:

Joe Biden Spends 1 Night In Paris, Racks Up $585K Bill [PHOTOS], Hip Hop Wired

(See photo essay.)

If you want to know how Biden did this against all reasonable human odds, you’re in the right place … Go here.

This is no joke. That’s the only reason I don’t parody this lamebrain administration’s unconscionable thuggary-theft of taxpayer money more. You need to read this linked article and make time for its video. Until then this will only get worse. GOP Old Guard Republicans are no better. They’re lovin’ it just as much. All on the backs of our labors (or entitlement program cut, whatever your case may be – it DOES effect you). Stop it or stop whining.

Contact your legislator today. Tell them to stop this gross spending as they deprive taxpayers who’re paying their overly extravagant bills. If not you, who? We could function better without a government than with this one. Pick your poison. I’ll take my chances with YOU any day.

via Pennua.org

On Thursday, the House passed the GOP Budget Plan, authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis). It passed almost entirely down partisan lines with a 221-207 vote.

Ryan’s plan is geared toward balancing the budget within 10 years through a series of huge spending cuts equaling $4.6 trillion that primarily affect funding of social programs while keeping current Social Security benefits intact. The budget repeals Obamacare and proposes a Medicare overhaul that revisits the idea of a voucher-like program for seniors. A seemingly sound plan that leads us to economic freedom by 2023.

But will any of this really make a difference? The Democrat controlled Senate just began debating their first budget since the 2009 budget that ushered in Obamacare. A budget that is on the other end of the spectrum from the House and actually increases spending after the sequester. Their budget does not propose a balance until tentatively 2040.

With a Democratic-run Senate and President Obama in the White House, it begs the question: is the House passed budget a hopeless one? There has been an ongoing struggle between the two parties over the economy and the battle could come to a head due to the drastically different proposals and different ideas about what is important for economic growth. Obama claims, “My goal is not to chase a balanced budget just for the sake of balance.”

With such divisive plans, Obama will be looking to find a middle ground between the two proposals that could end up producing nearly $1 trillion in new taxes while saving social programs for the poor. While the idea may sound noble, it is simply another instance of working class Americans being punished for being contributing members of society, while those who are not are rewarded.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray(D-Wash.) says, “We need to tackle our deficit and debt fairly and responsibly.”

But fair to whom? Not to the citizens who are working harder for smaller paychecks due to increased taxation. Not to small business owners who have to cut costs somewhere due to Obamacare. And certainly not to our children who are suffering now but will suffer even more in the future due to the massive debt they are forced to repay.

We are increasingly becoming a nation dependent on our government for all of our relief—which only ends up applying more pressure. One that takes away the will to succeed and encourages accepting handouts. With that mentality, the House passed budget may not seem to be more than a pipe dream for many Americans. However, it is always in the roughest of times that Americans show of what we are truly made; which leaves hope that this proposal will be a first step in reaffirming American exceptionalism.

Follow Renee on Twitter @ReneeRankine.

But last week? President Obama talks of Armageddon, chaos will erupt and life as we know it will end.

Oops…maybe the pendulum swung too far…and the president again rethinks his position telling the Business Council that this is not a cliff but a tumble… (at the 2 minute mark)

But perhaps this ‘finger in the wind’ method is working. Rasmussen reported today that Obama has a 52% approval rating.

“Military strategy should drive the budget, not the other way around. The mission of the United States military is determined by America’s vital interests and an assessment of the threats to those interests. We must spend what is necessary to fully fund our military. Of course there is waste and inefficiency in the defense budget. But the core and undisputed responsibility of the U.S. government to provide for the nation’s security must not be up for negotiation.”   [emphasis mine]

Spalding illustrates just how far down our military has fallen in the name of the budget. He also says:

“… while government spending is soaring, defense spending relative to the size of the economy is near historical lows. The Obama Administration is promising to hollow the military even more in the years ahead.”

Spalding paints a rather sobering picture of the current condition of our military, but with sequestration cuts of almost $500 billion just around the corner the worst is yet to come! The Army alone says that troop readiness and equipment repair will be affected by the cuts, as well as many family support programs. Sequestration is set to start on March 1, 2013, unless Congress enacts a preventative deal, which sources say is unlikely.

Here’s more news about the military. America’s enemies are increasing defense spending (as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product), while America does just the opposite. Current Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says, “Instead of being a first-rate power in the world, we’d turn into a second-rate power. That would be the result of sequester.” Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Martin Dempsey said that about a third of the cuts would have to come from forces. He also said that two-thirds of the cuts will be taken from spending on modernization, compensation, and readiness.

Compromise readiness. I guess that means that when Americans are being attacked, as they were in Benghazi, the solution is to “stand down.” But, what the heck? Obama could not care less. He, according to Leon Panetta, never communicated with Obama or anyone at the White House. Is this just a forecast of what is to come?

And let’s not forget this bit of information about former senator Chuck Hagel from PJ Media:

“Senate sources [say] that one of the reasons that President Barack Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, has not turned over requested documents on his sources of foreign funding is that one of the names listed is a group purportedly called ‘Friends of Hamas.’”

When it rains, it pours! Just when you think Fearless Leader Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrats can’t get any lower, they do.

But that’s just my opinion.
Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

Two days ago the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its Annual Audit of the United States Government for fiscal years 2011 – 2012. The government’s own conclusion is this:

“… Absent policy changes – the Federal Government continues to face an unsustainable fiscal path.” (Minute 00:35)

That means – if the Federal Government does not stop the wild spending – the U.S. dollar will collapse.

This is like telling people on a beach, “Hey, a tsunami is coming and if you don’t move you will be killed.”

But the beach folks say, “I like it here, I’m not moving,” and eventually the wave comes in and kills them.

That’s exactly what’s happening now.

We The People are allowing this.

Only We can change this.

The best Talking Points I’ve heard in a long time:

Truth be told, a great deal of the partisan gridlock – at least where the finances of the nation are concerned – wouldn’t exist today if the politicians we elect to office would simply cease being politicians upon being tasked with doing the business of government; if they simply followed the rules of government as set forth by the Founding Documents. But then, as James Madison said, “If men were angels…”

In a prior article, Why Is Boehner Negotiating with Obama at All?, I pointed out:

“Article I, Section 7, of the United States Constitution reads:

“‘All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.’

“And while the verbiage that follows outlines the processes by which the presidential veto and congressional veto overrides are to be executed, nowhere is the power of the purse – the ability to create legislation that raises revenue – extended to any other branch of government or congressional body.

“I bring this fundamental tenet of our system of government to the forefront because I am puzzled as to why House Republicans, led by Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), are negotiating budgetary financial matters, a responsibility and purview exclusively vested in the US House of Representatives, with anyone outside that body, let alone the Executive Branch, which only has the constitutional power of the veto over said legislation?

“Such are the questions that arise when the bully pulpit is used to usurp the constitutional order of our government.”

So, you can imagine how happy I was to read that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), has told his fellow Republicans that he is done with private, one-on-one negotiations with President Obama. The simple fact of the matter is that he never – ever – should have entered into negotiations with anyone from the Executive Branch over issues of raising revenue in the first place; not on the fiscal cliff, the debt ceiling, the budget, tax reform, deficit reduction…none of it. Pure and simple, the Executive Branch, other than allocating revenues granted to it to through the constitutionally mandated legislative process, to the agencies and departments under their purview, has no authority over the raising of revenue whatsoever. I defy anyone to find any provision in the US Constitution that contradicts that fact.

The reality that President Obama (and through him his team) can co-opt authority over matters of national finance simply by bullying his way to a “negotiating table” under the perverted guise of “leadership” says a lot about how far we have gotten away from the constitutional process of government. That the elected officials in the Legislative Branch do not howl in protest over the usurpation of the Separation of Powers – and perhaps that they don’t know better to howl in the first place – presents as a frighteningly, but all to true, commentary on just how constitutionally illiterate (or subversive) our elected officials have become. The same, sadly, can be said of the electorate itself.

If, and that is the optimal word here, our elected federal officials adhered to the US Constitution as the rulebook by which government is executed (which it is), legislation would follow a path that goes something like this:

▪ Legislation regarding the generation and securing of revenue (including matters of debt reduction, budgeting and borrowing) would be created working through regular order, letting the House work its will.

▪ The legislation would be advanced to the US Senate where they “may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” (Note: had the 17th Amendment not been passed allowing for the direct election of Senators by the electorate, Senators would still be charged with protecting the rights of their respective States from the overreach of the federal government.)

▪ The legislation would then go to “conference” where the original legislation would be reconciled between the two chambers.

▪ The legislation would then be presented to the Executive Branch (as is the proper procedure for any piece of legislation), where the President can either sign it into law or veto it.

▪ At this point the House (because the legislation for our purposes has to do with revenue generation) would reconsider the legislation and the objections of the Executive Branch and either override the veto or make changes so as to satisfy the Executive’s objections. The overridden or revised bill would then go to the Senate for a similar procedure.

So, as you can see, the only options available for President Obama (or the Executive Branch), constitutionally, are to either sign the legislation into law or veto the legislation presented. Nowhere – nowhere – in the US Constitution is the Executive Branch afforded negotiating rights on matters of raising revenue but for those two options and at that moment in the timeline.

That understood, what we just witnessed – with the US Senate crafting legislation regarding the raising of revenue and the Executive Branch negotiating from the start with the leadership of the US House – was wholly in usurpation of the constitutional process by which revenue legislation is supposed to adhere. In fact, it could be said that the entire piece of legislation, by way of its origination, is unconstitutional.

Yet, because there will be no constitutional objection to this travesty of process, American taxpayers are now saddled with higher taxes and over $4 trillion in new debt over the next ten years, and we haven’t even dealt with the sequestration, the debt ceiling or the budget, all of which will, most likely, see an arrogant and belligerent Executive Branch bullying its way to yet more “negotiating tables”; negotiating tables at which they do not belong. I am willing to bet that through it all, taxes spending and the national debt will rise, and deficit reduction will remain in the realm of political rhetoric; the filth of political opportunism soiling the futures of our great-grandchildren.

On January 21, 2013, Barack Obama will place his hand on the Holy Bible (we assume) and swear this oath, as mandated by Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Nowhere in that oath exists the caveat, “…unless I think the document is flawed.” Barack Obama’s job as President of the United States is to uphold and protect; to defend the US Constitution. That means adhering to the provisions, limitations and authorities held within, including the legislative process by which revenue is raised for the federal government.

So, when you hear Mr. Obama say: “I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they’ve already racked up through the laws that they passed,” two thoughts should come to mind.

First, your eyes should roll, given the fact that all the Obama Administration has done over the past four years is scream that they need to spend more money. Blaming Congress for racking up trillions in new debt with nothing to show for it but fictitious “jobs saved or created” numbers that don’t reconcile with the unemployment and workforce stats is tantamount to piling up debt on your Dad’s credit card and then blaming him for being a spendthrift.

Second, you should be asking yourself – and your elected representatives – this: What gives Mr. Obama the right to say he “will not have another debate with this Congress,” over the debt ceiling when he has no authority to debate it in the first place? More importantly, you should ask yourself why your elected members to the US House would allow their leadership to include Mr. Obama in debates exclusive to House membership…ever.

The time to understand the US Constitution – to become constitutionally literate – is now…as is the time to actually start asking these question. Your great-grandchildren’s’ freedom may just depend on what you do right now.

Singer Allen Stone

The Chewelah, Washington native starts out the song with lyrics that speak to the ineffectiveness of the Government:
“Every day, the deficit grows
You spend more than you own
Papa always said to me
Keep a close eye on your authority”

The 25 year old musician even questions if the United States is still a free country:
“Every day, taxes increase,
So is this our land or is this our lease?
Papa said, “Son, it’s the land of the free,”
As he broke his back trying to make ends meet,

The song then finishes out with a sex-laden trail about what we can do with the dollars that we have left in our pockets:
“All you do is push, pull, tear,
We can’t stretch it any farther,
Push, pull, tear,
We can’t stretch any farther”

You can watch the video of the song in its entirety below:

h/t Jen Oldham
___

Follow TJ on Twitter and Facebook!

___

TJ rants, ponders, and even wonders if he is the only person who is flat out angry at those in Washington.
.

___

Follow TJ on Twitter and Facebook!

___