So now what?

[Jimmy Dean]

There's plenty enough willing lefties to fill the shoes of the fired LEOs that refuse to oppress.

Except that they don't know how to operate a firearm.

[Balog]

Anyone who thinks Social Security will be solvent after the boomers hit is delusional. Anyone who doesn't see that Medicare/Medicaid is already a failure isn't reading the headlines about physicians not taking those types of patients. I can't believe anyone would use those as an example of success.

[Inor]

I think he's proposing a sea of 10th amendment oriented State-level protest against FedGov, which results in flyover America attempting to secede or dramatically separate itself from the Union over radically different expectations of taxation and individual responsibility.

Look to recent history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belavezha_Accords

Is it really so unthinkable that something similar could happen here?  Several states have already filed suit on the Constitutionality of health care.  The next domino to fall will be the U.S. credit rating, closely followed by a collapse of the dollar.  Once that happens, is it really so impossible to think that some states will just decide to "opt out" of Medicare or even Social Security? 

[RocketMan]

Does anyone really believe the Fed will allow states to separate themselves in some fashion, even if it is only for a limited autonomy?  My gut tells me the Fed will do whatever it believes is necessary to keep that from happening.
Ours is a dying Republic.  As I have said here before, it is dying, essentially and simply, from old age.  We have had a good long run as a nominally free republic.
The Fed may behave in an irrational fashion as things unwind.  Dying things often do.

[AZRedhawk44]

Look to recent history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belavezha_Accords

Is it really so unthinkable that something similar could happen here?  Several states have already filed suit on the Constitutionality of health care.  The next domino to fall will be the U.S. credit rating, closely followed by a collapse of the dollar.  Once that happens, is it really so impossible to think that some states will just decide to "opt out" of Medicare or even Social Security? 

The IRS and the income tax system makes state-level tax protest against Federal entitlement programs quite difficult.

I believe the FedGov would leverage a large enforcement wing to somehow re-obtain their funding.  Direct harassment of businesses via IRS/FBI visits.  Rules on paper created by State Legislatures do not apply when no force backs them up... especially when the Fed tax man is at the door right now.  What do you do, call the local cops on the federal tax enforcers?

When HR people and Accounts Payable people at businesses start getting arrested by Federal agents, you're gonna start having some interesting collisions of priorities.  HR-Sally, who makes $35K a year, isn't gonna go to prison over tax fraud.  Companies that do business in interstate commerce aren't going to face the courts over the tax implications.  Smaller companies that work only in-state won't have the resources to fight off the FedGov.

Or... the bank calls up the Accounting department to say that the Feds have frozen all accounts belonging to your company.  Is the bank supposed to NOT follow the federal court order to do so?

Opt out of SS and Medicare and ObamaCare?  When it's enforced by the IRS?  Not possible, IMO, without a more concrete "divorce" (in longeyes vernacular) of tax bases and currency.

The only "opt out" is to dismantle the monster.

[AmbulanceDriver]

I've said many times and in many places.  I think that we are realistically staring down the barrel of a civil war.  No, I'm not being melodramatic.  Stick with me for a few moments, and see if the scenario I portray is plausible.  (oh, and I firmly believe that ObamaCare is a major accelerant in this process)

Taxes will continue to increase.  To fund the pie-in-the-sky everything-for-everybody plans that the liberals keep ramming down our throat.  There will be a tipping point at which enough people realize that this doesn't work when the majority of people will finally put their foot down and say NO MORE.

We'll see a proposal for HUGE cuts to every welfare program out there.  I'm saying 80-90% cuts.  If not more.  Those that have made their living by mooching off the producers in this nation will find themselves very abruptly, and very deliberately, cut off.  The media will call this racist, heartless, every name in the book.  It will pass.  Maybe not overwhelmingly, but it will pass.

Crime will increase.  Slowly at first, but it will increase.  Some "disadvantaged youth" trying to steal to maintain the lifestyle they had under welfare will be shot, likely by a white person.  This will be the match that ignites the fuse.  It may not catch the first or second time, but it will eventually catch.  The overt reason for this "racial violence" according to the media will be just that, race.  The real reason, of course, is the haves versus the wants.  Rather, want without actually having to work for it.  Of course, those who want without actually having to work for it will seize on this justification, and start rioting.  People will defend themselves.  


The other options, in my opinion, are either overt secession, or national bankruptcy.  

[makattak]

The other options, in my opinion, are either overt secession, or national bankruptcy.  

Yay Weimar!!

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

What do you do, call the local cops on the federal tax enforcers?

It could certainly be done, yes.  The problem isn't nearly as intractable as you say.  States have law enforcement personnel of their own.  And laws and courts to back them up.  And prisons, and even a military, God forbid...

So make it a state crime to enter State X to arrest Sally in HR for failing to complying with illegal/unconstitutional Federal laws.  If the FedGov enforcers show up at Sally's door, arrest them and charge them with wrongful kidnapping or somesuch, convict 'em and throw 'em in jail.  States have the practical ability to do it, they just lack the will.

How many Federal bureaucrats from DC would risk imprisonment in Idaho on Indiana to try to collect a few dollars for their employer?

And if Big Bank tries to seize assets from Sally's company, the state can step in and seize a like amount of assets from Big Bank and award them to Sally's company as damages.

Obviously this would lead to a constitutional crisis, with the states and the Feds arguing over who has what right to do things.  But since the Feds are already acting outside their authority, I think the states are nearly duty-bound to respond strongly.  I hope it doesn't come to this, obviously.  But who knows.

Truly, all the Feds have is DC and a few military bases.  98% of their power derives from the cooperation of the people and the states.  Without that, they have nothing (nearly nothing).

[Nick1911]

The other options, in my opinion, are either overt secession, or national bankruptcy.  

Nah, I think taxes will slowly increase, and things will continue to muddle along for a good while.  Once this is established as the new status quo, people will simply accept it, like they do with every other social program.  Bout that time, we'll see another one coming through congress.

Sure, eventually it will fall apart, but heck - the USSR lasted what, 70 years?

[mellestad]

I'll be impressed when the red states refuse all federal money over what they personally give in taxes.

That would be a great way to make a point, and actually do something besides blow hot air.

[Inor]

The IRS and the income tax system makes state-level tax protest against Federal entitlement programs quite difficult.

Unfortunately, I think money and the tax code may be the only effective weapon we have against these people in the immediate future.  

A political solution would require real Conservatives with leadership abilities, and I just do not see that in the GOP right now.  It takes at least 10 years to groom a candidate for national office and our Republic does not have that long.  The crop of Republicans that will be elected in November (by an overwhelming majority) will mostly be the "go along to get along" type.  

[mellestad]

Nah, I think taxes will slowly increase, and things will continue to muddle along for a good while.  Once this is established as the new status quo, people will simply accept it, like they do with every other social program.  Bout that time, we'll see another one coming through congress.

Sure, eventually it will fall apart, but heck - the USSR lasted what, 70 years?

Even in the very worst case where this health care reform bill is as bad as the typical APS denzin thinks it is I don't see anything more dramatic than this happening.  If it turns out to be a giant boondoggle the Dems might get ousted, but that is about it.

[mellestad]

Unfortunately, I think money and the tax code may be the only effective weapon we have against these people in the immediate future.  

A political solution would require real Conservatives with leadership abilities, and I just do not see that in the GOP right now.  It takes at least 10 years to groom a candidate for national office and our Republic does not have that long.  The crop of Republicans that will be elected in November (by an overwhelming majority) will mostly be the "go along to get along" type.  

So, are you saying America will collapse within ten years?  Or do you mean something more metaphorical than that?

[Inor]

So, are you saying America will collapse within ten years?  Or do you mean something more metaphorical than that?

I am saying that within 10 years the Executive branch of the federal government will have gained so much power that Congress will be irrevelent.  The President will just issue an Executive Order if Congress does not do what he says.  Once that happens, even Presidential elections will not matter since the President will have the ability to set the rules of the election however he wants.  I.E. Hugo Chavez

[HankB]

I don't see an actual revolution occuring any time soon . . . the only thing I could see touching that off in the forseeable future is something the left-wing loons agonized over Bush doing: suspending elections and declaring himself president-for-life.

Now, I don't doubt that Pelosi, Reid, Obama, et.al would like to pull something like that, but I don't think even their delusions have reached the point where they'd think they could get away with suspending elections, or refusing to accept defeat at the polls; it would cause civil disobedience on an unprecedented scale . . . perhaps even the US military would intervene against the politicians who tried it.

The only thing I can see possibly leading to massive anti-government action would be a successful WMD attack with the rogue nation identified . . . and a POTUS who would refuse to retaliate in kind. Things would get pretty dicey then.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

They wouldn't need to suspend elections have enough experience with electoral fraud.  

And if they can suddenly fabricate 20 million new voters to vote for their side, they may not even need the fraud.

[Monkeyleg]

Good point, Inor. Look at the number of "czars" appointed by Bush, and the number that Obama has added. These are all bureaucrats who are usurping the powers of Congress. It's completely unconstitutional, but nobody has called either president on it.

I'm waiting for Reid to get a bill passed that eliminates federal elections, and for Pelosi to have Reid's bill deemed to pass, thus giving the Democrats absolute control of the government forever. I'm being facetious, but not by much.

Geez, as I was typing this HankB posted something very similar. Great minds and all that...

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

My memory is foggy, I don't recall any specific Czars under Bush.  Which ones were they?

[Balog]

Didn't he appoint a "MotherLandFatherLandRodina HomeLand 'Security' Czar?"

[Inor]

My memory is foggy, I don't recall any specific Czars under Bush.  Which ones were they?

Wikipedia claims Bush had 35.  I only remember the "Afganistan Czar" and the "Drug Czar".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars

The government had this to say about it:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/the-truth-about-czars/

Of course, if you look at the top of the page, you will notice it was written by Anita Dunn so it is a pretty good bet that it is complete B.S.  

[AZRedhawk44]

I can't help but mumble "We represent, the Lollipop Guild, the Lollipop Guild, the Lollipop Guild" every time I go to drudge and see this pic.

We are being run by the naive idealistists from munchkin land.

[roo_ster]

All the talk of the dissolution of America is much less academic and much more ominous, now that I have kids.  Same as with SHTF or TEOTWAWKI.  Unlike when I was younger & single, I have a lot to lose.


Time (Required) To Die

How long did it take Rome to fall after the republic was replaced by empire under Octavian?

How many times was Rome sacked before the Roman Empire in the West was considered gone?

How long from the first sacking to the dissolution of the empire in the West?

What I'm getting at is that what was known as "Rome" took its sweet time to die from the moment liberty was extinguished (Octavian's assumption of power) until the last time a barbarian crapped on the Roman Senate floor, trotted off with the last meager sack of loot, and turned off the lights.  

Similarly, I suspect that it might take what we call "America" a while to become history.  Heck, Rome expanded in size & power for a while after the Republic was destroyed.  Folk reconciled themselves to the new tyranny and the new tyrant and carried on.  There might be territorial gains made in the future, perhaps a peaceful annexation of some of Canada & Mexico, when America is less like America and more like Canada & Mexico.  Even if the economy tanks, America could dedicate a large proportion of the smaller GDP to .mil and maintain dominance.

On the other side, arguing for a speedier dissolution, is the "increased pace of time" these days.  Things are happening faster & faster than they used to, with regard to significant events and great change.

Don't be surprised if "The Country Formerly Known As America" shambles on for a good long while before collapsing.

It ALL Ends Some Day, And It ALWAYS Ends Badly

If one is to run with the "speedier dissolution" scenario, we have some exemplars:

How many French Republics have come & gone since 1789?
The Wiemar Republic is another.
Imperial Russia.
Austro-Hungarian Empire
Ottoman Empire

The last three persisted for centuries, but all collapsed in a shambles relatively quickly, given the right stimulus.

Three of five of the above entailed rampant revolutionary violence (French, Russian, Wiemar) that lasted for years and killed many.

Two of the five (Wiemar & Ottoman) entailed genocide on the "megadeath" scale.

Given the "speedier" scenario, I think the Wiemar example is closest to what might happen.  Economic chaos along with the rise of extreme right & left political movements, as the more moderate (mostly right) parties are suppressed or co-opted.  Then, it was the National Socialists and the Communists.

More recently, think of how the UK Conservatives have become "Labor Lite" and given rise to the UKIP.  Same thing with the Dutch, as the old center-right excludes some of the real worries of the people and Geert Wilders and his party take up the slack.

How many issues are now looked on with horror by the Republican establishment and labeled as racist by the Dems?  Now, America is supposed to be exceptional, so that maybe the Tea Party movement will strengthen and (unlike the Nazis & Commies in Wiemar) bring government down to size, rather than down on the other statist party.  The fact that all the Tea Party furor is happening in the Tea Party organizations and not in the Republican organizations is a sign the Republicans are not seen as distinct from the problem.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Didn't he appoint a "MotherLandFatherLandRodina HomeLand 'Security' Czar?"

That's a cabinet position, nominated by the Prez and approved by the Senate per the Constitution.

I think maybe I take a different meaning for the term "Czar" than wiki and Balog do.  To me a Czar is a high-level position akin to a cabinet member, but with the distinction that Czars are arbitrarily appointed with out any pretext of following the constitutional requirement for Senate advise and consent.  There are any number of window-dressing type advisers who aren't czars because they don't amount to anything, and there are any number of important positions like Homeland Security Secretary who, while important and high-level, are still not a Czar because they get their job through the correct procedures.

Anyways...

[MicroBalrog]

That's a cabinet position, nominated by the Prez and approved by the Senate per the Constitution.

That makes everything better, then.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

That makes everything better, then.

Better?  Maybe.  

Legal?  Oh yeah.