Trump and Democrats could form alliance on some issues

One potential problem for the Trump Administration is that since Trump is a newcomer to the Republican Party, he holds different views than many other Republican elected officials. During the campaign, Trump’s views on many set him apart from other candidates in the primary. They also set him apart from other members of his party in the general election.

Trump made many promises that he may find his Republican colleagues unwilling to back up. The Republican Party has traditionally been a free trade party, but Trump is openly hostile to trade deals. Republicans fought tooth and nail against Obama’s infrastructure stimulus, but Trump has hinted at a similar spending program. Trump’s proposed childcare plan is the sort of entitlement expansion that Republicans have opposed when put forward by Democrats.

Some Republicans are undoubtedly confirmed passengers on the Trump Train, but many others will require much persuasion. Many Republicans supported Mr. Trump only reluctantly as the only alternative against Hillary Clinton. Conservative members of the party are unlikely to be willing to blindly follow Trump down a path of progressive policies.

The rub is that the Republican Party isn’t as conservative as it used to be. While few Republicans have voiced support for Mr. Trump’s childcare entitlement, anti-trade sentiment and isolationism had been growing in the GOP even before Trump burst onto the stage.

The libertarian faction of the GOP has been arguing against foreign involvement for years. When President Obama drew a “red line” in Syria, it was a bipartisan coalition of anti-war Republicans and Democrats that revolted against a military strike against the Assad regime’s chemical weapons facilities. Likewise, the Trans-Pacific Partnership was tagged as “Obamatrade” by Republicans who sided with Bernie Sanders to kill the trade deal.

Following these examples may provide Trump with a strategy to enact some of his less-than-conservative ideas. It is not beyond question that President Trump could reach out to forge bipartisan coalitions to push through policies that lack conservative support.

For example, the base of the Republican Party has moved left on trade. A September poll in Politico found that 85 percent of Republicans believed that free trade cost more American jobs than it has created. Only 18 percent believed that trade deals had helped their communities.

Even though many voters have shifted, many congressional Republicans remain favorable to free trade. President Trump is unlikely to be able to rely on Republicans to rubberstamp an anti-trade agenda of higher taxes and more regulation. The answer might well be to find a majority by combining protectionist Republicans and Democrats into one voting bloc.

Trump is hardly hostile to the idea of reaching across the aisle. Last January, early in the primary season, Trump said on MSNBC, “I think I'm going to be able to get along with [House Minority Leader Nancy] Pelosi — I've always had a good relationship with Nancy Pelosi.” Trump also said he was “close to” incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer “in many in ways.” Trump said in the Washington Examiner in July that he wouldn’t mind being a “free agent” when dealing with Congress.

Trump’s cabinet appointments also show a willingness to go outside the Republican Party. Wilbur Ross, Trump’s pick for Commerce Secretary, was a Democrat until after the election.  Steven Mnuchin, Trump’s Treasury Secretary, worked for Goldman Sachs and George Soros. Mnuchin, like Trump, was a big donor to Democrats before this election cycle. Trump’s pick for National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, is also a registered Democrat.

Would congressional Democrats work with Trump? They seem open to the possibility.

“If he truly wants to revise U.S. trade policy, he is going to have to come and work in a bipartisan manner to do that. It's always been a substantial majority of Democrats who oppose these agreements," Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) said in US News.

Even new Senate Minority Chuck Schumer is reaching out. “To the extent that the president-elect and the Republican majority pursue policies that help Americans and are consistent with our values, we stand ready and willing to work with them,” Schumer recently said in a speech quoted in Yahoo News. Schumer suggested that an infrastructure stimulus, tax reform and trade might be areas where Democrats and Trump could find common ground.

On the other hand, some Trump priorities would find little, if any, support from Democrats. A repeal of Obamacare or hardline immigration reform would be largely party-line issues that Schumer says Democrats would fight “tooth and nail.”

At this point, we can only speculate what the Trump Administration will be like. From his performance in the campaign, we can assume that there are few ideas that President Trump will be strongly committed to, but one of those is a protectionist trade agenda. To accomplish his goal of imposing large taxes and restrictions on trade, Trump, the former Democrat donor, is very likely to make a deal with congressional liberals.

Originally published on The Resurgent

The decline of marriage may be over

Marriage on the mend (Public Domain/Pixabay)

It is still too early to tell, but the decline of marriage may be reversing. New data shows that the number of divorces is falling while the marriage rate has ticked up slightly. Both changes have occurred for several consecutive years.

“The decline [of marriage] has stopped,” Wendy Manning, co-director of the National Center for Family and Marriage Research at Bowling Green State University, told Bloomberg.

The center’s research, based on census data, shows that the number of divorces has fallen for three straight years and is currently at its lowest level in 35 years. Conversely, the marriage rate, which has been declining since the 1970s, seems to have bottomed out and stabilized.

The data is based on the marriage and divorce rates for women aged 15 and older. A comparison chart from the center shows that the divorce rate has hovered around 20 since the 1980s and is currently at a low of 16.9. The marriage rate has continually fallen from a high of 76.9 in 1970 and now stands at 32.3.

There is no definitive answer on what has caused the trends in marriage and divorce to change. A major factor in the falling number of divorces could be that there simply aren’t as many marriages to begin with. Breakups by cohabitating or common law couples would not be reflected in the data.

More Americans are waiting longer to get married as well. ABC News reported in June that the average age at the first marriage had increased by about four years since 1970 for both men and women. Women are an average age of 25.1 and men are 26.8 when they first tie the knot. A few more years of maturity at marriage may contribute to fewer divorces.

“We’ve seen a decline of divorce among people who are younger and an increase among people who are older,” noted Manning.

In fact, the divorce rate might be much lower if Baby Boomers were excluded. Bloomberg previously reported that, while divorce rates were down for younger Americans, they were soaring for Baby Boomers. The high divorce rate among Baby Boomers may have contributed to both the delay in marriage and the lower divorce rate for younger generations by making children of divorce more cautious about getting married in the first place.

Whatever the reason, fewer divorces and more marriages is an encouraging sign and a possible antidote to America’s entitlement crisis. Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, pointed out that the “principal cause” of child poverty in the United States was “the absence of married fathers in the home.”

Even the liberal Brookings Institution argues that marriage is an important antidote to poverty. Ron Haskins stressed that children who follow three simple rules have only a two percent chance of growing up to live in poverty. Haskins’ advice? “At least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.”

The news of more marriages and fewer divorces is something that Americans on both sides of the political spectrum can and should celebrate. It means that Americans are improving their own lives as well as those of the next generation. It may also provide the means to shrink the welfare state and attack the debt and entitlement crisis. That is a very good thing.

Originally published on The Resurgent

The decline of marriage may be over

It is still too early to tell, but the decline of marriage may be reversing. New data shows that the number of divorces is falling while the marriage rate has ticked up slightly. Both changes have occurred for several consecutive years.

“The decline [of marriage] has stopped,” Wendy Manning, co-director of the National Center for Family and Marriage Research at Bowling Green State University, told Bloomberg.

The center’s research, based on census data, shows that the number of divorces has fallen for three straight years and is currently at its lowest level in 35 years. Conversely, the marriage rate, which has been declining since the 1970s, seems to have bottomed out and stabilized.

The data is based on the marriage and divorce rates for women aged 15 and older. A comparison chart from the center shows that the divorce rate has hovered around 20 since the 1980s and is currently at a low of 16.9. The marriage rate has continually fallen from a high of 76.9 in 1970 and now stands at 32.3.

There is no definitive answer on what has caused the trends in marriage and divorce to change. A major factor in the falling number of divorces could be that there simply aren’t as many marriages to begin with. Breakups by cohabitating or common law couples would not be reflected in the data.

More Americans are waiting longer to get married as well. ABC News reported in June that the average age at the first marriage had increased by about four years since 1970 for both men and women. Women are an average age of 25.1 and men are 26.8 when they first tie the knot. A few more years of maturity at marriage may contribute to fewer divorces.

“We’ve seen a decline of divorce among people who are younger and an increase among people who are older,” noted Manning.

In fact, the divorce rate might be much lower if Baby Boomers were excluded. Bloomberg previously reported that, while divorce rates were down for younger Americans, they were soaring for Baby Boomers. The high divorce rate among Baby Boomers may have contributed to both the delay in marriage and the lower divorce rate for younger generations by making children of divorce more cautious about getting married in the first place.

Whatever the reason, fewer divorces and more marriages is an encouraging sign and a possible antidote to America’s entitlement crisis. Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, pointed out that the “principal cause” of child poverty in the United States was “the absence of married fathers in the home.”

Even the liberal Brookings Institution argues that marriage is an important antidote to poverty. Ron Haskins stressed that children who follow three simple rules have only a two percent chance of growing up to live in poverty. Haskins’ advice? “At least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.”

The news of more marriages and fewer divorces is something that Americans on both sides of the political spectrum can and should celebrate. It means that Americans are improving their own lives as well as those of the next generation. It may also provide the means to shrink the welfare state and attack the debt and entitlement crisis. That is a very good thing.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Evan McMullin on the issues

EvanMcMullin.com

This is the second of a two-part series in which we present Evan McMullin's platform in his own words, drawn from a series of interviews. The interview sources are linked in part one, which we published yesterday. Today we present Evan McMullin on the issues and focus on domestic policy.

On the Second Amendment: On Now This, McMullin said, “I am a supporter of the Second Amendment. I think it is important to our freedoms and liberties here in the United States. I am a gun owner. I believe in responsible gun ownership. I think to own a weapon is to assume some very serious responsibilities I believe that we have to have a better, more constructive dialogue on this issue. I’m a supporter of the Second Amendment. I would like to decrease gun violence. I think there are many ways to do that while we still protect our rights.”

On judicial appointments: Louise Mensch of Heat Street asked whether McMullin would appoint Ted Cruz to the Supreme Court. “I’m not making any commitments about who I would or would not appoint,” McMullin replied, “but I will tell you that I will appoint originalists. In the question that involves what I think about Roe v. Wade, I will appoint pro-life justices.

On entitlements: “Entitlements are pushing us further and further into debt,” he said on Bloomberg. “Our debts are larger and larger. Our deficits are larger and larger. We have to do something to get them on a sustainable path. We have to keep our commitments to our elderly, our seniors today, but we have to phase in some reforms for future retirees.”

On religious freedom: “I believe in libertarian ideas in a sense that individuals need to be more empowered in our country. The power needs to be shifted back closer to the people. Those are consistent with libertarian ideas, but part of that is religious liberty. Our country was founded in part on that and we can’t have a president who doesn’t understand that, especially in this time when we really need to, I think, ensure that religious liberties are protected.”

When asked about his stance against religious persecution, McMullin said, “This is a driving principle for me. We’re a nation of 330 million people and geographically we are also very large. A lot of people have different ideas, they come from different countries, themselves or past generations. We are a diverse, pluralistic country and you must have tolerance as a result of that. E pluribus Unum. This was our original, unofficial motto until, I think, the ‘50s, that conveyed the idea that there are many of us with many differences among us, [but] that we are together still as one country. We need to go back to that and realize that we are not going to agree on everything, all of us on the right and left and center, but we need to respect everybody’s ability to live the way they want to live and to be one, united, in defense of those freedoms.”

On why people should vote for him: “I’ve spent my life avoiding the limelight and seeking opportunities to serve. Donald Trump has spent his life avoiding opportunities to serve and seeking the limelight.”

Save America: Take your family to church

Recent polls now show that almost three quarters of Americans believe the nation is on the wrong track. The reality is that regardless of whether Republicans win control of the Senate this year and the presidency in 2016, it will be very difficult to solve the problems facing America today. Many of the most serious issues facing the country stem from cultural changes that cannot be solved solely by changes to government policies. Americans who are serious about changing the direction of the country should begin by taking their families to church. To save America, it will take a moral revolution that can only come from God, not government.

Even though some polls show that church attendance is still strong in the US, ChurchLeaders.com reports that counts by denominations and local churches show that church attendance is down and still declining. Although about 40 percent of the population reports that they attend church, the real number is probably less than 20 percent and not keeping pace with population growth.

It is likely that the decline in church attendance can be connected with many of America’s social and economic ills. Movement away from traditional Judeo-Christian morality may be responsible for a change in social mores that has led to an expansion of government and a growth in entitlement spending.

While there is no hard data or studies establishing a causal relationship between church attendance and fundamental shifts in American society, it is easy to see a correlation between the two. The movement away from traditional religion has occurred at the same time as a sharp decline in marriage. According to Census data, the share of unmarried couples cohabiting has risen from one percent in 1960 to more than 11 percent today. At the same time, the marriage rate has declined from 90 percent in 1950 to 36 percent. Both men and women are delaying marriage until later in life.

Unsurprisingly, the decline of marriage has led to an increase in the share of children living in single-parent homes. Two-parent families have declined from almost 90 percent in 1960 to less than 70 percent today. Put another way, according to The Atlantic, at 31 percent of U.S. households, “single parents have more than tripled as a share of American households since 1960.”

The change is even pronounced in black families where more than two-thirds of children belong to single-parent families. Many children who do live in two-parent families are not with both biological parents. The trend is not limited to black families. Nationwide, one out of every three children live in homes where the biological father is absent.

Given the enormous costs of raising children, it should come as no surprise that with the growth of single parent families has come a similar growth in federal entitlement spending. As more children grow up within broken families, the federal government has borne an ever larger financial share of the burden of parenthood. Federal entitlement spending has grown from less than one percent to approximately 13 percent of GDP with no sign of slowing.

The effects of single-parent families on children are well documented. According to the National Father Initiative, growing up in single-parent families, particularly families where the father is absent, puts children at risk for a variety of negative outcomes. Such families are more likely to live in poverty due to the fact that a single mother often cannot work a full-time job and care for her children. Children of absent fathers are more at risk for emotional and behavioral problems, juvenile delinquency, drug and alcohol abuse, sexual activity and teen pregnancy, and even bad grades.

The problem of single-parent families is a vicious cycle. Statistics show that children who grow up in single-parent families are more likely to experience divorce themselves as well as being less likely to marry in the first place. In many cases, children of single parents grow up to head their own single-parent families, which in turn require more government help.

Due to the unintended consequences of entitlements, such programs would be problematic even if the federal government could afford them. In reality, entitlements are unaffordable. The Heritage Foundation points out that 61 percent of federal spending is on mandatory items such as entitlements. Further, 31 cents of every federal dollar spent is borrowed. This has led to a federal debt of more than $17 trillion. When unfunded liabilities such as Social Security and Medicare are included, the total debt comes to $127 trillion, according to Forbes.

The problem of the growth of government deficit spending on entitlements is not merely an economic issue. It is also a moral issue. Growth in government is largely a response to the decline of the family and entitlements fill the vacuum of money and stability in single-parent families. Because a government check cannot fully replace a missing mother or father, these entitlement payments make the problem worse in the end by making marriage and traditional families seem optional.

The destruction of the family causes other problems as well. The problem of out-of-wedlock pregnancy is undoubtedly related to the abortion issue as well. According to the Centers for Disease Control, more than 85 percent of women who abort their babies are unmarried. The Guttmacher Institute notes that 75 percent say that they cannot afford a child, a problem that is often associated with single-parent, single-income families. Half specifically cite their desire to not be a single parent or problems with their husband or partner. While the rate of abortions in the U.S. is declining somewhat, more than 1 million abortions still occur in the U.S. each year.

Another possible, but less conclusive, result of the destruction of the family is increased homosexuality. Accurate statistics on the rate of homosexuality are hard to find (due to small sample size and self selection), but the theory that homosexuality in some people is related to domineering mothers has been around for decades, such as a paper by Dr. Marvin Siegelman from 1974 and several books by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, author of “A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality.” While the left disputes this view, little is definitely known about the root causes of homosexuality.

Some psychologists and psychiatrists have advanced therapies based on these theories of environmental causes for homosexuality. In spite of being attacked by gay activists and leftists, there is evidence that these therapies can help some homosexuals. In some cases, liberals have sought bans against gay reparative therapy, even though such bans violate the freedom of speech of doctors and the freedom of choice of families. If homosexuality is a result of strong mother figures for some gays, then the rate of homosexuality should increase as the rate of single-parent families increases.

The negative effects of homosexuality are less disputed. Dr. Timothy Dailey of the Center for Marriage and Family Studies summarized the risks of homosexuality. These include an increased risk of suicide, domestic violence, and substance abuse in addition to greater risk for a variety of sexually transmitted diseases. Lesbians also have a higher risk for a variety of cancers.

Today, the United States resembles the Israel of the Bible in many ways. As Isaiah described, in spite of the blessings that God has bestowed upon America, the nation increasingly produces “bad fruit.”Americans increasingly revel in pleasure and immorality and our moral compasses are so distorted that we frequently “call evil good and good evil.” In America today, religion is being from the public square and people who follow the teachings of the Bible are increasingly in conflict with laws enforcing the new morality. Ancient Israel was destroyed by God’s judgment and some, such as Rabbi Jonathan Cahn, believe that America is already undergoing the early stages of judgment as well.

When viewed in context, it is apparent that a change in governmental policy is not sufficient to reverse the decline of the American family and the budget-busting entitlements that go along with it. What is needed is a national revival and a return to traditional family models.

The only way to reverse the trend of ever-increasing government entitlements is to reduce the need for those entitlements in the first place. By returning to a traditional family model where two parents share the responsibility for raising children, there will be less need for government intervention and support. Changes in policy without attacking the underlying problems will be doomed to failure.

The government cannot force Americans to return to traditional and time-proven methods of bearing and raising children, but a true revival and voluntary return to the Biblical teachings has the capability to change the course of American society and culture. Such a cultural shift will be necessary for the long term prosperity – and even survival – of the United States.

A revival has to start somewhere. If you want to save America, take your family to church. Teach your kids the value of the traditional family. Show them that when spouses fight, it doesn’t mean that the marriage has to end. If you love your children, try to make your marriage work. You can start this process by taking your family to church to learn about God’s forgiveness. You might save your country as well as your soul.

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Conservatives, Christians and the poor

When it comes to the poor, conservatives and Republicans have a reputation for being heartless. While this reputation may not be deserved, it is one that must be addressed if Republicans wish to be given the chance to lead a country where the labor rate has fallen to a forty year low and the poverty rate is at a 50 year high.

Even though not all conservatives are Christians, liberals often cite two Biblical passages in support of government programs to aid the poor. In Matthew 25:45, God admonishes religious people who are about to be cast into “eternal punishment” that “whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.” Another common citation is the story of the rich young ruler found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In the story, Jesus told the man to “sell all that you have and give to the poor.”

They have a point.

Even though there is no indication that Jesus intended for that specific instruction to be applied to anyone other than the one individual to whom it was addressed, there is ample evidence in the Bible that God wants people to help the poor.

Jesus said in Matthew 26 that the poor will always be with us. No amount of private funding or government aid can eliminate poverty, but if Christians were fulfilling God’s commandment to help the poor there would be much less need for a government “war on poverty.” According to Pew’s Religion and the Public Life survey, there are an estimated 246 million Christians in the United States while the Social Security Administration notes that the median income of Americans is $44,321. This means that if each Christian tithed 10 percent of their income, there would be almost $1.1 trillion available to churches and charities.

Helping the poor should not be limited to writing checks. Much of the benefit derived from both the recipient and the giver is in the human contact that results from the act of giving. When people help others, they feel better about themselves. When the Bible commands Christians to put their faith into action, it does not offer a buyout option.

Two groups that offer Christians, or anyone else for that matter, a chance to help the poor are located in West Georgia. The Rapha Clinic, a medical clinic with several locations in West Georgia and Eastern Alabama, serves the uninsured free of charge with a staff of volunteer doctors and nurses.

In nearby Villa Rica, volunteers from the First United Methodist Church make hundreds of sack lunches for the town’s underprivileged children. The church took on the task of providing the children with food during the summer break when they would not get free meals at school. During a ten week period last year, the volunteers prepared and delivered more than 10,000 sack lunches according to the Times-Georgian. The ministry hopes to double that number this year and expand into even more areas of the county. As the group expanded, it was given a formal name, the “By HIS Hands Summer Lunch Ministry.”

Throughout America and the world, Christians like Sue Brockman, who was instrumental in founding the Rapha Clinic, and Derek Porter, the pastor of the Villa Rica First Methodist Church who started the summer lunch ministry, are helping the poor and sick. In fact, Christians have been helping the poor since the days of Christ. Some Christian charities are small, centering on a single town or county. Others are now large groups with a presence in many countries. The Red Cross was founded by a Christian businessman after witnessing the destruction of the Napoleonic wars. The Salvation Army was founded by a Christian evangelist and remains explicitly Christian, as does CARE, which stands for Christian Action Research and Education. Many hospitals and colleges were founded by Christians of various denominations.

Just because Christians have a rich history of charitable and humanitarian endeavors doesn’t mean that the rest of us should rest on our laurels (halos?). One of the big rationales for the growth of the welfare state has always been that churches and private charities have not done enough to help the poor. The New Deal began the displacement of private and religious charities by the federal government. This process was continued by the Great Society of the 1960s.

This liberal policy of government enforced charity runs afoul of several aspects of Biblical teaching. The most obvious is the admonition in 2 Corinthians 9:7 that everyone “must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” Congress and the IRS compel us to give, however reluctantly, and could not care less whether we are cheerful or not as we submit our tax returns.

Second, the Bible clearly values honest work. People who are legitimately in need should be helped, but those who are capable of working should support themselves and their families. In 2 Thessalonians 3:10 Paul wrote, “For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: ‘The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.’” Charity should not go to people who could be working to support themselves. Many government programs actually encourage people not to work because they lose their benefits if they do.

Jesus, in Luke 16:1-2, commanded Christians to be good stewards of their resources. A good steward is not wasteful. Government often is. Fraud and waste in government programs are common, although no one can be sure of the exact extent. The universal nature of many government programs such as Social Security and Medicare means that precious resources are spent on the wealthy, who could provide for themselves, rather than the truly needy. Even in the best case, government “charity” funds flow through a huge bureaucracy with an expensive overhead which takes a large percentage before the first dollar reaches the poor.

Government programs also ignore the Bible’s warnings against incurring debt. Proverbs 22:7 warns that “The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender.” Psalm 37:21 says, “The wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous give generously.” Paul writes in Romans 13:8, “Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another….” and admonishes “You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings” (1 Corinthians 7:23). What, then, would God think about borrowing 40 cents on the dollar and confiscating money from workers trying to feed their families to pay for a wasteful and inefficient system that encourages the poor not to work?

Finally, there are the unintended consequences of government programs. According to Census data, more than 30 percent of children today live in single-parent families, a three-fold increase from the 1960s when the Great Society declared war on poverty. Factors in the increase include government entitlements, birth control, the declining marriage rate, and others. Given the strong link between poverty and broken families, it seems likely that many government programs perpetuate poverty by discouraging marriage.

If conservatives hope to be successful in scaling back government entitlement programs, then conservatives and Christians must become even more willing to step up and give sacrificially to help the poor and sick. Even if government entitlements go away, the poor will remain.

Originally published on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Unemployment extension may hurt long-term unemployed

Democrats and Republicans are currently locked in a battle over how to pay for a reauthorization of the extension for long term unemployment benefits. For the most part, the debate is only over how the extension of unemployment benefits should be paid. As PBS reported, most Republicans don’t oppose the unemployment extension, but favor offsetting the increased spending with cuts in other budget areas. Little, if any, attention has been given to whether the unemployment benefits should be extended at all however. The Senate passed its version of the plan on January 7, but the bill faces an uncertain future in the House. Politically the extension is popular, but many economists are not sold on the benefits of the extension.

According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, unemployment insurance typically lasts for 26 weeks. The Emergency Unemployment Compensation program extended benefits for an additional 14 to 47 weeks. The number of additional weeks varied by state and was based on state unemployment rates.

In December 2013, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman attacked the idea that extending unemployment payments may be harmful to the unemployed. Krugman claims that much of the research on the effects of unemployment insurance is decades old and that ending unemployment insurance would not create more jobs. In Krugman’s view, the economy is limited by demand, not supply, “and slashing unemployment benefits — which would have the side effect of reducing incomes and hence consumer spending — would just make the situation worse.”

There are some problems with Krugman’s analysis. As Krugman himself notes, unemployment insurance typically pays between 40 and 50 percent of the worker’s previous pay. This hardly seems enough to stimulate significant demand. In fact, such benefits are more accurately described as subsistence payments that merely help the unemployed to survive. About.com compiled a list of maximum unemployment benefits by state. The highest was Massachusetts at $653 per week. The lowest was Mississippi at $235. Georgia’s maximum weekly benefit is $330.

Krugman may also be off base about the number of available jobs. In October 2013, the National Federation of Independent Businesses reported that 20 percent of business owners had job openings that they could not fill. This begs the question of why business owners cannot fill jobs in an economy with unemployment rate that has been chronically above seven percent for the past five years. In reality, the employment situation is even worse than reflected in the unemployment rate. As previously reported by Examiner, the civilian labor force participation rate has continued to fall even as the unemployment rate declined. This indicates that much of the decline in the unemployment rate is due to people leaving the work force.

In contrast to Krugman’s claim that more demand is needed to stimulate the economy, the NFIB survey found that poor sales ranked third when business owners were asked what the most important problem facing small business. Government requirements and red tape was the selected as the worst problem. Taxes was rated a close second.

Part of the answer to the business staffing problem probably lies in the number of long-term unemployed. According to the November 2013 employment report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the most recent available, more than 53 percent of the unemployed have been out of work for more than 15 weeks (almost four months). Thirty-seven percent have been out of work for more than 27 weeks (almost eight months).

A January 8, 2014 report in CNN Money cited a report by the Council of Economic Advisors that found that workers who had been unemployed for less than five weeks had a 31 percent chance of finding a new job or returning to their old one. At 27 weeks, the odds of becoming employed again drop to 12 percent. For those who have been unemployed for more than a year, the chances of finding a job are only nine percent. In the current economy, it takes about four weeks for most workers to either find a new job or give up their search.

When workers are unemployed for more than a year, it becomes very difficult to find a job. A worker’s skills deteriorate, professional licenses and certifications may lapse, and prospective employers begin to question their work ethic, health, or otherwise try to determine why they haven’t worked in so long. After more than a year of unemployment, many workers move from being unemployed to being unemployable.

It might seem counterintuitive that the unemployed would reject a job to maintain a meager unemployment payment, but Pete, a union electrician, explained the thinking in a piece he wrote for an About.com series of stories of the unemployed. Pete writes, “I'm used to bringing home $1,500 gross a week and now with unemployment I bring home $425 a week…. I keep looking for work outside of my trade, but all there is are 10 dollar an hour job[s] or less or part time. Now why would I get a $10 an hour job working 40 hours a week without insurance and benefits when I make that being unemployed?”

In 2010, the Wall Street Journal quoted an economics textbook written by Lawrence Summers, at the time President Obama’s chief economic advisor. In 1999, Summers had written, “The second way government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment is by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work. Each unemployed person has a 'reservation wage'—the minimum wage he or she insists on getting before accepting a job. Unemployment insurance and other social assistance programs increase [the] reservation wage, causing an unemployed person to remain unemployed longer.” Pete’s $425 weekly unemployment payment has obviously increased his reservation wage above $10 per hour.

Other government benefits that workers might receive in addition to unemployment payments also drive up the reservation wage. Last September, Examiner reported on a Cato Institute study that found that welfare payments in 12 states were worth more than a minimum wage job. The Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion extends government health insurance to the poor in states that chose to enact the expansion. Other types of government assistance include food stamps and disability payments, both of which reached record highs in 2013.

In contrast to Krugman’s claim that studies critical of the Obama Administration’s claims about the stimulative characteristics of unemployment payments are “decades old,” the New York Fed published a detailed paper on the subject in October 2013. This study looked at bordering counties in different states and used data from the Great Recession’s high levels of unemployment and the Obama extension of emergency unemployment payments. Since the adjoining cross-border counties were part of the same labor market, a major difference in unemployment rates was traced to state unemployment insurance laws.

The study’s authors found that “having access to longer spells of benefits improves the outside option of workers and leads to an increase in the equilibrium wage. This lowers the accounting profits of firms and reduces vacancy posting to restore the equilibrium relationship between the cost of firm entry and the expected profits.” In layman’s terms, extending unemployment benefits for longer periods causes wages to rise, which in turn causes fewer new jobs to be created.

The study shows that “unemployment benefit extensions can account for most of the persistently high unemployment after the Great Recession.” The data showed that “border counties with longer benefit durations have much higher unemployment, despite the potential benefits of spending” money received from unemployment payments. The negative effects of higher unemployment outweighed any increase in demand.

In the end, extending unemployment payments allows workers like Pete to maintain a high reservation wage which keeps them unemployed longer, possibly to the point that they are no longer employable. If Pete took a lower paying job than his old one, he might lose money initially, but he would begin rebuilding his resume with recent job experience. He could use a low-paying entry level job to restart his career and work his back up the career ladder. By staying on unemployment, Pete goes nowhere. He is trapped at $425 per week.

Several years ago I was laid off when my company lost its main customer. I was unemployed for five weeks before I started work with another company. My pay at the new company was significantly less than I had been receiving in unemployment compensation, especially after insurance costs were deducted. For a time, I worked a second job to supplement my primary paycheck. Even then, we had to use credit cards to make ends meet. Before too long, however, I received a pay raise. Things got even better when my experience led to another job offer with even better pay.

While not everyone who is unemployed chooses to keep receiving benefits over taking a lower paying job, the expiration of unemployment benefits may well have the effect of lowering the reservation wage for many of the long-term unemployed. This would be an incentive for people like Pete to restart their lives and careers.

Originally published on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Answering the religious left

The religious left, while still small, has grown somewhat over the last decade. While often perceived as hostile to religion, particularly Christianity, Democrats are somewhat tolerant of religious leftists. As an example, black voters are both heavily religious and heavily Democratic.

The signature issues of the religious left are war, the environment, and poverty. As the American involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq winds down and concerns about global warming abate, the major point of contention between the religious right and left concerns how to address poverty.

A passage frequently cited by religious leftists is Matthew 25:40, “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’” The theme of charity occurs throughout the Bible. Religious conservatives don’t dispute Jesus’ command to help the poor. The question is how best to do so.

Religious leftists advocate government anti-poverty programs. These programs are notoriously expensive, inefficient and prone to fraud. According to the Cato Institute, the state and federal governments spend more than $1 trillion annually on anti-poverty programs. This translates to $20,610 for every poor person in America, yet the poverty rate is still almost unchanged from 1964 when Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty. As Ronald Reagan put it, “Some years ago the federal government declared war on poverty - and poverty won.”

The left is also fond of pointing to Matthew 22:21 where Jesus tells the Pharisees to “render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's….” Often the second part of the verse, “and unto God the things that are God's” is not quoted. Christians should pay taxes, but they are also commanded to support their local churches and charities. Ironically, statistics from the book “Who really cares?” by Arthur Brooks show that although liberals tend to earn more than conservatives, they give less in terms of money, time and even blood.

The fallacy with unquestioningly rendering to Caesar is that we do not (at least not yet) live under an authoritarian regime. As participants in a republican democracy, it is our duty to make sure that our tax money is spent wisely. In fact the Bible commands it. Since voters are responsible for their government in a republic, they must ensure that the government is a good steward of tax money.

According to Jesus in Luke 16:1-2, a good steward is not wasteful. A good steward works diligently for his money (Proverbs 28:20, Colossians 3:23-24). A good steward invests wisely and diversifies (Ecclesiastes 11:2). Good stewards provide for their own families (1 Timothy 5:8). Even though a good steward pays taxes (Romans 13:6-7), that does not alleviate the responsibility of personally helping the poor and doing so cheerfully (2 Corinthians 9:6-8, Acts 20:35).

Government-enforced charity runs afoul of Biblical doctrines in several areas. First and most obvious, the Bible calls for voluntary and cheerful giving. This is not consistent with mandates and taxes that are enforced by the government at the point of a gun.

Second, the Bible clearly values honest work. People who are legitimately in need should be helped, but those who are capable of working should support themselves and their families. In 2 Thessalonians 3:10 Paul wrote, “For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: ‘The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.’” Charity should not go to people who could be working to support themselves. Many government programs actually encourage people not to work because they lose their benefits if they do.

Third, government is wasteful. No one seriously doubts that much of the money that the government confiscates to help the needy is wasted. The waste is two-fold. First, the money flows through bureaucracies at both the state and federal levels. These bureaucracies have high overhead due to expensive buildings and pay and benefits for employees that are substantially higher than their private sector counterparts according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Second, fraud is rampant in government entitlement programs. Untold billions of dollars are lost to fraud every year. Bureaucratic caseworkers with scant contact with their charges are often unable to tell when they are being duped. As entitlement programs grow, the propensity for fraud becomes more likely due to the sheer numbers of people involved.

Finally, government programs ignore the Bible’s warnings against incurring debt. Proverbs 22:7 warns that “The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender.” Psalm 37:21 says, “The wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous give generously.” Paul writes in Romans 13:8, “Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another….” and admonishes “You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings” (1 Corinthians 7:23).
What, then, would God think about borrowing 40 cents on the dollar and confiscating money from workers trying to feed their families to pay for a wasteful and inefficient system that encourages the poor not to work? It is hard to imagine that he would be pleased.

The religious left also lacks Biblical support for two other prominent issues. First, with respect to abortion, it is clear from numerous Bible passages such as Matthew 19:14 that Jesus loved little children. In Matthew 18:6, Jesus said that it would be better for a person to have a “great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” than to cause a child to sin. How much worse would it be to physically harm a child than to cause one to sin?

The Old Testament was even more specific saying, “Cursed be anyone who takes a bribe to shed innocent blood” (Deuteronomy 27:25). In Exodus 21:22-23, there was something akin to a personhood law: “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life…. ” Jeremiah 1:5 indicates that a baby in the womb is already a person known to God.

The Bible is also clear on same-sex marriage. Most people are familiar with the Old Testament laws concerning homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. There are also hints that homosexuality was one of the sins that led to the destruction of Sodom (from which we get the word “sodomy”) and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. Christians are not bound by Old Testament law (Galatians 5:18). Neither is the United States a theocracy (nor should it be). Old Testament laws do provide clues to right and wrong however.

Less commonly known is the New Testament’s condemnation of homosexuality. In Romans 1:24-27, homosexuality is described as God’s judgment on people who “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator….” In 1 Timothy 1:9-11, homosexuals are listed with other sinners including the sexually immoral, slave traders, liars and perjurers. Jude 7 confirms that homosexuality was one of the sins for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

Nowhere does God command Christians to hate homosexuals, but it is clear that God considers homosexuality to be a sinful act that should not be encouraged. Especially when the welfare of children and God’s prohibition against leading children astray (Matthew 18:6) are considered, it becomes clear that same-sex marriage should not be considered for societal as well as religious reasons. The New Family Structures Study by Mark Regnerus, associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, offers compelling evidence that children of same-sex couples do not fare nearly as well as children of traditional families.

Members of the religious left are free to vote for whoever they choose and upon whatever basis they choose. If they believe that their political views are aligned with their religious views, however, they should seek to learn what Jesus and the Bible say about the issues at hand.

 

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/answering-the-religious-left

Happy Government Dependence Day

This is the most dismal Independence Day in memory.

I’m sure that there have been more dreary Fourths of July in our nation’s history. The first few were under British rule and it seemed that the young nation might not survive to celebrate the anniversary of its birth in peace. In 1826, two American heroes, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both died on July 4. In 1863, although most Americans did not know it yet, almost 8,000 Americans had just died in battle at Gettysburg. In 1942, Pearl Harbor was a recent memory but the American victory at Midway had lessened the sting of the surprise attack. On several Independence Days it seemed that the country might not be around to celebrate another.

There have been other Independence Days when the celebrations must have felt hollow. Rarely has that been due to the actions of our own government, however.

This year the celebrations come less than a week after the Supreme Court upheld the largest expansion of federal power since the New Deal. The federal government exercised unprecedented control over every American citizen and almost 20 percent of the U.S. economy. The founders, proponents of weak and limited central government, are undoubtedly spinning in their graves.

The passage of the health care law was a betrayal on many levels. Most obviously, the Democrats who voted for the bill betrayed their constituents. A strong majority opposed the bill when it was passed. Rather than persuading people to support their legislation, the Democrats, led by an elitist minority, rammed the bill through Congress using the parliamentary trick of budget reconciliation to avoid a Republican filibuster. They betrayed their oath of office by passing a law that was clearly unconstitutional (Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion notwithstanding).

The Democrats also betrayed the ideals of the founders of the United States. The founder of their own party, Thomas Jefferson said, “A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities.”

Jefferson would have been appalled at Obamacare, which is the antithesis of his goals for America. Our government, $17 trillion in debt, cannot be called frugal. It is increasingly involved in even the most trivial aspects of our lives. It takes bread from the mouths of labor to give to those who do not work. By Jefferson’s definition, our government is not good.

Jefferson, who authored the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom would oppose the government forcing religious groups and believers to purchase contraceptive and abortifacient drugs. He would likely oppose abortion, having penned the phrase “right to life” in the Declaration of Independence. He would also oppose the attempts to silence those oppose abortion and same-sex marriage. “No man,” Jefferson wrote, shall “suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”

As the author of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson would rebuke the authoritarian tendencies of our current president, a man who is only too willing to circumvent the will of the people and their elected representatives in Congress by legislating with federal agencies and Executive Orders. The Revolutionary War was fought to rid Americans of a king. Jefferson would not want a president who acts like one.

Jefferson, who warned that “the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered,” would be angry at the collusion between government and business that birthed Obamacare. Democrats in Congress attacked insurance and pharmaceutical companies as profiteers in the media, but secretly worked with them to craft and pass the bill. The loser in this “crony capitalism” is the American people.

The courts, whose judges swear to “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me under the Constitution” “without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich,” ignored critical aspects of the Constitution, U.S. law, and American history. Justice Roberts rewrote the ACA and changed the mandate from a penalty to a tax. Thomas Jefferson would say, “Taxation without representation is tyranny!”

Much has been written about the failings of Obamacare, how it will result in a lower quality of health care in the United States, higher prices, and, ultimately, shortages and rationing. Economically, all of these outcomes are extremely likely.

Perhaps more importantly, however, Obamacare might be the undoing of the entire country. For a nation with $17 trillion in debt and a debt-to-GDP ratio that is greater than 100 percent, the last thing that is needed is another multi-trillion dollar entitlement, complete with tax increases, that will suck money out of the private sector and further slow growth. Even worse, the mounting debt load brings the nation even closer to a complete financial collapse.

As the Democrats systematically destroy the aspects of this country that made it great, the current economic morass is increasingly likely to indeed be the “new normal.” Emulating Europe’s welfare state means that the U.S. will also have Europe’s chronically high unemployment, lower income and wages, higher poverty, slower growth, and higher taxes.

By financing entitlements with debt to be repaid in the future, we are mortgaging our children’s lives and making them slaves to the countries and corporations that buy our debt. We are selling their future just as surely as if we blew their inheritance in the casinos of Las Vegas. In the end there will be nothing left: No money and nothing to show for it. We are impoverishing ourselves. As Rep. Paul Ryan said, “This is the most predictable crisis we have ever had.”

The Democrats have no solution to the crisis. Their only answer is to spend more and hope the economy recovers. Most do not even acknowledge the problem.

Lest anyone accuse me of favoritism, the Republicans have contributed to the problem as well. The Republican spending spree under George W. Bush was exceeded only by that of Barack Obama and Franklin Roosevelt. Republicans expanded government through the Medicare prescription drug entitlement (which at least did consider market realities) and the No Child Left Behind Act. On the plus side, the Republicans may have learned their lesson.

The Republicans are our last hope in government. We have already been failed by one political party that is now ideologically closer to Marx and Engels than Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison. We have been failed by the president and failed by Congress. We have been failed by the courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court. Some Catholics already see the need for civil disobedience in resisting Obamacare’s anti-religious mandates. If Republicans are elected and fail to change the direction of the country, civil disobedience will be our only recourse.

As Abraham Lincoln said, “We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.” America isn’t dead, but she is critically ill. It is up to the people to save her.

This Independence Day, let us vow that it will be our last Government Dependence Day.

Rick Santorum: Not just for social conservatives

Since his surprise victory in the Iowa caucuses, Rick Santorum has been derided a candidate for the social conservatives. Prominent conservative talk show hosts, such as Atlanta’s Neal Boortz, have declared that social conservatives risk re-electing Obama if they vote for Santorum, assuming that a vote for the former senator is rooted only in a desire to overturn Roe v. Wade and prevent the legalization of same-sex marriage.

In contrast, Santorum seems to be quietly building support among Republicans in states that have yet to vote. His strong performance in recent debates and his status as the only Republican candidate to avoid going negative against his opponents may be what inspires voters to take a closer look at Santorum, but his conservative principles and detailed policy proposals provide a pleasant surprise. His blue collar background and the revelation in one debate that he did his own taxes make Santorum seem sensible and approachable in a way that Romney and Gingrich are not.

In an election that is shaping up as a referendum on Barack Obama’s handling (or mishandling) of the economy, Santorum offers a detailed conservative vision for recovery. On his website, Santorum’s proposal for tax reform is a two-tiered income tax with rates of 10 and 28 percent. He wants to simplify the tax code, but keep or enhance family-friendly deductions and credits. For example, he would triple the personal deduction for each child and eliminate marriage penalties while maintaining the current deductions for charitable giving, home mortgage interest, healthcare, retirement savings, and children.

On the business side, Santorum would cut the U.S. corporate tax rate, the second highest in the world, in half, reducing it from 35 to 17.5 percent. He would reduce the capital gains and dividend taxes to 12 percent. He favors eliminating the alternative minimum (AMT) tax and the death (estate) tax.

To help bring jobs and money back to the U.S., Santorum would like to eliminate the tax on repatriated income that businesses bring into the U.S. to invest in new manufacturing equipment. Other repatriated income would be taxed at a reduced rate of 5.25 percent. He opposes the onerous regulations written by the Obama Administration and promises to repeal Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and all other Obama-era regulations with an economic impact of over $100 million.

Out of control federal spending and a mounting federal debt is also a hot-button issue for 2012. Santorum would commit to $5 trillion in spending cuts over five years and would immediately reduce non-defense discretionary spending to 2008 levels. Defense spending and social programs would be frozen at current levels for five years. He would cut the federal work force by 10 percent and freeze pay for non-defense related employees for four years.

Santorum supports the Paul Ryan plan for saving Medicare and believes that Social Security and other entitlement programs must be reformed and placed on a sustainable path. The number of programs that he would cut is long, but includes energy subsidies, agriculture subsidies, Planned Parenthood, and halving the number of USAID employees and funding for the UN. He would use Senator Tom Coburn’s March 2011 GAO report that found a potential $100 billion in savings from eliminating 34 wasteful and duplicative programs and the Simpson-Bowles debt reduction plan that was commissioned – then ignored – by President Obama.

With gas prices rising and forecast to increase to record levels before the election, energy is likely to become an issue as well. Santorum would remove all subsidies and tax credits for energy companies. He would remove bans on drilling for oil and natural gas in an effort to decrease prices by increasing supply. Santorum would approve the Keystone XL pipeline, recently rejected by President Obama, in order to create jobs and increase the supply of oil. He would also roll back the new EPA carbon rules and other harmful regulations.

With respect to economic policy, Rick Santorum’s platform is similar to those of the other candidates. His foreign policy is close to that of Romney and Gingrich (Ron Paul is the outlier on foreign policy). What makes Rick Santorum unique among the Republican candidates is his realization that America’s economic woes are tied to our national moral and ethical failings. In many circles it is fashionable to call for economic reform, but then proclaim the belief that the government has no business trying to influence anyone’s life choices. The reality is that without responsibility, both to oneself and one’s country, there can be no freedom. As John Adams wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Breakpoint.org quotes Santorum at an Iowa town hall meeting as saying ““Yes, [the election is] about growth and the economy, [but] it’s also about what is at the core of our country . . . faith and family. You can’t have a strong economy, you can’t have limited government if the family is breaking down and we don’t live good, moral, and decent lives.” Politifact backs up Santorum’s point that single-parent families have a much higher poverty rate than two-parent families.

The reason that taxpayers are burdened with increasingly large amounts of entitlement spending is that society and the government has given people incentives to make disastrous life choices. After the introduction of the Great Society in the 1960s, the number of children in single-family households increased exponentially due to increases in both divorce and out-of-wedlock births. This means that many of these children grow up in poor households and receive government financial support. Today according to KIDS COUNT, 38 percent of children in Georgia are part of single-parent families.

As children grow up in broken homes, they are at a far greater risk for a multitude of bad things, from being more likely to live in poverty to being more likely to be abused to being more likely to become involved in violent crime, drug abuse, and premarital sex according to the National Fatherhood Initiative. The cycle repeats and deepens as children of broken homes grow up to have their own children and the dependency on government entitlement programs becomes more pronounced. The federal budget grows and the debt gets larger. Solving the debt crisis will ultimately mean breaking the cycle of poverty and government dependency. This will mean giving Americans the tools and knowledge to make better choices… and allowing them to fail when they don’t.

For Republican primary voters dissatisfied with Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum provides solid conservative economic principles and a strong foreign policy with pro-life and pro-family values. The Real Clear Politics index of polls shows Santorum gaining slowly but steadily on Romney and Gingrich. Strong showings in yesterday’s primaries in Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado will likely help to revive his campaign. If voters back Rick Santorum on Super Tuesday, when 10 states including Georgia hold primaries, he may be able to supplant Newt Gingrich as Mitt Romney’s chief rival for the nomination.

This article was first published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/rick-santorum-not-just-for-social-conservatives

2012 voter guide: Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney is the former governor of Massachusetts. He was the head of Bain Capital, an investment firm that bought troubled companies, and also managed the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics. Read a full biography of Romney by the Atlanta Elections Examiner here.

Campaign website: mittromney.com

Supporting PAC: restoreourfuture.com

Ga. website: gaformitt.com

2008 Ga. results: 30.2 percent/third place (RCP)

Latest 2012 Ga. poll: 15 percent/second place (RCP)

Taxes: Mitt Romney would maintain current tax rates on personal income and capital gains. He would eliminate the death, capital gains, interest and dividend taxes for taxpayers with an AGI of under $200,000. He would reduce corporate tax rates to 25 percent (from 35 percent currently) and push for a complete overhaul of the tax system.

Obamacare: Romney favors a repeal of Obamacare.

Energy: Romney would amend regulation to allow expedited approval of resource development projects, including nuclear plants. He would open America’s energy reserves for development, including shale oil and gas. Romney supports the construction of pipelines to bring Canadian oil to the U.S. Romney believes that the government should not be involved in “steering investment toward particular politically favored approaches,” but should limit its funding to basic research.

Life: Romney’s website does not address abortion or other life issues. He is formerly pro-abortion, but says that he had come to believe abortion was immoral before his first presidential run in 2008. His record on abortion is mixed. Romneycare, the Massachusetts health plan, covers abortion, but it did not do so in the original legislation. In a veto message regarding an emergency contraception bill, Romney cited his belief that life begins at fertilization and his support for parental consent laws. (aboutmittromney.com, prolifeprofiles.com, Factcheck.org)

Iran: Mitt Romney wrote in the Wall Street Journal that he would back up American diplomacy with a “very real and very credible military option.” He states explicitly that he will act with U.S. allies to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Immigration: Romney supports the right of states to restrict illegal immigration. He would veto the DREAM Act and opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants. He supports secure borders. (Fox News)

National Security: Romney believes that military spending should be increased to four percent of GDP and would increase the active duty work force by 10,000. He would pursue military, nonmilitary and diplomatic avenues against the jihadists. He believes that the FBI should have the power to wiretap mosques and investigate suspected domestic terrorists. He regrets not having served in the military. (boston.com, 2012.republican-candidates.org)

Spending: Mitt Romney believes that “we have a moral responsibility not to spend more than we take in.” He would end deficit spending and work toward a balanced budget. He would have the federal government publish a balance sheet each year.

Entitlements: Mitt Romney would reform entitlements as a path toward balancing the federal budget. Romney will not cut benefits for current retirees.

Second Amendment: Romney supported gun control while governor of Massachusetts. He became a life member of the NRA in 2007. He now opposes a nationwide “assault weapons” ban and supports the second amendment as an individual right. (thepoliticalguide.com)

Gay marriage: Mitt Romney opposes gay marriage, but has stated his opposition to discrimination against homosexuals in the past. (LA Times)

Where possible, the positions of the candidate were taken from the campaign websites cited above. When this was not possible, the source of the information presented is cited in parentheses and linked.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/2012-voter-guide-mitt-romney

The Bible and taxes

In recent years, a recurring theme among progressives and liberals is that Christians have a duty to pay taxes and not resist tax increases because of Jesus’ instruction in Matthew 22:21 to “render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's” when asked by the Pharisees if Jews should pay tribute or taxes to the Roman government. According to this line of reasoning, modern Americans should happily pay ever-increasing taxes because Jesus said that the Roman coins belonged to Caesar.

Progressives also point out that Jesus, on numerous occasions instructed his followers to help the poor. His instruction to the rich, young ruler in Matthew 19:21 was to sell everything he had and give it to the poor. In Luke 6:20, he said that the poor were blessed and would inherit the kingdom of God. In Matthew 25:40, Jesus equates helping the poor with aiding Jesus himself. In one famous passage, Jesus says that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:24).

There is no dispute that Christians are instructed to help the poor (Luke 12:33, 2 Corinthians 8:7). The question then is how best to help the poor. Is it more efficient to send more tax money to the government which can then make transfer payments to the poor or is it better to donate to private charities?

Government social programs are notoriously inefficient and costly. The big three entitlements, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, now make up forty-one percent of the federal budget according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. This percentage will go higher in coming years as more Baby Boomers retire. Social Security is scheduled to be bankrupt by 2036 and Medicare by 2024 according the Trustee’s Report. As the trust funds are depleted, even more tax money will be needed to meet obligations to retirees.

In part government social programs are so costly because they are universal. Rather than be a safety net for the poor, the government forces all retirees into Medicare and Social Security. This means that even the wealthy are required to accept government benefits, whether they need or want them or not.

Government programs are also costly because they are administered by bureaucracies filled with civil service workers. Where most charities rely heavily on volunteers, government workers that administer social programs often have salary and benefit packages that are valued at more than six figures annually. In effect, the government is taking a cut of the tax money before it is distributed to the poor. This expensive overhead adds significantly to the cost of government programs.

Finally, bureaucracies and rigid rules breed fraud. As the government tries to sign up as many people as possible to collect benefits, it becomes increasingly difficult to weed out those who are gaming the system. Caseworkers have less time to examine their clients, most of whom they do not know personally. With private charities, local volunteers get to know the need on a personal basis and can determine who needs aid and who does not. For bureaucrats, charity is a job; for volunteers, it is a passion.

A clue as to what Jesus would do with respect to entitlements in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 where the Apostle Paul wrote, “For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.” Paul doesn’t say that those who cannot work should not be fed. He does say that people who can work but choose not to, those who are gaming the system, should not live off the sweat of others. The book of Proverbs, especially in chapter 24, extols the virtues of work and is critical of the “hater of work.”

Even while the Bible encourages people to give to charity, it also teaches people to be smart with their money (Proverbs 6:6-8, 21:5, Luke 14:28-30) . The Bible also stresses that the accumulation of wealth should not be an end in itself (Psalms 15:5, Titus 1:7). Money and material wealth should not be accumulated dishonestly (Exodus 20:15, Titus 2:9-10).

Not only is it expensive and inefficient to filter funds to help the poor through government bureaucracies, it is counter to God’s instruction to believers in Proverbs 3:9-10 in which the people are told to give the first part of their income to God. Part of this money would be used to maintain the house of worship and part of it would be used to help the poor. When people give large portions of their income to the government, it naturally discourages them from giving a percentage of the remainder to charity because they need money to support their own families as well. Nevertheless, taxes and government social programs do no relieve believers of the duty to give to charity (James 2:15-16).

There are more benefits to charitable giving than tax deductions. There are studies that link altruism to mental and physical health benefits. Givers tend to be happier than those who are not so generous. Research shows that giving stimulates the same pleasure centers of the brain as eating and sex, resulting in a joyful feeling. When government programs and taxes take the place of charities, taxpayers are cheated out of the benefits of voluntary giving.

According to the Center for Philanthropy at Indiana University’s report “Georgia Gives 2008,” more than 77 percent of Georgia households give to charity. Individuals accounted for 83 percent of Georgia’s charitable giving which is comparable to national averages. Eighty percent of respondents indicate that they would give more if they were more financially secure. It can be reasonably assumed that if individuals had a lower tax burden, they would give more money to charity.

The progressive argument also fails to make a distinction between the Roman Empire and American democracy. Where Jews and Christians in Jesus’ day had no say in how Rome used their taxes or at what rate they were taxed, believers today have the right and duty to see that their taxes are not wasted.

 

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/the-bible-and-taxes