Whatever happened to that famous quote and philosophical advice, “Ask not what your country can do for you ask what you can do for your country,” delivered by President John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address January 20, 1960?

Or, for that matter that once so true line made famous by Milton Friedman, “There’s no free lunch”?

Today, there is not only a free lunch, but breakfast and dinner too.

There are some 21 million households receiving food stamps or 44.5 million people at a cost of $71 billion in 2012.

President Obama asked for a 9 % increase this year, but got $2 billion less; however, this is still 61 % higher than four years ago at this time.

As you already know the Obama administration has a lot of Czars squirreled away within that White House, but little did we know that he saved the Mooching Advocacy Czar for himself, or then again, maybe we did know.

It is one thing to provide food stamps for the documented poor, but to provide it to those not so documented due to a lax in federal regulations, when there is documented evidence that some recipients are dining out on taxpayer dollars in fine restaurants, while the working class, who are paying for the food stamps, are feeding themselves on fast food is unconscionable.

How did we get from a class of citizens that once were ready to do for their country, to Americans that allowed government to grow in proportion to their waistlines and mooch from their country?

Well, it didn’t happen overnight, but it did escalate under the socialistic polices of the Obama administration.

It began with Obamacare, when the priority should have been on jobs.  Nevertheless, with a Democratic controlled House and Congress he rammed through his signature legislation.  To this day the figures for the cost of this program are still being added up, questions of its legality will be considered by the Supreme Court,  and some estimates say it will cost taxpayers hundreds of billions in the next decade, if its allowed to stay.

Then Obama moved on to the $787 billion stimulus program to produce jobs, which it failed to do.  But Obama would claim this contention is not true because he says it created some three million jobs, and if that’s true, it does so at a cost of $3.27 million per job.  A rather cost effective progum, wouldn’t you say?

Our mooching advocate then bailed out Wall Street, the nation’s banks, Fannie & Freddie (this cost taxpayers $124 billion alone, and they need more) and the auto industry.  It is anyone’s guess what all of this will cost over time, as the calculators churn as the number go up as time goes by. Once you fund them, more is expected and little revenue comes back.

Now with all this spending, is it any wonder the government is under water, much like many homes, with a deficit of more than $15 trillion?

Now if things were not bad enough, Obama wants more; bigger government and a beholden and mooching nation.

All of which spells failure for America.

He wants to redistribute wealth so the have nots can get from the haves, a Saul Alinsky philosophy, of which Obama is a devout disciple — examine his policies and record if you don’t think this resonates.

Today 45 % of Americans do not pay taxes, the wealthy so called 1 % pick up this burden, but Obama wants them to do more, encouraging more mooching from the society we now have.

Obama in this week’s State of the Union address said all he wants is to have a country and economy where, “everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”  He said he wants to restore the “American Dream.”

It sounds to me much like today’s concept of children participating in sports activities, where everyone plays, whether they can or not, everyone goes home with a trophy, and there are no losers, only winners.

It reminds me of an analogy I often use in catching a ball.  It is easier to do so when the ball and mitt is made of Velcro.

You see “everyone gets a fair shot.”  It really doesn’t make any difference to Obama if this is not the real world.

In Obama’s State of the Union address he again invoked the “Buffett rule” in seeking tax reform, “If you make more than $1 million a year, you should pay no less than 30 % (of your income)  in taxes.”  It really doesn’t make much difference to him if you already paid taxes on these dollars; he would like you to pay on the same dollar again, again and again.

This all came about because Warren Buffett said his secretary pays a higher income tax rate than he does, a rather disingenuous comment by Buffett and repeated by Obama.  This doesn’t mean that she pays more in taxes.

Buffett’s income mostly comes from capital gains, not regular income which under the current laws are taxed differently.  No one revealed at the time what Debbie Bosanek’s salary was, Buffett’s secretary, who was sitting alongside of Michelle in the gallery as a poster child during the State of the Union, and what portion of it was in regular income, stocks, or capital gains.

However, subsequently we found out that her salary was in the range of $200,000 to $500,000 a year putting her in Obama’s class definition of the 1 % wealthy.  As an aside the average salary of a secretary is $43,520, making Debbie’s income 425 % above the average secretary.  I just wanted to raise this so Obama could log this into his class warfare agenda.

I think many more could make ‘The Show’, if baseball were played with a Velcro ball and mitt; then perhaps we would have fewer moochers, but I doubt it, if Obama is still president.