If the automatic budget cuts set in motion back in 2011 — known as the “sequester” — go into effect soon, as will be the case without Congressional action, people will die.

Or at least that is if the level of rhetoric to which President Obama has now lowered himself to bears any actual resemblance to reality. (Let us leave out for now that politics seldom ever really bears any resemblance to reality to begin with.)

Speaking in front of cameras Tuesday — and flanked by uniformed first responders (otherwise known to political cynics as ‘prop people’ often used for emotional, rather than rationale, appeals) — Obama warned of the following:

Emergency responders … their ability to help communities respond to and recover from disasters will be degraded… FBI agents will be furloughed. Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go… Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings.

Who, according to Obama, will be to blame for these supposedly outrageous “meat-clever”-type cuts? The usual suspects: “Congress.” Or what he really means: Those evil, rich-loving Republicans who only cater to ‘special interests.’ Never mind the minor detail that the sequester was actually the Obama administration’s idea. In fact, Obama was at one point adamant against backtracking on it. In November of 2011, he warned, “I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts — domestic and defense spending.” He added, “There will be no easy off-ramps on this one.”

But don’t sweat the details, right? Political rhetoric is much more preferred in situations like this. And none is more preferred than the rhetoric that claims this sequester actually represents ‘cuts’ — and the “meat-cleaver” kind at that! Unfortunately, in Washington-speak, most references to ‘cuts’ are really just slow-downs in the rate of projected growth.

Assuming the sequester takes place, the federal budget will actually still grow by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years.

Translation: We’re still going to spend more, just not as much as we had originally planned. Similar to as if an employee were to get a slightly smaller raise instead of larger raise, only employers usually actually have that money to spare for the slightly smaller raise.

Public demanding action? Check.

Bill written? Check.

Catchy slogan? Check.

Is this Constitutional? ...whoops.

It has been over 1,300 days since the Senate passed a budget.  The last time the Senate Democrats passed a budget was April 29, 2009. Back then, the iPad didn’t exist, nobody knew who Snooki was, and YAL had only been around for a few months. Public unrest over this failure has consistently grown since then, and multiple Members of Congress, including Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rep. Steve King (R-IA), advocate for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. 

At the end of January, House Republicans decided to challenge the no-action Senate by pushing H.R. 325, “to ensure the complete and timely payment of the obligations of the United States Government until May 19, 2013, and for other purposes.” Introduced by Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), this bill "solves" the debt ceiling debate by raising the debt limit until May 19 of this year. Additionally, there was an addendum that dictated until the Senate passed a budget, they would not receive payment for their work. This is more commonly referred to as “No Budget, No Pay.”

In theory, this sounds great. The average American doesn't get paid if he or she doesn't complete his or her work, so surely we can hold Congress to the same standards. There is one minuscule difference, however. The average American's pay is not dictated by the U.S. Constitution. The 27th Amendment states:

"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."

Pretty clear, right? You can change pay for Congress, but it won't take effect for two years. No Budget, No Pay changes the payment schedule of Senators, and thus could not take effect until 2015. 

Gainesville, FL—The Santa Fe College Young Americans for Liberty held a pro-gun protest today, February 4th, in the Oak Grove at the heart of campus from 9 AM – 1 PM. These students have made their stance very clear: They want fewer gun laws, especially on college campuses.

Santa Fe YAL members believe that public safety is every individual's responsibility, since law enforcement can't be everywhere at once—nor should one expect them to be. 

Participants wore empty holsters symbolizing their opposition to laws that prohibit licensed adults from carrying concealed weapons. This style of protest is the brain-child of another organization, Students for Concealed Carry, who have executed similar protests at the University of Florida and at  colleges across the United States. Protesters also gathered signatures for a petition destined for the State Legislature to repeal the the concealed-carry ban.  You can sign the petition here.

"It's very encouraging to see students exercising their First Amendments rights, especially as the demonstration relates to the defense of another right, the right to bear arms. Pioneers like Mario Savio fought to secure political free speech rights on college campuses over forty years ago; I'm extremely proud of these students because they are challenging the sense of apathy that is common on college campuses”said Jason Rummler the group's faculty adviser and a professor at Santa Fe College.

The Santa Fe College chapter of Young Americans for Liberty was founded by Adam Edwards, a combat veteran who served in Iraq and volunteered on Ron Paul's presidential campaign in 2012. The chapter has six members and occupies a seat on the Student Government Senate.

A new Reason-Rupe poll has some interesting and telling findings—namely that a vast majority of Americans don't think that increased federal spending since the 1990s has improved their quality of life. Here are the details:

Adjusted for inflation, federal spending per capita has increased approximately 39 percent since 1992, yet a new Reason-Rupe poll finds 79 percent of Americans believe the government’s spending increases have reduced the quality of life or made no impact on the quality of life in the country during that time.  Forty percent say the increases in federal spending over the last 20 years reduced the quality of life in the country and 39 percent say the increases had no impact on the quality of life. Just 17 percent feel federal spending increases improved the quality of life in America.

Better yet, 49% think cutting spending would help the economy, and 61% are in favor of cutting military spending back to 2001 rates!

Read the rest of these important poll results here.