Religion should be welcome in the public square.

Secularism seeks to marginalize religion and faith in our public life.  However, that's neither good nor possible.  Here's an insight interview with historian and legal scholar John Witte from Emory University.  He points out the myths and confusion rampant on the separation of church and state issue.

He notes that Christianity is of the backbones of our legal, political and social institutions.

Certainly in the Western legal tradition, Christianity was one of the backbones of many legal, political and social institutions that we take for granted today. At least from the 5th to the 18th century, Christianity provided many of the ideas and institutions of marriage and family, human rights and constitutionalism and more on which the Enlightenment and modern liberalism continued to build.

Our starting assumption is the opposite: that religion is often a permanent part of the infrastructure of modern law, politics and society.

The contemporary separation of church and state notion is a myth.

...the 1970s understanding of separation of church and state that said, “Religion is private; religion is dying; religion has nothing useful to say and is an illegitimate conversation partner in modern law, politics and society.”

That’s not what the Constitution demands, it’s not what the culture needs, and it’s ultimately not where religion should settle.

We need both public and private expressions of religion in all peaceable forms. Religious views should be welcomed into public life, because they provide leaven for the polity to improve, and valuable examples and practices of how to organize our lives and laws in a better way. Religions should be part of deep political conversation, and they should be taken into account as we craft our state laws and policies.

He believes the church has an important role to play in society.  A moral, ethical role.  And interestingly, the changes coming to our welfare state's approach to social concerns are inevitable - our current welfare system isn't sustainable.  The church will have to step up to the plate.

First, the church has always had the power of prophecy. The church and its clerical leadership are responsible for speaking truth to power -- enduring truths as communicated in Scripture and tradition. That prophetic role is particularly necessary during crisis moments.

Second, the church has a pedagogical role in teaching society by example, and sometimes by instruction, how to live the moral life and how to live fully in conformity with the wisdom of Scripture and the tradition.

And at least on issues of marriage and family and sexuality, on issues of charity, on education, religious freedom and human rights, the church’s record is checkered. It’s important that the church provide an alternative example of what the prophets and what Christ himself offered us and instructed us to do.

Third, the church and its leadership have a unique opportunity to play a critical role to fill in the gaps that are increasingly beginning to show in the social welfare net.

We have to recognize that in the 21st century, and into the 22nd, the social welfare state as we know it today will be no more. The capacity of the West -- even the affluent West -- to maintain the system of support that we have given to “the least of these” is going to diminish severely, if not evaporate.

The church is going to have to be one of many voluntary associations that step into the traditional role it has always played in serving, protecting, nurturing and providing for the least in society, and not relying upon the state to do that work.

Fourth, the church has in the Scriptures, and in the life of Christ, a perfect example of how to live by the letter and the spirit of the law.

One thing that the church can do is to teach society what it means to live fully and honorably by the first and the greatest commandment, which is to love God, and love your neighbor as yourself, and exemplify what that means in concrete legal, political and social terms.

Welfare state and massive budget deficits. "It's the Welfare State, Stupid!"

Here's a column, "It's the Welfare State, Stupid" by Robert Samuelson on the growing welfare state in the US and the implications of massive federal budget deficits.  Samuelson writes for the Washington Post and isn't necessarily viewed as a member of the conservative camp.  As a finance and economics man he simply realizes that we need to get to a balanced budget, so we don't bankrupt the nation.  One essential ingredient is cutting back government spending. A big area is welfare spending.

If you doubt there's an American welfare state, you should read the new study by demographer Nicholas Eberstadt, whose blizzard of numbers demonstrates otherwise. A welfare state transfers income from some people to other people to improve the recipients' well-being. In 1935, these transfers were less than 3 percent of the economy; now they're almost 20 percent. That's $7,200 a year for every American, calculates Eberstadt. He says that nearly 40 percent of these transfers aim to relieve poverty (through Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance and the like), while most of the rest goes to the elderly (mainly through Social Security and Medicare).

By all means, let's avoid the "fiscal cliff": the $500 billion in tax increases and federal spending cuts scheduled for early 2013 that, if they occurred, might trigger a recession. But let's recognize that we still need to bring the budget into long-term balance. This can't be done only by higher taxes on the rich, which seem inevitable. Nor can it be done by deep cuts in defense and domestic "discretionary" programs (from highways to schools), which are already happening. It requires controlling the welfare state. In 2011, "payments for individuals," including health care, constituted 65 percent of federal spending, up from 21 percent in 1955. That's the welfare state.

 A problem with the welfare programs is they become corrupted.  They stray from their original purpose.

Granting the welfare state's virtues -- the safety net alleviates poverty and cushions the effects of recessions -- it's time to pose some basic questions. Who deserves support? How much? How long? How much compassion can society afford?

Programs have strayed from their original purpose. Take Social Security. Created to prevent destitution among the elderly, it now subsidizes the comfortable. The Wall Street Journal recently ran a story about a couple (he 66, she 70) touring the world. They've visited London, Paris, Florence and Buenos Aires. Their financial adviser sends them $6,000 a month from investments and proceeds from their home sale. They also receive Social Security. How much? They don't say. My hunch: between $25,000 and $50,000 a year. (I emailed the couple for details but received no reply.)

Is this what Franklin Roosevelt intended? Should Social Security be tilted more toward the less affluent? Good questions, but politicians rarely ask them. Anyone who does risks being attacked as hard-hearted.

Welfare programs tend to expand. Advocacy groups discover coverage "gaps." Economic downturns understandably sow sympathy for the needy. Arcane eligibility rules are liberalized. In 2010, a fifth of food stamp recipients had incomes exceeding twice the federal poverty line (about $45,000 for a family of four), estimates a study by David Armor and Sonia Sousa of George Mason University.

 And the dangers of welfare?  Samuelson references a scholar from the American Enterprise Institute.

Eberstadt, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, sees three dangers in the welfare state's unchecked growth.

First, it squeezes other government programs. This is already happening. President Obama's budget assumes that defense spending, as a share of the economy, falls 39 percent from 2011 to 2022. The Army is to drop by 80,000 soldiers, the Marines, 20,000. Domestic "discretionary" spending is cut even more, 45 percent. Research, education, transportation, law enforcement and other programs face pressures.

Second, it undermines work incentives. This, too, is occurring. Social Security's eligibility ages influence retirement. If eligibility were higher, people would work longer. Eberstadt thinks that relaxed disability requirements have lowered work effort. In 2011, about 4.5 percent of working-age adults (20-64) received Social Security disability benefits, up from 1.3 percent in 1970.

Finally, there's a moral cost. It encourages "gaming" the system to maximize benefits. It devalues the ethic of "earned success." There's tension between helping the truly needy and fostering dependence on government and helplessness.

 What needs to happen, according to Samuelson?

The welfare state's great contradiction -- the reason its politics are so messy -- is that what seems good for the individual is not, when multiplied by thousands or millions of cases, always good for society. Politicians appeal to individuals who vote, but in doing so may shortchange the nation. Most obviously: The welfare state's costs may depress economic growth.

The need is not to dismantle the welfare state but to modernize it gradually, preserving its virtues, minimizing its vices and not doing it abruptly so as to derail the recovery. But first we need to admit it exists.

The result of Obama and significant liberal gains in Congress? Major shift towards welfare, nanny state and loss of freedom and prosperity.

Gary Bauer's "End of the Day" report reveals the reality of the Obama tax cut proposal. Bauer quotes from WSJ and Washington Times articles pointing out the massive redistribution of wealth consequences of Obama's supposed middle class tax cut.

The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times today published articles about Barack Obama’s plan to offer “tax cuts to 95% of working families.” Both articles concluded that the Obama plan is a massive shell-game, redistributing income from one group to another group, similar to welfare. Here’s why: According to various independent analyses, the Obama “tax cuts” would send government checks to millions of households that pay no federal income tax. By any rational definition, that’s not a tax cut – it’s welfare!

According to the Tax Foundation, under current law, there will be “47 million tax returns with zero-income tax liability in 2009… That's one-third of all tax returns and those 47 million tax returns represent 96 million individuals." The Heritage Foundation estimates that “by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.” And the Tax Policy Center found that the government payments for such “refundable tax credits” will balloon to more than $1 trillion in ten years.

In addition, the Wall Street Journal reports that because many of Obama’s “tax credits” are phased out as you earn more, they become a “disincentive to working harder” for many middleclass workers who take on extra overtime or a second job. According to the Journal’s analysis, “Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned.”

How does Obama pay for this plan to give “tax cuts” to people who do not currently pay income taxes? He raids Social Security. The Washington Times report notes, “The Obama campaign dismisses such criticism, arguing that even if many working taxpayers owe no income taxes, they pay Social Security payroll taxes out of their earnings.” So to afford government payments to folks who do not pay incomes taxes, the Obama plan will further erode the solvency of Social Security.

Campaigning in Ohio yesterday, Obama was asked about his tax plan by a plumber, who said, “Do you believe in the American dream? I’m being taxed more and more for fulfilling the American dream.” Obama’s answer was very revealing. He told this plumber, “It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

“Spreading the wealth” and mandating equality of results is socialism, my friends. Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. What government should do is create an environment where there is equal opportunity for everyone to succeed on their own merits and ability.

If Obama is successful on the tax front as well as on the health care and other social fronts, we'll see a decidedly leftward shift in our economic and political culture. Such a shift would accelerate our move towards the European welfare state model and mean a loss of freedoms and prosperity.

Europe is clearly on the road to economic, social and political decline. Their populations are declining which steams from a collectivist, narcissistic view of life. There is little hope for the future which is revealed most vividly the lack of children. They are driven by a desire for security, exemplified by their cradle to the grave welfare system. The only problem is this system is built on sand which can not be sustained. (There are fewer and fewer taxpayers to keep funding their system.)

An Obama victory with significant liberal majorities in Congress will mean an accelerated shift towards the European welfare model rather than the slow drift we've witnessed in recent decades. Again the cost is clear. Less freedom and less prosperity for Americans.