The Failure of Great Britain's Liberal State

After World War II, Britons envisioned a new kind of state built on social welfare and the gradual grinding away of their country's traditions of self-reliance and responsibility. The first action of this faction lay in the dumping of Prime Minister Winston Churchill before the war even ended. Britain then nationalized many industries, empowered trade unions, passed strict gun control measures, and watched their preeminence in many fields, especially manufacturing, completely slip away. They also stopped going to church and watched marriage rates fall to the point that such relationships now represent a minority. Britain is a nation that, in many ways, has become rudderless. Its national mission and traditions are gone. And now we see the mindless greed of riots based on the purpose of spreading chaos and stealing as much as possible.

The British state had no idea how to stop the riots. The Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, must be a faded memory. She knew how to stop the Argentines from practicing international thuggery. Her descendents in office dithered over the use of even non lethal weapons, such as water cannons, to stop the loss of life and property.

It is from British tradition that we learn that the government's two main roles are protection of innocent life and property. It was not until the people threatened to form Freecorps style militias that the police began to act with aggression, or maybe it was the heavy rains. Either way, the state was impotent to help. I made the point a few times that these riots simply don't happen in certain American cities with aggressive anti-riot strategies, or simply tough reputations. Britain's police had neither.

And what of the people? Chicago's city government has taken the lead in trying to undermine the Second Amendment, but this is what happens when the people are not armed. American businesses are oftentimes protected by their owners who have, and should have, no qualms about blowing away thugs who seek to loot and destroy. The people have the right and the responsibility to defend themselves because the state cannot always be there.

Is there a social aspect to this? Well, Britain's government actively destroyed heavy manufacturing and mining after World War II, just as we are doing now. They put other priorities above an economy that produces real goods and employs people, just as we are doing now. Britain is showing us where we are headed if we accept the Obama left wing path.

Letting States Out of Jail So They Can Go to Prison

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/9/states-rush-to-leave-no-child-law-behind/

The above story describes a new federal initiative to release states from the burdens of No Child Left Behind regulations, which in itself is a good thing. However, states must abide by even more Department of Education strictures to obtain the waivers.

What good does it do to release schools and teachers from onerous requirements if the Education Department simply makes up more?

It is time that school systems opt out of all Department of Education "help." It's existence has correlated with plunging test scores and student aptitude. Colleges now teach basic skills of reading and writing to millions of eighteen and nineteen year olds every year. There really seems to be no point for federal involvement in public education except to make it more difficult and less effective.

Here are two common sense proposals. Kill No Child Left Behind, the worst legislation of the Bush era. Abolish the Department of Education. That will save money and reform the system in a positive fashion.

Ron Paul As Winston Churchill

As most of you know, I am leaning towards Sarah Palin or Rick Perry at this point. I think that they combine visibility, conservative ideals, and electability.

That all being said, Ron Paul's campaign is going to make things very interesting. He has certainly moved from fringe candidate of 2008 to economic prophet of 2011. Last week's debt debacle really moved him to the forefront of the discussion because events are playing out as he has predicted for years.

In the 1920s and early 30s, British politicos laughed at Winston Churchill. His warnings about Hitler and prophecies of war fell on deaf ears. As Hitler began to bare his teeth, Churchill garnered more respect. Finally, when all seemed lost with the 1940 fall of France, Britain turned to him to lead.

Make no mistake. Our policies for decades have led us to the precipice. We expected our productive sectors to pay for too much government even as we taxed and regulated them out of existence. It was a situation that could not continue. We now see disaster staring us in the face. Obama and the Democrats have their heads in the sand. They would tax the private sector to balance a budget, but that would tank the economy even more. We must radically cut spending to solve the debt crisis and get our finances back on track, but Obama would rather spend more, not less. This week the markets dropped rapidly, losing two hundred points during Obama's speech on the subject. If conditions continue to worsen, Paul will gain more and more credibility and become a major factor next year.

This is not a negative. We need elected officials who take these issues seriously. Paul may not win nomination, but he will help to keep debt, the economy, and spending at the forefront of public debate. That in itself should help the right people win election next year.

How Do We Pay Off the Debt?

Simplicity itself.

Fix the tax code. No person or entity pays more than 25% of their income in taxes. This actually should be in the Constitution, only able to be raised during declared war or a national emergency declared by 2/3 of both houses of Congress or 2/3 of the state legislatures. Even then, it cannot last longer than three years. However, all deductions and breaks end outside of E. I. C.

Keep expenditures 5% below revenues and use the excess to pay down the debt. This goes above and beyond the balanced budget amendment that needs to be passed.

Tear away the regulations that hobble our economy. If a salamander is inconvenienced by Texas oil wells, so be it. If polar bears and reindeer have to move five hundred yards to avoid a well, who cares. America requires cheap energy to produce things and to employ people. We need to streamline the process of building anything in America and enact tort reform. This will restore a lot of our competitive advantage in actually building stuff. The economy grows, revenues rise, the government can afford to do more when the debt is paid off.

We expected too much of our economy, burdening it with too many taxes to pay for too many things while overregulating it. You cannot tax your way to prosperity, so we need to cut our spending drastically. If this means retrenching in world affairs, so be it. We are in a crisis situation here.

From "The Buck Stops Here" to "Being Presidemt Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry."

The statement that we will never see from Barack Hussein Obama:

"I'm sorry. I was wrong. My policies have spiked inflation and tripled the debt while producing economic losses. My administration retooled how inflation is officially calculated, leaving out food and fuel. But you know that the price of these all important commodities is too high for a nation with energy resources and the most fertile soil on earth. We put the environment first, closing down coal mines and oil wells, transforming productive California farmland back into desert. This was not because there is a clear and present environmental crisis, outside of maybe some salamander somewhere being inconvenienced. We rely more than ever on foreign sources for food and energy. That's my bad, as the kids say these days.

And I have to admit, as much as I'd like to pin this credit rating thing on the Tea Party, and Lord knows ole Axelrod is trying, bless his heart, we all know this is my fault. LBJ tried to force the economy to win a war while providing huge expansions in social programs that don't work. He created fifteen years of stagflation. I have probably landed us in an even deeper hole. Hopefully a new Ronnie will help dig us out in a couple of years just like the original did in 1982.

This entire job has been overwhelming. Harry Truman once said of James Buchanan that he was the kind of man who spent twenty years trying to be president, but never figured out once he got there how to be a good one. I figure that he'd say the same of me. Like Buchanan, Harding, and a few others, I enjoy the perquisites of being president, but wish someone else had the responsibility.

So, once again, I'm sorry. I screwed up this country something awful. It wasn't in good shape before, but very few of you, outside of General Electric executives, are better off than you were four years ago. At the end of the day, I could blame George W. Bush, the Tea Party, rich people, or whomever. But the fact remains that the buck stops here. As my predecessor once said, I have been the decider. So the full responsibility for this crap is in my lap.

I would resign, but for the fact of, well, you understand how that presidential succession deal works. All of us know that there are a few folks who would be worse than me at this. Unfortunately, I decided one of them should be my running mate in 08. So I will stay in office, but work on nothing but my golf handicap until January 2013. at that point, I hope President Palin, Perry, or whomever can perform a Reaganlike U turn and correct all the problems I created.

God bless the United States of America. Thank you."