The true meaning of Thanksgiving

For at least a decade the Review-Journal reprinted every Thanksgiving Day an editorial explaining the true story behind the reason for the celebration. That’s not quite as long as The Wall Street Journal’s holiday editorials that have been printed each year since 1961. Apparently The R-J version was retired and replaced it with one about giving, especially to the charity where the publisher serves on the board of trustees. So, I am starting my own Thanksgiving tradition and reprinting this blog posting from the past two years to fill the void.

We explain how the Plymouth colonists set out to live in an idealistic communal fashion. Everyone would share equally in the products of the colony. But after nearly starving to death in 1621 and 1622, Gov. William Bradford abandoned the social experiment and gave each family its own plot of land, and whatever was produced on it was the rightful property of the owner to consume or trade.

Gov. William Bradford

The result was a prosperous harvest in 1623 and feast of Thanksgiving.

Capitalism saved the colony.

The American Institute of Economic Research has posted online its own retelling of the Thanksgiving story, along with passages from Bradford’s recollections from “Of Plymouth Plantation,” translated into more modern spelling.

The AIER notes that the colony was attempting to live in the manner described in Plato’s Republic in which all would work and share goods in common, ridding themselves of selfishness and achieving higher social state. The problem was that hard work was not rewarded and laggardness and sloth went unpunished.

Bradford wrote:

“For the young men that were able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children, without recompense. The strong, or men of parts, had no more division of food, clothes, etc. then he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labor, and food, clothes, etc. with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignant and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc. they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could man husbands brook it.”

Before the colony could die off from starvation, Bradford divvied up the land and introduced private property.

The governor wrote:

“And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end. … This had a very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted then otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little-ones with them to set corn, which before would a ledge weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.”

And the result was, again in Bradford’s words:

“By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God. And the effect of their planting was well seen, for all had, one way or other, pretty well to bring the year about, and some of the abler sort and more industrious had to spare, and sell to others, so as any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.”

This is the real lesson of the first Thanksgiving: Capitalism always triumphs over communist utopian fantasies. Humans will work for their own self interest and, instead of it being greedy and rapacious, all benefit and prosper.

ObamaCare promise: It was all just a big lie and they knew it

That was then:

This is now:

On Monday The Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by a San Diego woman who is a seven-year survivor of gall bladder cancer. She liked her health care plan and her doctors, but she was being summarily dropped.

Later that day the paper’s James Taranto’s Best of the Web Today online screed carried the headline: “How Low Can They Go? The White House attacks a cancer patient.”

It seems presidential assistant Dan Pfeiffer sent out a tweet saying, “The Real Reason That The Cancer Patient Writing In Today’s Wall Street Journal Lost Her Insurance  via @TPHealth. The link is to an article at with the same headline, blaming California health insurance competition for the cancellation. It claims the cancer patient can buy other insurance — though she liked her plan and wanted to keep it — and ignores the fact she is unable keep her doctors, specifically the ones in another state.

No matter how you parse the language and backtrack, the administration knew it was lying and did so repeatedly.

NBC reports:

Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC News that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.” …

Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”

As one former administration official explained to the WSJ:

“You try to talk about health care in broad, intelligible points that cut through, and you inevitably lose some accuracy when you do that,” the former official said.

The former official added that in the midst of a hard-fought political debate “if you like your plan, you can probably keep it” isn’t a salable point.

Have Obama and Dan Pfieffer no shame? (AP photo via WSJ)

Might global warming benefits outweigh the harm?

By now we’ve heard all the doom and gloom about how global warming will end civilization as we know it.

So, it is refreshing to find someone who actually says a little warming might be a good thing.

More smokestacks needed?

Writing recently in The Wall Street Journal, British climate scientist and author Matt Ridley — based on one of those infamous leaks about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) “fifth assessment report,” which is to be officially published at the end of this month — concludes “there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.”

The predicted warming of 2 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 70 years would “extend the range of farming further north, improve crop yields, slightly increase rainfall (especially in arid areas), enhance forest growth and cut winter deaths (which far exceed summer deaths in most places). Increased carbon dioxide levels also have caused and will continue to cause an increase in the growth rates of crops and the greening of the Earth — because plants grow faster and need less water when carbon dioxide concentrations are higher,” the writer concludes.

Additionally, Ridley says the latest 2,000-page report dials back the alarm, predicting future global warming will be slightly less than previously forecast.

“Since the last IPCC report in 2007, much has changed,” Ridley says. “It is now more than 15 years since global average temperature rose significantly. Indeed, the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri has conceded that the “pause” already may have lasted for 17 years, depending on which data set you look at. A recent study in Nature Climate Change by Francis Zwiers and colleagues of the University of Victoria, British Columbia, found that models have overestimated warming by 100% over the past 20 years.”

Maybe we should crank up a few more coal-fired plants to get that warming up to beneficial levels.

Ponzi Nation: Taxation without representation

So what should our children and grandchildren say when they are told their taxes are going up to pay the interest on the $17 trillion in debt this nation has rung up?

How about: “There’s the graveyard. They borrowed the money. Collect from them.”

Maybe it is time to default. Full faith and credit? No one has any faith we’ll ever be able to repay and our credit rating is rapidly declining.

Not only is our debt unsustainable, it is unfathomable, because the feds have been cooking the books.

Just like the Nevada public employees pension program, which claims to have $10 billion in unfunded liability but really has $40 billion, the federal debt is not just $17 trillion and growing by $1 trillion a year.

WSJ illustration

According to a column in The Wall Street Journal this past fall by Chris Cox, a former chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee and the Securities and Exchange Commission, and Bill Archer, a former chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, “The actual liabilities of the federal government — including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees’ future retirement benefits — already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure.”

For the government to actually pay as we go on all spending and entitlements would require revenue of $8 trillion a year, Cox and Archer calculate. To cover this, they say, confiscating every dollar of income from Americans earning more than $66,000 a year, plus all of the corporate taxable income in the year before the recession, that of course is less now, wouldn’t be enough.

That $1 trillion tax hike Harry Reid wants would hardly cover the nut.

Another sad part of all this is that at the same time we are saddling the next generations with an impossible tax burden, we are simultaneously hobbling them with inferior education, scant employment opportunities and piles of college loan debts.

According to the Department of Labor, in July only 33 percent of 16- to 19-year-olds without any disability had a job. Only 65 percent of able-bodied 20- to 24-year-olds held down jobs.

According to Pew Research data,  63 percent of 18- to 31-year-olds had jobs in 2012, down from the 70 percent in 2007. Fully 36 percent of these so-called Millennials were living in their parents’ homes in 2012, compared to 32 percent in 2007 and 34 percent when the recession officially ended in 2009.

It’s been 30 years since “A Nation at Risk,” was published, declaring, “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.” Little, if anything, has changed since.

On top of this, as if this camel needed another straw, young people will have to shoulder a disproportionate share of insurance costs under ObamaCare, because the law states no age group will pay more than three times the premiums of another age group, even though older people require five times as much expense as younger people.

To contort Churchill: Never have so many asked so few to do so much with so little.

I am ashamed.

Pew Research graphic

IBD graphic

Obama starts his anti-jobs speech tour

I kept getting emails from Obama’s minions saying things like: “Don’t miss this speech.”

So I didn’t.

What I saw was Obama at Knox College in Illinois firing a 5,000-word scatter gun for more than an hour at the economy without once hitting the target. He spoke in vague generalities about a ” long-term American strategy, based on steady, persistent effort, to reverse the forces that have conspired against the middle class for decades.”

When he did offer specifics, which were few, each of them would do more harm than good — kill jobs instead of create them.

He talked about raising the minimum wage — a sure job killer for the young and unskilled.

He talked about doubling the number of solar and wind energy projects — proven job killers.

He blathered on about ObamaCare, which is pushing people into part-time jobs so employers can avoid its penalties.

But most of all he talked about inequality, noting the average CEO has gotten a raise of nearly 40 percent since 2009, when he took office, and said the average American earns less than he or she did in 1999. He did not say that the average American household earns $2,718, or 5 percent, less than it did when the recession ended in June 2009, four months after he took office.

Though the title of his speech was “A Better Bargain for the Middle Class,” under his administration the middle class has been shrinking and poverty growing.

Since January 2009, the number of people on food stamps has grown from 32.2 million to 47.5 million.

Obama fires scatter gun of rhetoric and completely misses the target. (White House photo)

The unemployment rate when Obama took office was 7.8 percent, after topping out at 10 percent it is still 7.6 percent.

Americans living in poverty have grown from 14.3 percent in 2009 to 16 percent now.

Yet Obama pontificated, “This growing inequality isn’t just morally wrong; it’s bad economics. When middle-class families have less to spend, businesses have fewer customers. When wealth concentrates at the very top, it can inflate unstable bubbles that threaten the economy. When the rungs on the ladder of opportunity grow farther apart, it undermines the very essence of this country,” while doing absolutely nothing so far to change anything, except to make things worse.

As a Wall Street Journal editorial pointed out today, Obama doesn’t understand that before government can redistribute wealth, the private economy has to create it. And he said nothing whatsoever about how to grow the economy, which grew only 0.4 percent in the last quarter of 2012 and a still anemic 1.8 percent in the first quarter of this year and is expected for grow even slower in the second quarter.

Obama said he wants “an economy that grows from the middle out, not the top down.”

His speech was full of such rehashed bromides with a smattering of anti-job ideas.

“I care about one thing and one thing only,” Obama said, “and that’s how to use every minute of the 1,276 days remaining in my term to make this country work for working Americans again.”

We’ll be counting down the days.

Obama above the law and the Constitution

Today in The Wall Street Journal, Michael McConnell, a former federal judge and law professor, makes virtually the same point about President Obama as John Yoo, formerly of the Bush Justice Department and now a law professor, made this past October.

WSJ illustration

McConnell says that the Obama administration decision to suspend the employer mandate in the ObamaCare law for a year is a blatant abrogation of the constitutional obligation under Article II, Section, which states that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

“This is a duty, not a discretionary power,” McConnell writes. “While the president does have substantial discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion about whether to do so.”

Writing at Fox News in October, Yoo used the same constitutional citation to explain why it was wrong for the Obama to basically legislate by executive fiat a law Congress refused to pass — the DREAM Act.

“Obama has pursued a dangerous change in the powers of his office that disregards the Constitution’s careful separation of power between the branches of the federal government,” Yoo writes. “The Constitution imposes on the president two clear duties – to protect the national security and to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’ Obama is the first chief executive since Richard Nixon to ignore a duly-enacted law simply because he disagrees with it, in clear defiance of his constitutional duty.”

McConnell concludes with this:

“As the Supreme Court said long ago (Kendall v. United States, 1838), allowing the president to refuse to enforce statutes passed by Congress ‘would be clothing the president with a power to control the legislation of congress, and paralyze the administration of justice.'”

But Obama’s law breaking extends far beyond these two incidents.

As an extension of the suspension of the employer mandate in ObamaCare, his administration also suspended the requirement that individuals seeking subsidized health insurance prove their eligibility. Not to mention all those waivers from ObamaCare requirements for hundreds of unions and companies.

As with the DREAM Act, Obama is working to enact “law” to prevent climate change by unilaterally declaring war on coal. As he said in a letter to me and a few other of his closest friends:

“I told Congress in February that if they didn’t take action to fight climate change, then I would.

“Today, I announced a plan of action to make good on that promise.

“My administration is taking steps to cut carbon pollution, prepare our nation for the unavoidable impact of climate change, and put America’s best and brightest to work to solve this issue on a global scale.”

Even though the law requires foreign aid be cut off to a country that has undergone a coup, Obama’s administration refuses to halt the flow of $1.5 billion in U.S. tax money to Egypt.

Though the No Child Left Behind law contained no provision for waivers, Obama’s administration granted waivers.

Tough the 1996 Welfare Programs Act required people on welfare to work or prepare for a job in order to continue to receive federal benefits, Obama’s administration waived the requirement.

Then there was the Obama decision to tell Attorney General Eric Holder to not defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act.

Don’t forget the regulatory contortions the administration attempted to get around the fact ObamaCare unconstitutionally interferes with the First Amendment rights of the Catholic Church.

Obama missed four deadlines for submitting a budget to Congress. He missed the deadline to report on planned defense cuts. He missed the deadline to report on Medicaid costs.

In 1868, the House impeached President Andrew Johnson for defying the Tenure of Office Act, which prohibited him from firing anyone from Lincoln’s cabinet. Johnson fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton anyway. The Senate refused to convict by a single vote.

The Constitution says:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

How many does it take? Nonfeasance of office is surely at least a misdemeanor.

Train wreck: ObamaCare jumps the tracks again

First, the Obama administration delayed for a year the ObamaCare requirement that all employers with more than 50 employees provide health insurance to their workers. By law, it was supposed to start Jan. 1, and there is nothing in the law that gives Obama the power to delay enforcement. But he did so unilaterally.

Now, the administration, again unilaterally in a 600-page filing in the Federal Register on Friday, has dropped the law’s requirements that insurance exchanges verify income and health insurance status. Instead the exchanges take an applicant’s word on it. The filing includes the phrase “without further verification” 11 times.

ObamaCare: You have to pass the bill to find out what the administration is incapable of doing. (Reuters photo)

The filing said an “Exchange may accept the applicant’s attestation regarding enrollment in an eligible employer-sponsored plan and eligibility for qualifying coverage in an eligible employer sponsored plan for the benefit year for which coverage is requested without further verification, instead of following the procedure in §155.320(d)(3)(iii).”

As for the promise illegal immigrants would not be allowed to use ObamaCare subsidies, the filing says, “Some commenters stated that states should have the option to request self-attestation of citizenship. Response: We clarify that our proposed rule gave states the option to require qualified  entities or qualified hospitals to request this information but did not require it.”

When the employer mandate was delayed most media bought the excuse that the companies weren’t ready to handle the “complexity of the requirements” of the law, as Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary for Tax Policy Mark Mazur claimed.

But The Wall Street Journal figured out the truth: “He isn’t talking about business confusion and uncertainty, as damaging as those are. This is probably an admission that Treasury’s information technology isn’t ready to process and cross-check paperwork across the 5.7 million businesses in America …”

Nor does it seem the administration is able to audit the finances of the 30 million Americans who can apply for health insurance subsidies.

The Washington Post quoted a senior adviser at Manatt Health Solutions as saying, “As crunch time is coming, they’re just muddling through and figuring out short cuts.”

On the employer mandate delay, Nevada Sen. Dean Heller released a statement saying:

“The decision to delay implementing portions of ObamaCare further proves how flawed and how damaging the bill really is. From Day One, businesses warned Congress that this legislation would cripple job growth and make it even harder to succeed in an already challenging business environment.  Delaying the employer mandate is a clear admission that this is a deeply flawed law that cannot be implemented without fostering devastating uncertainty among the business sector.”

Nevada’s other senator, Harry Reid, even agreed with Sen. Max Baucus, who called ObamaCare “a huge train wreck coming down.”

“Max said, ‘Unless we implement this properly, it’s going to be a train wreck,’ and I agree with him,” Reid said.


Though it receives The Washington Post wire service, the local newspaper has failed to report on this latest ObamaCare debacle.

Waking up to a double dose of reality about too many laws and regulations

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a net-work of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided: men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

— Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America

When everything is a crime, everyone is a criminal. When everything is strictly regulated, no one is free.

The morning began with a double dose of reality about overweening government.

In the local Las Vegas newspaper there was a page-long editorial picking up on a theme being pushed by the Heritage Foundation called USA vs. You, which bemoans the fact there are now an estimated 4,500 criminal law offenses and 300,000 criminal regulations on the books.

WSJ illustration

Over on the pages of The Wall Street Journal, we find an essay by Niall Ferguson on the Regulation Nation. He reports that the Federal Register — the official compendium of federal regulations — runs 78,961 pages. And that doesn’t count countless state and local regulations, prohibitions, restrictions, licenses, mandates and covenants. Ferguson ends his piece with a shorter version of the de Tocqueville quote above.

The Review-Journal editorial recounts a couple of outrageous examples of criminal overreach from the Heritage website and then throws in a local one:

“Such ruthlessness happens right here in Nevada, as well. As reported by the Nevada Policy Research Institute, Carolyn Davis and son decided to start a moving business to help make ends meet. Through an ad they had purchased, they were summoned to an apartment. When they showed up at the address, they were met by Nevada Transportation Authority officials — some armed — who were running a sting operation, and the mother and son were charged with moving household goods without a license. They were fined $1,000, plus $500 to get their truck out of impound, and then had to embark on the licensing process, which takes from six to 18 months. Ms. Davis admits she erred by not getting the license, but with all the serious criminal activity going on in this state, is this heavy-handed approach anywhere near the best use of taxpayer resources?”

But they left out my favorite one, the SWAT raids on Gibson Guitar for illegally importing a type of wood even though they had written permission from the country of origin. As the company’s owner, Henry Juszkiewicz, tells us:

“Without warning, 30 federal agents with guns and bulletproof vests stormed our guitar factories in Tennessee. They shut down production, sent workers home, seized boxes of raw materials and nearly 100 guitars, and ultimately cost our company $2 million to $3 million worth of products and lost productivity. Why? We imported wood from India to make guitars in America.”

By the way, Juszkiewicz is a campaign contributor to Republicans.

Did you know it is a federal crime to transport water hyacinths across state lines or to traffic in unlicensed dentures or to misappropriate the likeness of Woodsy Owl and/or his “Give a hoot, don’t pollute” slogan?

Ferguson reports there are 4,062 new regulations at various stages of implementation now, and 224 of those will have economic impacts exceeding $100 million each.

Regulation costs $1.8 trillion annually, Ferguson says, which is on top of the federal government’s $3.5 trillion in deficit spending.

And that’s before we fully implement ObamaCare.

Then there is this bird-brained bureaucracy run amok that I told you about earlier:

There was plenty to criticize in Obama speech ending the ‘global war on terror’

In an earlier posting I remarked that Obama’s speech this past week at the National Defense University was basically a unilateral capitulation in the “global war on terror.”

In the 7,000-word speech he said “a perpetual war — through drones or Special Forces or troop deployments — will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways,” and he outlined his plan to win the hearts and minds of people who wouldn’t mind cutting out our hearts. We’ve tried the hearts-and-mind strategy and it never ceases to fail.

But I was kind compared to Newt Gingrich, who called the speech “just stunningly, breathtakingly naïve.”

The former Speaker of the House added:

“He says at one point ‘wars have to end.’ Well, [Leon] Trotsky said, ‘you may not care about war, but war cares about you.’ I mean, right after you have somebody beheaded in London, you have a bomb go off in Boston, you have the Iranians … every day trying to penetrate our system with cyber, you have an Iranian nuclear program underway and the president announces cheerfully, ‘the war’s going to end because I’m not happy being a war president.’”

Bret Stephens at The Wall Street Journal called message delivered in the speech Obama’s “Retreat Doctrine:”

“It’s alluring to think that, merely by declaring an end to ‘continual warfare,’ we can end continual warfare; that we can define our problems as we’d like them to be, rather than take them as they are and have them define us in turn.

“Thus the operating assumption of Mr. Obama’s speech, and for that matter his entire presidency: Saying it makes it so.”

Obama at National Defense University capitulating.

Stephens also pointed out the absurdity of Obama’s claim that war has cost us “well over a trillion dollars … exploding our deficits and constraining our ability to nation-build at home,” when the federal government has spent $31.3 trillion since 2002. The war has hardly exploded our deficits. It is the lavish spending from Washington on all those stimulus programs, entitlements, ObamaCare, green energy and so much more that is the problem.

Even the Obama-friendly New York Times pointed out a few incongruities, including the fact this Nobel Peace Prize recipient has a “kill list.”

According to the piece by Peter Baker, Obama is trying to repair his legacy:

“He wanted to be known for healing the rift with the Muslim world, not raining down death from above.

“Over the past year, aides said, Mr. Obama spent more time on the subject than on any other national security issue, including the civil war in Syria. The speech he would eventually deliver at the National Defense University became what one aide called ‘a window into the presidential mind’ as Mr. Obama essentially thought out loud about the trade-offs he sees in confronting national security threats.”

The Times tale ends aptly with a quote from South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, “At the end of the day, this is the most tone-deaf president I ever could imagine, making such a speech at a time when our homeland is trying to be attacked literally every day.”

“But this war, like all wars, must end,” Obama said Thursday. The best way to end a war, like a fistfight, is to win. Just dropping your hands to your side is an invitation for trouble.

It reminds me of a really, really old Aggie joke — with Obama playing the role of the assistant coach from Texas A&M dispatched to Austin  to win the hearts and minds of the Longhorn’s coaching staff and discover the secret as to why the Longhorns kept beating the Aggies in football.

The assistant coach went straight to then coach Darrell Royal (that’s how old the joke is) and asks, “Why do you beat us every year?”

Royal replies, “Because Aggies are stupid.”

The coach asks, “What do you mean?”

“Allow me to demonstrate,” Royal answers and holds his hand up to a brick wall and says, “Hit my hand.”

When the coach obliges, Royal pulls his hand away.

Back at College Station, with his right hand in a cast, the assistant is asked by his head coach what Royal said. He replies, “He said Aggies are stupid.”

“What do you mean?”

“Allow me to demonstrate.” The assistant holds his left hand in front of his face and says, “Hit my hand.”

Ramirez cartoon today

Thatcher: ‘Without economic liberty, there could be no true political liberty’

Everyone is writing about the death of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, so I will merely point you to an important section of a story from The Wall Street Journal:

“Mrs. Thatcher took power following Britain’s ‘winter of discontent’ of 1978-1979, in which nationwide strikes over pay by public-sector workers from gravediggers to garbage men brought an economy that had for years been growing at half the rate of its peers close to a standstill. In her first two years as prime minister, the nation’s economy shrank and unemployment rose by a million, hovering at three million until the mid-1980s. There was widespread rioting in inner cities as both these conditions and racial tensions fermented dissent.

Thatcher dies.

“Mrs. Thatcher responded with radical reforms, shaped by the ideas of free-market economists Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman on minimizing government control and allowing markets free rein in deciding the shape of the economy. ‘Without economic liberty, there could be no true political liberty,’ she told European leaders in 1979.

“She took on Britain’s then-powerful labor unions and whittled the size of the state through sweeping privatizations and the closure of unprofitable state-owned enterprises, from coal mines to steel plants. The resulting long showdown between striking coal miners and Mrs. Thatcher split the country.”

Keep this in mind as the U.S. nationalizes banking, health care, oil and gas, renewable energy and the automotive industry.

Once the health care industry is destroyed, there may be no way to save it, because, unlike banks and the steel companies in Britain, no one will want to buy it, just as occurred in Britain.

Thatcher reportedly wanted to privatize the National Health Service, no one was willing  to buy the NHS hospitals and it would’ve created short-term pain and long-term political fodder for Labour. Instead, the Conservatives tried to slowly reintroduce private business practices.