An historical perspective...

That is what Obama and the liberal left running Congress are lacking, more than anything else... a lack of historical perspective.

So, I'm reading (re-reading, actually) a book about the reign of Edward VI, and I am amazed at the parallels to today's America. Let me explain...

1547. Henry VIII is dead, and the Crown passes to his only male heir, Edward VI... who was only 10 years old at the time. Henry's will stipulates that Edward will have a "council" if sixteen of the most powerful men in the kingdom until he is 18. England is very nearly broke after the spending-spree that Henry had embarked upon after his separation from the Church in Rome, and Edward and his advisers need to drum up some money. So, they finish the job Henry started by seizing all the remaining monastic properties that haven't been seized by his father. This seizure constituted a net gain of nearly 30% of ALL non-Crown lands suddenly becoming the King's personal property (and thus, the property of the State).

But not two years later, England was broke again... after burning through all the land, wealth and produce gained from the monasteries. So, what do they do? They more than DOUBLE the amount of coin minted in the country. The English "silver penny" was the hallmark of western European currency prior to this, and had been since 980... but Edward didn't have any more silver. So, to fix that, he decided to add red copper to the coins... some mints using as much as 55% copper in their mix. This devalued the currency so badly that the phrase "a penny so cheap it blushes" is still understood today to mean "debased coin". Edward doubled the amount of pennies in circulation in only two years... but it took four to six times as many pennies to buy what Henry's pennies had bought only three years before.

It wasn't long before England was back to broke. Now, Edward and his cronies decided to "cut costs" and reduce the size of government... but cutting the military. Especially the Navy that his father had spent millions of pounds to build up to one of the most formidable forces on the oceans. The number of functional British naval vessels was reduced by more than 60% in the six years that Edward reigned, and as the military reduced in size, you had more and more unemployed soldiers and sailors, paid off in coin that was very near worthless, with no prospect of civilian employment and no "welfare" to draw on because the monasteries that had provided comfort and succor to the poor, sick and indigent were rotting, broken hulks now sheltering nothing but flocks of sheep.

So, in 1553, when Edward took ill and never recovered, it is little wonder that so much of the country flocked to the banner of Mary, his older half-sister, who promised to return England to Catholicism, strength and prosperity. However, she fought a long and bloody "holy war" against the Protestants that further drove the country into the depths of despair, depression (economic and emotional), and military weakness.

Is everyone with me here? Does everyone see the parallel I am making? Good... let's continue:

Then, Mary grows a tumor in her abdomen roughly the size of a modern basketball and weighing just under 18 lbs, which kills her in the end. England is ravaged by religious hatred, economic failure, military weakness and the threat of foreign invasion... and the Crown passes to the younger daughter of Henry, Elizabeth.

During the long and very fruitful reign of Elizabeth, England finds renewed military prestige, a stable domestic economic policy, and even a degree of religious peace (mainly because she simply outlawed the practice of the Catholic faith). How did she do this?

Until such time as England could replace lost naval ships (at least those belonging to the Crown, or "ships of the line"), she offered "letters of marque" to those men that owned ships and could offer a degree of security to the state through the harassment of Spanish, French and Dutch interests at sea.

She also offered HUGE tracts of land and very lucrative terms to those men that chose to settle in the New World. As long as the Crown received its 3/8ths share of all profits derived from the new "planting" (or the Colony of Virginia), she allowed its leaders and residents to do pretty much as they pleased.

By remaining a "virgin Queen" and not marrying, she was able to bargain from a position of strength and power for very nearly her entire reign, and when the threat of invasion from France was eliminated with the death of Mary (her cousin and the Queen of Scotland AND the wife of the Dauphin de France, and the threat of conquest from Spain eliminated with the defeat of the Spanish Armada... England's military supremacy of the Atlantic and most of Western Europe was unquestioned.

Do you see my point? Of all the failings and mistakes made during the reign of Edward, Elizabeth made them all back through (using modern terms) policies geared to reduce control and regulation of commerce and trade by the Government, re-investing gains and revenue into a strong and very mobile (for the age) military, and a degree of individual freedom and autonomy nearly unheard of in England for the better part of 500 years.

Obama should PAY me for this kind of insight...