Overall, we estimate that only about a fifth of the Index’s increase reflects responses to economic downturns. Another fifth can be attributed to population changes. The rest is due to policy decisions. Yes, Washington has actually decided to make government bigger and more people dependent on it.

Typically this is done by expanding pre-existing entitlement programs: Congress decides to expand Medicare to cover prescription drugs, not just physician and hospital expenses. Medicaid, intended to provide health care for the poor, is expanded to cover middle-class and even more affluent children. Disability Insurance expands to cover more and more conditions, such as classroom stress for teachers.

All of these decisions were made independent of the business cycle (and before Obama entered the White House). Unfortunately, when economic times get bad, these decisions mean that dependency grows even faster.

Since nearly half of Americans pay no income taxes, our current cultural reliance on welfare is unlikely to change anytime soon.  Unfortunately, the likely trend will be to “vote ourselves” more benefits – particularly once more than half the nation can vote free money into its pockets from the more wealthy minority.  Thievery will be the new national pastime.  Unless, of course, we stop looking to live off the government and instead seek to work hard and look to our friends, family, churches, and charities for help, instead of the state.

Forced out of the closet by the unscripted remarks of Washington’s original gaffemeister, Vice President Joe Biden, Mr. Obama has pledged his support for same-sex marriage.  Naturally, the President is being hailed for his bold stand by the liberal media, although everyone knows that he only went public because Biden’s comments on the subject left him no alternative.  Given his druthers, Obama would have maintained his coyness and not made his sentiments public until such time as he he felt he could maximize the political benefits of doing so (i.e., right after the November election).

For better or worse however, the cat is out of the bag and Mr. O is out of the closet, and the strategists behind the Republican electoral machine are wringing their hands now that the spotlight is focused elsewhere than on the economy.  If you are one of the few remaining conservatives who believes that the Republican Party represents traditional cultural values in addition to free market principles, you’ll be disappointed to know that the current Republican leadership has little interest in advocating for traditional marriage on the public stage.  This is why they were cringing in the corner when would-be presidential aspirants like Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann were stressing the importance of families headed by a mom and a dad.

For his part, Mr. Romney will find it difficult to navigate this issue because the perception is that he has been on both sides of the so-called fence at various points in his political career.  In the 90′s he pledged fealty to the radical gay agenda, promising to out-advocate his then opponent, Ted Kennedy, on all issues homosexual.  Today of course, he has a different opponent and is seeking to appeal to a different constituency, so he will try to portray himself as a consistent, lifelong supporter of traditional marriage.  Doing so without coming off as a flip-flopper will be difficult, and unfortunately he won’t find much help from Speaker Boehner or Republican leaders in the House or Senate, as they’ve made a policy of essentially ignoring all issues that are not economic.

Nevermind that marriage is an institution ordained by God that has served as the fundamental building block of human society since the beginning of time.  Nevermind that basic common sense (as well as several formal sociological studies) tells us that children need the influence of a mother and a father in shaping their understanding of the world, their sense of personal security and confidence, and their preparedness to function as healthy and productive members of society.  Nevermind that natural law, our anatomical appendages, and the reproduction of the human race all seem innately geared toward heterosexual unions.  Republican leaders in Washington today can’t be counted upon for anything more than a tip of the hat toward traditional marriage.  Such would be beneath the station of Washington elites and is dirty work better suited to the hoi poloi (those of us in fly-over country who cling to guns and religion).

But the American people understand the significance of the paradigm shift advocated by Mr. Biden and his Johnny-come-lately boss.  As recently as last week, 61% of North Carolinians voting cast their ballot in favor of traditional marriage and against extending the sanctity of this ancient institution to same-sex unions.  All in all, 35 states have come down on the side of traditional marriage when their citizens were given the opportunity to do so, indicating that while marriage is under assault from many quarters (high divorce rates and an increase in the rise of cohabitation), the American people intuitively understand that traditional marriage is nonetheless an institution not to be trifled with.

So social conservatives had better get ready to rumble.  The stakes couldn’t be higher, nor the impact of the outcome of the election greater.  It’s about more than the economy Messrs. Romney and Obama, and no, the American people are not stupid.

Ken Connor is an attorney and co-author of “Sinful Silence: When Christians Neglect Their Civic Duty”  He is also Chairman of the Center for a Just Society.

If one adds up all the children born between Jan. 1, 1946 and Jan. 1, 1965, the era of the great American baby boom, the total comes to 77 million babies born in the United States.

Why is this so significant now?

Because this year, 2012, the first wave of baby boomers, all those born in 1946, like Clinton and George W. Bush, will reach 66, and eligibility for full Social Security and Medicare benefits. The boomers, en masse, will start moving off payrolls onto pension rolls.

Let us assume the 77 million boomers are down to 72 million. This means that over the next 20 years, boomers will be retiring and reaching eligibility for Social Security and Medicare at a rate of 3.6 million a year, or 300,000 a month, or 10,000 every day.

These numbers are hard to turn away from, and yet government officials commonly ignore them in favor of the “issue of the day.”  Unfortunately, the continued ineptitude of Congress will destroy our future if left unchecked.  Something has to change, and change fast.  Perhaps we need to reduce benefits for those retiring in the next few years, perhaps we need to raise payroll taxes, perhaps we need to sunset entire entitlements, perhaps we need to privatize… more likely, we will have to do all of these things and more.

The baby boomers are upon us, to cash in on their entitlement promises.  This will have an unbelievable impact on our way of life if left in disrepair.

States often confer the tax-exempt status on hospitals with the expectation that certainly some services will be extended to the less fortunate with limited capacity to pay. Two of the more litigious hospitals in North Carolina are Carolinas HealthCare and Wilkes Regional Medical Center in North Wilkesboro. They each filed over 12,000 lawsuits against patients in the same five-year period. One of the controlling entities – Carolinas HealthCare System – reported annual profits of more than $300 million over the last three years….

In another example of aggressive collections – this time reported by the New York Times – debt collectors are starting to appear earlier in the healthcare process – including bedside in the ER. One organization, publicly traded Accretive Health is “embedding collectors as employees in emergency rooms and demanding that patients pay before receiving treatment.”…

With medical costs skyrocketing and in the midst of a recession, I’m sure hospitals and doctors are feeling quite a pinch.  People have to have medical care… even if they don’t/can’t pay for it, and many seem to feel they have a right not to pay for their care.  So, it’s natural for doctors and hospitals to try to get more people to pay their bills.  But I have to wonder – are these latest tactics the best approach?

What percentage of these non-paying patients will ever pay anything?  And what percentage of those will pay their full bill?  Is the cost of employing collectors and lawyers worth it?  Is it best to spend the time and money needed to take people to court?

I’m not saying that all of these debts should just be forgiven, but what if the medical industry took alternative approaches?  Perhaps specific charitable funds could be established for helping the unfortunate.  People who can’t pay their bills could be referred to the fund for analysis.  Donors contribute to the health of those who cannot afford care and hospitals stay in business. The fund analyzes candidates and helps those who can’t pay.

There are a portion of patients who are capable of paying but do not.  Many hospitals already have a variety of payment plan options in place, so it is simply irresponsible for patients to dodge their debts.  In some cases, then, bringing suit is completely justifiable.  It is merely concerning to see medical communities ramp up the role the courts and bill collectors have to play in our general medical economy.

The study included analysis covering 50 years of maternal mortality data (1957-2007) from Chile’s National Institute of Statistics. The analysis found that the most important factor in reducing maternal mortality is the educational level of women….

According to the World Health Organization (Trends in Maternal Mortality), the Central American nations of Nicaragua and El Salvador, in which abortion is completely illegal, have both seen a 44% drop in their maternal mortality ratios since 1990. During the fifty-year study period in Chile, the overall Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR) dramatically declined by 93.8%, from 270.7 to 18.2 deaths per 100,000 live births between 1957 and 2007, making Chile a model for maternal health in other countries….

South Africa legalized abortion on demand in 1997. Since then, maternal mortality in that country has risen significantly according to the World Health Organization. The maternal mortality ratio is now estimated at 410. The MMR of Canada, which permits abortion on demand, increased 94 percent from 1990 to 2008. The MMR of the United States, which also permits abortion on demand, increased 96 percent.

The results of the study are pretty clear – the facts don’t back up even the pro-abortion utilitarian argument.  Legalized abortion doesn’t protect any women – mothers or their unborn baby girls.

People who don’t finish college are more likely to receive food stamps than are those who go to graduate school. The rolls of people on public assistance are dominated by people with less education. Nevertheless, the percentage of graduate-degree holders who receive food stamps or some other aid more than doubled between 2007 and 2010.

During that three-year period, the number of people with master’s degrees who received food stamps and other aid climbed from 101,682 to 293,029, and the number of people with Ph.D.’s who received assistance rose from 9,776 to 33,655, according to tabulations of microdata done by Austin Nichols, a senior researcher with the Urban Institute. He drew on figures from the 2008 and 2011 Current Population Surveys done by the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Labor.

The article includes interviews with several Ph.D.s who are currently receiving aid.  Obviously, this is still a small portion compared to the number of people without degrees who receive aid.  But from a pure practical sense, the numbers are startling.  Who would think that the work of so many years would leave one unable to even afford basics like food and shelter?  The world is changing quickly, and academia must adapt.  We cannot afford to continue to spend so much on education – particularly if it leaves us drowning in debt without a sound job.

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage.

There is some question about whether Tyler penned this, or if it should be attributed to another, much like the question, “Who wrote Shakespeare’s works?” But whoever wrote it seems to have had a good understanding of both history and human nature.

If this sequence is both correct and inevitable, we Americans have reason for grave concern, even with the fact that ours is not a pure democracy, but a representative republic. Still, we can identify with the sequence in which we are either between steps 6 and 7, or perhaps fully into step 7. Many of our founders questioned whether the American experiment could long survive. John Adams, on at least one occasion, said he did not think it could. Others who observed the birth of the United States opined that it would go the way of all other past attempts at democracy.

The following is an attempt to identify Tyler’s sequence in the context of American History. I have added one step that seems probable from observation of current world events. I call this step 8. What was step 8, above, becomes step 9.

From bondage to spiritual faith: The bondage of the 13 colonies under the rule of King George III and the British Parliament. Then came the Great Awakening; what we would call a spiritual revival in today’s terminology. This was a profound, widespread supernatural turning to faith in 1725. The effects of this event lasted by some accounts for over 40 years.

From spiritual faith to great courage: Great courage was demonstrated in the banding together of the colonies in declaring independence from Britain in 1776, knowing that the declaration would likely lead to war. Many historians assert that the Continental Congress would not have signed the Declaration of Independence had it not been for the Great Awakening. The signers clearly expressed their dependence on Divine Providence.

From courage to liberty: The courage and persistence of the Continental Army combined with Divine Providence led to victory in the American Revolution in 1783 and the birth of the United States under the Constitution completed in 1787.

From liberty to abundance: The new-found liberty experienced by the American people produced booming prosperity despite significant struggles including the Civil War and two world wars.

From abundance to complacency: The abundance in the 20th century turned the interests of Americans from concerns about preserving the principles of liberty enshrined in our founding documents to comfort, ease and economic prosperity.

From complacency to apathy: This describes the transition to ignorance and apathy about the exceptional nature of the American system of government. John Steinbeck said, “I have named the destroyers of nations: comfort, plenty, and security – out of which grow a bored and slothful cynicism, in which rebellion against the world as it is, and myself as I am, are submerged in listless self-satisfaction.”

From apathy to dependence: Beginning in the 60′s, politicians foolishly gave birth to the welfare state. Many Americans became wards of the government as we moved ever closer to socialism. Some of these politicians were motivated by compassion. Others sought to ensure long careers in Washington, buying the votes of those who benefited from the public dole.

From dependence to anarchy: America may be on the verge of this stage as those who have been led to believe they have a right to being “taken care of by the government” learn that there is not enough wealth for the politicians to fulfill their welfare promises. Witness the riots in Europe as the proverbial well runs dry.

From dependence back into bondage: This is the step where despots emerge promising peace and prosperity if the people will trust ultimate authority to them. Alexis deToqueville said in Democracy in America (c1830) ” Despotism often presents itself as the remedy for all ills suffered in the past. It is the upholder of justice, the champion of the oppressed, and the founder of order. Nations are lulled to sleep by the temporary prosperity to which it gives rise, and when they awake, they are miserable.

This final step into bondage was illustrated in the Star Wars film, “Revenge of the Sith.” The Senate is meeting in the throes of a crisis, and being asked to confer dictatorial power to Chancellor Palpatine in exchange for his assurance he will lead them to security. His words are persuasive and the council agrees. After the vote is taken and the result announced, the council explodes with applause. Anakin’s wife, Padmé, observes and says, “So this is how liberty dies – with thunderous applause.”

Is America is running headlong down this path into bondage? I submit that, as the signers of the Declaration of Independence knew, our only hope lies in Divine Providence and the commitment of true American patriots.

Robert C. Wilson is a veteran of the U.S. Army with a B.S. in mechanical engineering and a M.S. in Business. His writings are posted at www.BFranklinPost.com Please email your comments to forum@centerforajustsociety.org.

The CJS Forum seeks to promote an open exchange of ideas about the relationship between faith, culture, law and public policy. While all the articles are original and written especially for the CJS Forum, they do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society.

(c) Can Stock Photo

It’s an informative, helpful infomap – click the picture above to play with it.

It’s a drama fit for reality television:  Larger than life characters, familial infighting, private jets, mansions, pink poodles, and of course contentious litigation.  Sadly, it’s not the Real Housewives of Orange County or the Shahs of Sunset at the center of this drama, but the first family of Trinity Broadcasting Network.  Brittany Koper, granddaughter of TBN founders Paul and Janice Crouch, alleges that her grandparents are scamming the public with their prosperity gospel message and using the contributions of their viewers to sustain a lavish lifestyle that would make a hip hop mogul blush.  Mama and Papa Crouch counter that granddaughter Brittany is merely attempting to distract attention from her own wrongdoing.  They’ve accused her of misappropriating ministry funds while she served as finance director for the organization.

While the truth of the various allegations is yet to be determined, one thing that’s indisputable is that the Crouches opulent living makes the extravagancies of our congressmen and women look like child’s play.  As advocates of the “prosperity gospel” the Couches teach that the more you give to God, the more you get.  And of course, since they are self-proclaimed agents of God’s kingdom they would suggest that the best way to “give to God” is to give to them.  According to a recent article in the New York Times this message is working quite out nicely for the pair, whose TBN brought in $93 million in donations in 2010.

A key question that the Times article doesn’t address is whether the so-called prosperity gospel (which is closely bound up with the gospel of “health and wealth” trumpeted by so many televangelists) bears any resemblance to the Gospel taught by Jesus Chris as recorded in the New Testament.  Jesus’ Gospel teaches that there is good news for sinners living under the weight of condemnation for their sins.  Through Jesus’ life of obedience to the Father and His sacrificial death on a Roman cross, the gap that exists between sinful man and the one holy God is bridged, and reconciliation is possible.  Faith in Christ and in his “finished” work is all that is required for eternal life.  And, lest we deceive ourselves, even that saving faith is a divine gift; it is not something we conjure up for ourselves.

And yes, the Bible does teach the “sowing and reaping” principle by way of encouraging generosity toward the poor and oppressed.  It suggests that Christians will be blessed by such giving and provided with more so that they will be able to give even more to those in need.  And yes, it also teaches that by the power of God and the sacrificial suffering of His son we can be healed from our infirmities.  However, the Gospel also teaches that we are to deny ourselves, that the meek will inherit the earth, and that the poor in spirit and the mournful are blessed by God.  In other words, the Bible tells us that there is a place for suffering in the universe and that God’s people are not immune from it.  No story illustrates this principle more than the story of Jesus’ own betrayal and execution at the hands of one of his own disciples, an establishment clergy threatened by the Messiah’s teaching, and an unruly mob.  Through faith in Christ and with the help of the Holy Spirit however, Christians are equipped to deal with whatever comes their way, whether it be prosperity or poverty, blessing or suffering.

Just as important, the Bible also teaches that human beings are to be good stewards of the resources entrusted to us by our Maker, and that we will all be called to give an account for our use of His blessings here on earth.  This includes Paul and Janice Crouch, and while they would insist that their stewardship of TBN’s resources are honoring to God, they would likely benefit from some serious, Biblically-rooted soul-searching.  Do multiple mansions, luxury hotel suites for poodles and clothing, and $300k per year fine dining budgets illustrate a ministry geared towards service to others or one designed for self-gratification and self-glorification?  In the end, only God can answer that question.

I think the government should allow this debate to flourish in the marketplace of ideas. The government entered this debate in the early 1970s by publishing the first food pyramid, a guide for what Americans should eat. The obesity and diabetes epidemic in this country are a direct result of that intrusion, sponsored and massaged along by the grain cartel and big ag, from chemical companies to equipment dealers. Grain requires more machinery, more energy, and more risk (hence justification for manipulation) than pasture based livestock, and especially forage-based herbivores….

If I could do one thing and only one thing legislatively for the food system, it would be to create a Constitutional Amendment called the Food Choice Emancipation Proclamation which would guarantee every citizen the inalienable, fundamental right to consume any product of their choice and legalizing the direct unregulated commerce between consenting adults of said product. Right now, farmers can give away raw milk and home made pickles; the prohibition is on sales. What is it about taking money for something that suddenly turns it from a wonderful charitable product into a hazardous substance?

Everywhere I go I meet thousands of farmers ready to grow and process homemade food items for their neighbors and fellow church members. But they can’t due to these prohibitions, epitomized by raw dairy regulations. If this country allowed an opt-out spot for consenting adults to take personal responsibility for the food ingestion, it would unleash an entrepreneurial cottage-based localized tsunami on the marketplace. Wal-Mart would never know what hit it. If the foodies and greenies could only imagine what bottom-up freedom could create, they’d forget their demands for more inspections, more regulations, and more food police and instead campaign for true free markets. We haven’t had free markets in America certainly since Abraham Lincoln started the USDA, but maybe not ever.

Salatin’s views on food regulation are “out there” compared to the average farmer, but it’s hard not to be sympathetic to a man who just wants to be left alone to grow and sell his own food.  In the very least, I think most Americans can agree that we’ve allowed far too much government intrusion into farming, creating a completely unbalanced food economy which is impacting our farms, our diets, our communities, our livelihoods, and our bodies.  I’m not sure what the solution is, but moving away from subsidies and excessive regulations seems like a good first step.  Click here for the rest of the interesting Reason interview.