1 in 7 in poverty. The answer? Limited government and strong marriages.

A news report said the poverty rate nationally has risen to 14.3%, the highest rate in 16 years.

What's the answer? More government programs? Hardly. The key ingredients in my estimation are reducing government size and regulations so the private sector and economy can grow and strengthening marriage.

The reason for the first is poverty is reduced long term by wealth creation and that means getting the economy growing again. High taxes and government spending are ultimately a drag on economic growth. The government by and large is a consumer and doesn't produce much stuff.

Second, strengthen marriages because people are much less likely to be living in poverty if they are married. Kids are five to six times more likely to be raised in poverty if they live in a single parent household. Here the government can protect the definition of marriage and commitments people make when they get married. In other words reform our no fault divorce laws. Beyond that churches and private groups to get involved. And the media and entertainment industries need to affirm and support marriage not trash or ignore it as they so often do.

The Heritage Foundation points out how the government through its policies has often times weakened and harmed marriage. They note that out of wedlock births are a major reason for child poverty and marriage breakdown is linked to welfare spending.

Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, the U.S. has spent $15.9 trillion on means-tested welfare. And today, spending on welfare programs is 13 times greater than it was in 1964. By undermining intact families and eroding the work ethic in low-income communities, the welfare state has encouraged dependency and intergenerational poverty.

If the United States is serious about reducing poverty and reining in federal welfare spending, it must strengthen marriage. We can do this in several ways, including reducing anti-marriage penalties in current welfare programs and providing factual information about the benefits of marriage throughout low-income communities.

What do economic and social conservatives have in common? A lot.

There are occasionally running debates between social and economic conservatives over the need for an alliance between the two groups. This happens most particularly in the Republican Party. Some economic conservatives are annoyed at social conservatives or at least view social issues as a nuisance. And some social conservatives believe economic issues are not that important and if they are don't necessarily subscribe to a conservative view of the issues.

I believe that both economic and social conservatism flow from a worldview rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. And in order to have a just and healthy society, both must be incorporated into social policy.

The Heritage Foundation has come out with a series of short essays on the topic entitled, "Indivisible: Social and Economic Foundations of American Liberty."

It deals with topics like the rule of law, life, free exchange, marriage, profit, family, wages, religion, international trade, culture, property, environment and education.

If we truly want a free society, one where liberty flourishes, the moral and economic components must be acted upon in society. To do so will address the most significant social problems which are generally used by the Left to promote the expansion of government involvement in all areas of life.

I would argue the Left's, big government proscriptions will ultimately not solve the problems they seek to address but will in fact make them worse. That the needs of children, the poor, the sick and vulnerable can only effectively be addressed when conservative social and economic policies and activities are acted upon. This entails for poverty fighting initiatives the encouragement of marriage, a vibrant economy, and engagement of civil organizations and individuals in assisting persons in need.

I'm excited to see the Heritage Foundation address the vital linkage between economic and social conservatives.

We can't afford the US House health care bill.

The House of Representatives was reviewed by the Heritage Foundation which in turn had an independent health care group research firm, The Lewin Group, research the impact of the plan. What did they find? A foretaste of government run health care. According to Heritage Foundation:

There are many interesting findings from the Lewin study, including that 83 million Americans will LOSE their current health insurance and move on to the government-run system while early 17 million Americans will still be uninsured. And all of this at a cost of at least $1 trillion in the first 10 years. This does not even begin to address the fact that in every country that has moved to a government-run system, health outcomes for those who fall ill are dramatically worse than in the United States.

More government, millions uninsured while costing us a trillion dollars over the next 10 years and a massive transfer of people to the federal government health care plan.

What is the answer? Restoring market forces to the current health care system and encourage people to provide their own health care through Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). And a plan to help the truly needy and less fortunate. Health care costs will never get controlled unless the market is restored or government rationing is implemented which raises the specter of all sorts of other problems. Remember, many of the problems inherent in our current health care system are due to the government.

Is religion declining or growing in American?

I recently came across an interesting talk by Princeton sociology professor Robert Wunthnow "Myths About American Religion" given at a conference sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, among others.

He discussed what he views as five myths about religion in America.

One, America is in the midst of a religious and spiritual awakening.
Two, There is no secularization [happening in the church].
Third, Politics is driving people from the church.
Fourth, Membership in evangelical denominations is growing.
Fifth, The culture war is over or never happened.

I think he's right in suggesting that general religious sentiment is not necessarily growing in America and his myths are generally on target though I think he broad brushes a couple of things too much. I do think the seeds of a spiritual awakening are present though not on a macro level in society. And his fourth myth, that membership in evangelical denominations is growing is a bit misleading because in that section he says,

None of this is to suggest that conservative Protestantism is declining or is not a vibrant factor in American religious life. It does, however, chal­lenge observers to be more nuanced in their inter­pretations. Evangelicalism is not experiencing the huge growth suggested by figures from stories about megachurches.

What are the reasons for the decline in church attendance and religious practice? The only one he gives is people are delaying getting married and because church attendance is more likely among married folks with children the numbers of people attending church is down.

I think major influence is the ubiquitous nature and influence of materialism. That in our incredible material prosperity many people have bought into the illusion that we really don't need God. That we can "do it quite well on our own thank you". We've lost sight of the fact that our blessings, both material and spiritual, ultimately come from the hand of God.

And of course, there's a philosophical aspect to this materialism or secularism which permeates our educational institutions and the broader media. It's the belief that what's really real is only what we can physically touch and experience. A spiritual realm is merely speculative at best. Religion when discussed is like any other pastime, e.g. sports, music, movies, or personal fitness. It's something people treat as a consumer product rather than addressing the fundamental questions about man's existence, e.g. what is man, why do I exist, what does God expect of me, and where do I go when I die.

Ultimately, a society can't long survive if materialism/secularism is the reigning view. It denies reality. Europe which is on the cutting edge of this materialist/secular road is a culture in decline for many reasons and most obviously evidenced by the fact that it is a culture not reproducing itself. They are a dying society.