Economists and pundits alike are going wild over the United Kingdom's recent "double dip" recession. The 2008-9 recession prompted the election of a conservative coalition led by Prime Minister David Cameron. Cameron decided the best path for economic recovery was "austerity," a program of reduced government spending and smaller government debt. The new coalition - with the aid of Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne - sought to drastically slash the government budget. With the addition of increased taxes, the plan was dubbed "Tax & Axe."

Two years later, the United Kingdom is back in recession. Keynesian economists are enjoying a savory "I told you so" moment, as many pointed out the dangers of austerity during troubled times. The logic runs as follows: When businesses, households, and governments all try to pay back their debts at the same time, they spend less; as they spend less, national income falls, leading to even less spending; this sets off a cycle of decreased spending and economic collapse.

The Keynesian solution is government spending. It goes like this: Governments can increase spending during recessions to keep national income up, preventing the spending collapse. In short, more stimulus is the answer.

In turn, many progressives in the United States are arguing that any similar austerity here (such as Congressman Paul Ryan's budget plan) would have equally bad results: another recession.

Unfortunately, this reasoning is based on a faulty premise. Here is the reality: There is no austerity in the United Kingdom.

Senate President John Cullerton has been telling some of his members for weeks that he was resigned to an overtime session. The General Assembly likely wouldn't be able to adjourn by the scheduled May 31 deadline, he said. There was just no getting around it, so people should just accept that fact and move forward.

But not long ago, Cullerton reportedly came to the conclusion that if the spring session did go into overtime, Republicans would likely keep everyone bottled up in Springfield all summer long. So now his focus is on getting everybody out of town by the end of May.

May 31 is an important deadline because all bills voted on after that date require a three-fifths majority to pass. That means no budget can be approved, no Medicaid solution can be found, no pension systems can be reformed without supermajorities.

The Democrats control both legislative chambers, but they don't have three-fifths. They're seven votes shy in the House and one vote short in the Senate. One vote may not seem like a lot, but the partisanship can sometimes get so intense in the General Assembly these days that one vote might as well be a hundred.

It is a deeply painful thing to finally admit that the government you thought was your protector and friend is anything but. Or that the politicians charged with upholding the U.S. Constitution - as their oaths dictate by law - not only ignore this nonnegotiable mandate but actually diminish it with conflicting legislation that is largely illegal according to the constructs of America's republic under the rule of common law.

The common law I refer to is informed by the Magna Carta, which developed around two core principles that provide the litmus test for all legislation: (1) Do all you have agreed to do (contract law), and (2) Do no harm to another or his property (criminal law).

All kinds of statutes, administrative procedure, and highly arbitrary regulations have been passed via hidden legislation among hundreds of thousands of pages of bills, approved but not even read by our lawmakers, that do not remotely conform to the above two principles. How many statutes and regulations are adjudicated in criminal and/or civil court without harm to another or another's property? Most adjudication today is nothing more than a means for government and attorneys to generate revenue in the form of penalties and fees for an exhaustive list of contrived violations that harm no one.

Much has been published about the penalties imposed upon (now former) Rock Island State's Attorney Jeff Terronez for purchasing alcohol for an underage girl.

"He who makes judgment without hearing both sides, though the judgment be just, is himself unjust." (Ancient legal maxim.)

The Illinois Constitution states: "All penalties shall be determined both according to the seriousness of the offense and with the objective of restoring the offender to useful citizenship. No conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate. No person shall be transported out of the state for an offense committed within the state."

We should, first, look at the seriousness of the offense. Have there been others who have purchased alcohol for her? Has she purchased alcohol for herself? How serious was the purchase of alcohol by this offender? Was it merely part of many instances when she acquired alcohol? Is this young girl more mature than her years?