The Republican party has a “P-factor” of its own which cannot be ignored.

Say what you will about Ron Paul.  He is and will be a factor in the 2012 presidential election.  He will not win the GOP nomination.  He is running to advance his core beliefs and he must be heard within the party or he will be heard as an independent outside the party.  This would virtually assure Obama’s reelection.

A simple pat on the head will not satisfy Ron Paul, nor should it.

A speaking slot at the convention will not satisfy Ron Paul, nor should it.

He will not be satisfied with the promise from the eventual nominee that he will audit the Federal Reserve or set up a commission to study going back to the gold standard as Newt Gingrich has suggested.

A commission is a way to kick the can further down the road.  President Reagan set up a commission on gold in the early 80′s. Dr. Paul was a member.  Been there: Done that.

If Gingrich is sincere about looking at a return to the gold standard, all he has to do is read Paul’s book, “The Case for Gold.”    It will set him back $5.

On January 25, Romney, in an interview with Lawrence Kudlow on CNBC, hedged:  “I’m happy to look at a whole range of ideas on how to have greater stability in our currency and in our monetary policies. I know that, in the past when we had a gold standard, the idea that somehow it was detached from or free from any interference by Congress was simply wrong because, even with the gold standard, someone has to decide what is the conversion rate between the gold and the dollar.”

Santorum, is willing to audit the Fed but believes we need it.

Clearly, Dr. Paul is not going to settle for empty promises on these issues.

None of the other candidates are likely to embrace Dr. Paul’s foreign policy prescriptions or his stand on prostitution or drug use.

Is there any ironclad  promise that Dr. Paul could extract that would be meaningful and move the country a giant-step in the right direction?

There is one such issue that would be extremely popular with votes of all political stripes.  It would be consistent with GOP promises to balance the budget and it would virtually assure that the GOP nominee win the election.  It needs no explanation: End all business subsidies.  That means no more taxpayer-funded loans, grants, targeted tax breaks or outright cash to private entities.  No more picking winners and losers!

It is ludicrous to expect that a group of politicians, with little or no business experience, doling out favors, will do better than individual investors.  Even if they could, it would be wrong.

If the companies on the receiving end of the government largess lose money or go bust, we lose.  If these companies make money, the companies keep the money and reward shareholders.  We still lose.  What is the point in that?

End corporate welfare such as the Advanced Technology Program, Small Business Innovative Research Program, the Export-Import Bank, federal crop subsidy programs, fishery promotion and development subsidies,  the Overseas Private Investment Bank, rural business grants, community development block grants and services, commercial space transportation grants, essential air services payments, fossil energy and green energy research and development loans and grants, the Coal Research Initiative, railroad research and development and high-speed rail.  I could go on and on but you get the idea.

Why should we take money from waitresses, auto mechanics and store clerks and give it to companies like IBM, General Electric, Honeywell, Xerox and Dow Chemical?  If these folks invest their own money in these companies, they can expect a return.   When the government invests their money in these very same companies, all they get is a higher tax bill.

Let’s face it.  Corporate welfare is a win-win for elected representatives and their large political donors.  It’s a lose-lose for taxpayers.

Obama is always defining and redefining the term “fairness.”  End payments, loans, subsidies and targeted tax brakes to private business.  Let them sink or swim on their own.  This is a definition of fairness that all of us can understand.

Ron Paul is in a perfect position to extract a pound of flesh and this is a pound of political flesh worth pursuing.   I hope he hangs tough and does just that.

This column is not an endorsement of Mitt Romney, but it is a call to serious reflection.  That attitude is un-American.  It is also dangerous, particularly so in this election.  Four more years under an unrestrained Barack Obama and we will not be able to recognize this country.  In the name of “social justice,” he is committed to leading us down the road to his verison of a socialist utopia.

What if Mitt Romney is the GOP nominee?  A Gallop Poll released last summer found that 18 percent of Americans would not consider voting for a Mormon for president.   In 2008, Barack Obama won by a margin of only 7.2 percent.

Does that mean that the 18 percent would then vote for Barack Obama who claims to be a Christian?  I can claim to be a tree but until I sprout leaves, all you have are a few empty words.

In 1988, some 10,000 people in southern California gathered on a workday to march on Universal Studios to protest the film “The Last Temptation of Christ.”  Among the speakers who stood shoulder to shoulder with some giants in Christendom was Jewish scholar Dennis Prager, an author and radio host.   Prager condemned Universal Studios for putting out this blasphemous film that denigrated Christianity and he urged all people of faith to stand together as one against attacks of this nature.   He correctly stated, “The problems in this country are not between people of different faiths, but between people of faith and a growing secularism that threatens to take over religion itself. ”

People of faith may not share the same theology but, the last time I checked, Christians, Jews –and, yes Mormons — all share the same value system and the same set of Ten Commandments.

For too long, people of faith, and Christians in particular, have been lulled to sleep politically by anyone who claimed to be a member of the “right” church.  He or she, in effect, had their religious ticket stamped.  We elected them, hit the snooze button and they robbed us blind.  How is that working out for you?

Furthermore, the country lost its moral grounding.  Despite what you may have heard, there is no such thing as a value-free law.  Every bill that is passed represents someone’s set of values. The Bible warns us not to judge someone’s faith commitment.  Nevertheless, we are to “test all things” and expose “evil deeds of darkness.”

It wasn’t that long ago that many Protestants were afraid to vote for a Catholic for president for fear that the pope would be the defacto ruler of the country.  Now, we are hearing the same kind of thing about Mitt Romney and the LDS president or prophet of the church.

Another, concern is that a Mormon president may mean more Mormon converts.  Was there a surge of Catholic converts after the election of JFK?

Are Mormon’s more likely to vote for Mitt Romney because of his faith?   Perhaps. Bear in mind, they only represent 2 percent of our population.

One thing is sure.  Mormons are more likely to vote Republican as are deeply religious people of all faiths.  They are also more likely to oppose abortion.  A full 74 percent of Mormons are resolutely opposed to this practice.

Far more troubling than Mitt Romney’s faith should be his commitment to the moral principles contained in the Bible.  While Romney has given lip-service to these principles, his actions often tell a different story.   The same could be said of Newt Gingrich who changes faiths as often as he changes wives.

One of the moral principles that should unite everyone is the Eighth Commandment: “Thou shall not steal.”  Ah, there is a rub.  Many of the problems we have in this country — from the housing crisis to the national debt — are related to stealing, or taking the public’s money under false pretenses.

This has to stop!  When you lose the ability to control a fair portion of what you earn, freedom is only an illusion.
In addition to a man (or woman) of strong moral character, the nation needs a president who knows how to run a business and understands foreign policy.

It is clear.  There is no perfect candidate in the Republican field.   However, short of a brokered convention, one of the four men still standing will be the GOP nominee.  Let’s not rule one of them out simply because he is not a member of our faith.

Monday night, in the GOP presidential debate in South Carolina, Newt Gingrich used one of those four-letter words.  He did not get bleeped.  In fact, he got a standing ovation after using it again and again and again.  The word was W-O-R-K.

Over the years, the left has demonized those of us who would dare use this word in a polite discussion of poverty and welfare, so much so that most people simply have eliminated it from their vocabulary.  

In these difficult economic times, those who work may, in fact, feel guilty.

Furthermore, those who have benefitted from the fruits of their labor are viewed as suspect individuals. Surely, they have done something wrong.  They have taken advantage of the poor and downtrodden.  They are greedy, uncaring, heartless.

In this GOP debate, the discussion of poverty ultimately led to the fact that black Americans are disproportionately represented in this category.

Then came the seminal moment:  Fox’s Juan Williams chided Gingrich for having said that black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps. Williams pounced.  “You also said poor kids lack a strong work ethic and proposed having them work as janitors in their schools. Can’t you see that this is viewed, at a minimum, as insulting to all Americans, but particularly to black Americans?”

Gingrich said one of his daughters recently reminded him that her first job, at 13, was a janitor at a church, and she liked earning that money.  Gingrich went on to point out that if schools allowed poor kids to work as janitors those kids would be “a lot less likely to drop out. They would actually have money in their pocket. They’d learn to show up for work. They could do light janitorial duty. They could work in the cafeteria. They could work in the front office. They could work in the library. They’d be getting money, which is a good thing if you’re poor. Only the elites despise earning money.”

Williams then suggested that Gingrich’s comments about lack of a work ethic and calling President Obama the “Food Stamp President” were, if fact, “intended to belittle the poor and racial minorities.”
Gingrich’s bottom line was this: “(E)very American of every background has been endowed by their Creator with the right to pursue happiness. And if that makes liberals unhappy, I’m going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job and learn some day to own the job.”

The beauty of the free market system is that it is not a zero-sum game.  The poor in this country are not poor (as class warfare liberals would have them believe) because someone else is rich.

The great War on Poverty created more poverty, largely because it began subsidizing the very things that cause poverty.  One of the great laws of government that every citizen should learn is this:   The more you subsidize something the more you get of it.

In this debate, Rick Santorum had previously pointed to a 2009 study done by the left-leaning Brookings Institution which found that poverty can be avoided by doing three simple things: “work, graduate from high school and get married before having children.”

In 1996, Gingrich and Santorum worked to reform welfare by taking the AFDC program, now called TANF, and putting a time limit on it and tying it to job training and work.  It dramatically reduced the welfare rolls and the number of children living in poverty.

Unfortunately, due to pressure from liberals, food stamps and roughly 70 other welfare programs spread among 13 government agencies were left untouched.  Furthermore, this reform program had holes in it big enough to drive a Mack truck through.  It wasn’t long before those who were the products of generational poverty – without a strong work ethic – discovered the holes and the welfare rolls began to rise again.

Currently we are spending some $900 billion a year on welfare programs.   That’s four times what it would take to lift every family out of poverty and more than we spend on national defense.  It’s the fastest growing portion of our budget and, if left unchecked, will bankrupt this country.

Uncontrolled government spending destroys jobs that the poor need in order to have their shot at the American dream.  They also need a strong w— ethic.  There’s that four-letter word again.  No successful welfare program should be without it.

That should be the headline the day after the new president takes over next January.  Chapter 11 is not bankruptcy, per se,  it is a chance to reorganize.

When a business is unable to service its debt or pay its creditors, the business or its creditors can file with a federal bankruptcy court for protection while this reorganization takes place.   During this process, all existing contracts may be cancelled and assets are sold in an attempt to put the company on the road to recovery.   This week, we learned that the U.S. debt is now equal to the size of the entire U.S. economy.  

It’s time for the U.S. to, in effect, file for Chapter 11.  The new president, acting as trustee for the people, should step in and do the necessary due diligence before the creditors like China get their turn.

The one man with the experience to do just that is Mitt Romney.  Unfortunately, with Romney in the White House, that is unlikely to happen.  His economic plan is timid.  He wants to lower government spending to 20 percent of GDP down from 24 percent.  That takes us in the right direction but it’s not enough.  Historically, tax revenue comes in at around 18 percent of GDP so where does that leave us?  Still, in debt up to our eyeballs.   This has to stop!

The country is in big economic trouble.  This is not the time to tinker around the edges.  It’s a time to go bold.

Most of the other GOP candidates have better plans for putting our economic house in order and boosting the economy.   However – with the exception of Ron Paul –  given their past records and recent remarks denigrating capitalism, one can no longer take them seriously.

Newt Gingrich’s attacks on Romney’s record at Bain Capital, directly and through a super pack financed by a Las Vegas casino owner, is disappointing and outright disgusting.  Clearly, he is throwing the biggest temper tantrum in political history or he has forgotten everything he ever knew about the free market system.

Unfortunately, Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry have followed suit.  Huntsman’s only business experience is working for daddy’s company.    Perry, who has a good record as a Texas governor and an excellent economic plan, is shooting himself in the foot.   All three political campaigns should implode.

Bain Capital, under Romney, made money for its investors by providing cash for promising young companies and by buying failing and underperforming businesses and trying to turn them around.
Bain’s goal was to build successful companies.   What’s wrong with that?  That’s what drives capitalism. When companies succeed, they make money.  When they succeed, jobs are created.   However,  the jobs that are created are a natural by-product, not the driving force behind the investment of sweat and capital.
Did some of those companies Bain invested in fail?  Of course. However, many of those underperforming and failing companies were revitalized. According to a Wall Street Journal study on Bain during Romney’s 15 year tenure, 22 percent of the companies Bain invested in either filed for bankruptcy, reorganization or closed their doors by the end of the eighth year.  Another eight percent lost all of the money that Bain had invested in them.

Say what you will, that’s an excellent record!.  Furthermore, studies show that buyout firms during that period, on average, bailed out of their investments at the end of 5 ½ years so Bain worked with its companies harder and longer than most.

If Bain hadn’t bought some of those distressed companies, most likely those companies would have failed on their own.  But what about all those employees that were able to keep their jobs at the companies Bain revitalized?  What about all the people that were hired as a result of Bain’s other investments?

Just last week, we learned that Eastman Kodak, an American icon, is restructuring hoping to keep bankruptcy at bay.   This week, it is being reported that Hostess Foods, the maker of Wonder Bread and Twinkies, is getting ready to file for Chapter 11.   Who will step into to rescue the U.S. before it is too late?

Clearly, Romney has the business experience to do what is necessary to turn this country around. If only he had the will.  If Romney had shown the will to do the kind of heavy lifting he did at Bain and run this country like a business, his poll numbers would not be stuck in the  25-30 percent range.

Nevertheless, Romney’s business record is one of accomplishment.  The other candidates should not be faulting him for that.  In doing so, they show their own stupidity.  Who can trust them now?

Does a leopard change its spots?  Does a tiger change its strips?

Newt Gingrich is what you might call a striped leopard or a spotted tiger.  When it comes to what some see as the impending doom of climate change, the former speaker of the House is trying to have it both ways.

On December 20, at a campaign stop in Iowa, he looked more like a deer than a leopard or tiger –  a deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming vehicle.   When confronted by a woman who expressed concern about a chapter on climate change being written for his post election book on the environment by climate change apologist Katherine Hayhoe, Newt began backpedaling. “That’s not going to be in the book,” he said.  “We didn’t know that they were doing that, and we told them to kill it.”

Ah, the proverbial “we.”  Who are/is the we?  The book’s editor, some unknown puppeteer who is out of sight pulling all the strings or Gingrich himself? 

“Climate change” is the term now used by doomsayers in the scientific community instead of “global warming” to scare us out of our hard-earned cash.  It incorporates global warming and everything else that is or could be affected by greenhouse gas emissions.  As temperatures around the globe continue to go down, the amount of this spending is harder to justify.

The climate changes. It is a fact of nature.  Do we need to spend billions in this country and even more around the globe to protect us against this reality?  Hayhoe believes we do.  If we didn’t, she would have to look for more productive work.

College professors like Hayhoe do very little, if any, teaching anymore.  They spend their waking hours researching the obvious.  This drives up the cost of higher education, government and –  as more and more regulations are handed down – the cost of most everything we buy.

When it comes to securing government grants, Hayhoe is a rain maker for Texas Tech University.   Let’s be clear about just how much money she and her cohorts are taking out of the public treasury. It’s over $4 billion a year and it increases every year at an alarming rate.  The National Science Foundation leads this gravy train, followed by the Department of Energy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Air and Space Administration, the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Administration and the US Department of Agriculture.

Isn’t NASA about space exploration and the DOA about farming?  As space exploration fell out of favor and it became harder to justify a Department of Agriculture, the bureaucrats in these agencies began jumping onto the latest cause du jour.  Who can blame them?   Is the government giving out any grant money to climate change skeptics?

Hayhoe pitched a temper tantrum via Twitter when she learned that her work had been unceremoniously eliminated from the Gingrich book. “Among climate scientists—people who spend their lives researching our world—there is no debate regarding the reality of climate change and the fact that humans are the primary cause.”  She blamed talk-show hosts for perpetuating the idea that there is no scientific consensus on this issue.

What is scientific consensus?

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument and it is not part of the scientific method.

However, Hayhoe’s outlandish claim went further than most scientists would dare.

Those scientists who value their credibility will say only that there is a consensus that human activity is a “significant factor,” not a primary factor or even a major factor.

What is significant?   Five percent or even 10 percent?   And, does that justify borrowing billions of dollars to finance all these unrelated, duplicative studies or passing draconian regulations that cripple our economy so that Hayhoe and her friends can live large and feel good about themselves?

Climate Depot has a list of more than 1,000 dissenting scientists from around the globe who have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. These dissenting

No doubt there will be many more peer reviewed articles and national and international gatherings of those who are at the feeding trough of the green extreme who will reach “consensus” on this issue.  It is in their economic best interest to do so.  It is bunk!

Remember, the more you subsidize something, the more you are going to get of it.   Stop!

After three years of an economic downturn there seems to be no light at the end of this tunnel. The economy is now on life support and many are struggling to hang on. Who knows how long this will last?

For we need a little Christmas

Right this very minute,

Candles in the window,

Carols at the spinet.

This song from the musical Mame was sung by the madcap protagonist who had just lost her fortune in the stock market crash of 1929. It easily could have been written today for it sums up our feelings in 2011.

For I’ve grown a little leaner,

Grown a little colder,

Grown a little sadder,

Grown a little older,

And I need a little angel

Sitting on my shoulder,

Need a little Christmas now.

The problem is that no matter how much we party, once the presents are unwrapped and the decorations disappear, the feelings of despair are sure to return. That’s the trouble with having just “a little Christmas.”

We need a big Christmas this year. Not the kind of Christmas that is based on parties, feasting and presents. We need to focus on the reason for the season.

Mankind was lost, separated from a holy God, with no hope of reconciliation. God sent His son, Jesus, to earth to be born in the most humble of circumstances, in a lowly manger, in order to show us how to live. But He did so much more than that. He became the unblemished sacrifice for our sins in order to provide for our eternal security.

What an indescribable gift! Nothing else can come close.

The God who created the universe “emptied Himself” and came to earth, “taking the form of a servant.” Furthermore, “He humbled himself becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

If this amazing Christmas story had ended right there, we would be left without hope for “there is none righteous, no not one.”

Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to His disciples and more than 500 witnesses before He ascended to Heaven to take His place at the right hand of God the Father.

There is nothing we can do to earn His gift of salvation. It is “the gift of God – not by works so that no one can boast.” Ephesians 2:9

Romans 10:9 shows us how to receive this gift: “If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from death, you will be saved.”

As promised, Jesus left His Holy Spirit to draw us to Him. Nothing else can fill the vacuum that is within each and every one of us. You can try to fill it with things, with other people and with good works. It will still be there until you reach out and accept this indescribable gift of life.

Once you accept this gift, His Spirit will be there to protect you and guide you through this life so that you can finish the race here on earth victorious. It is the same Spirit of God that endowed Israel’s heroes with their extraordinary strength and gave the prophets their wisdom.

Our Christmas cards speak of peace and joy, but it’s the kind of peace and joy that doesn’t depend of the circumstance of the moment. It comes from the Spirit that permanently indwells believers and transforms us from within giving us the courage to face tomorrow, no matter what tomorrow brings.

So, this year, don’t simply decorate your home. Decorate your life. Don’t settle for a little Christmas. Take hold of the real thing!

What’s holding you back from reaching out and accepting His indescribable gift? If you think that by doing so, it might spoil some of your fun, think again. Remember, Jesus said in John 10:10, “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.”

Wishing you peace and joy this Christmas, the peace and joy that only comes from following Him.

The very last thing we need is a new government agency micromanaging the financial decisions of banks, businesses and individuals. We already have seven powerful entities tasked with the oversight of the banking, lending and investment industries.

We have the Federal Reserve. We have the Comptroller of the Currency. We have the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. We have the Securities and Exchange Commission. We have the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. We have the National Credit Union Administration and the Federal Housing Finance Agency. They have done such a wonderful job. Just look at the mess we’re in!

Now, the Obama Administration and the Democrats have given us a new, onerous, unaccountable regulatory agency with virtually unlimited power to control all of our money that isn’t hidden under a rock somewhere. It’s called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. If you are the least bit familiar with Washington, the name alone is enough to leave you shaking in your boots.

The CFPB was created in much the same way as ObamaCare. The Dems rammed it through in 2010, when they had a lock on both houses of Congress.

The CEPB was hatched by the Dodd-Frank Act which is supposed to protect us from ourselves and prevent the kind of problems that led to the housing bubble which caused the largest financial collapse since the Great Depression. Ironically, it was named for two of the elected representatives who blocked the very reforms that would have prevented the crises in the first place — the same two individuals who were at the epicenter of the housing crisis and who profited from the lending industry.

With these two foxes in the chicken coop, who can be surprised that their cure is worse than any financial disease we might imagine?

Although the CFPB officially opened its doors in July, it is prevented by law from imposing its onerous new regulations until a director is confirmed by the Senate. In an effort to force Democrats to enact much needed reforms that would make the bureau somewhat accountable to the American people, the Republican minority has been blocking the confirmation of Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, Obama’s choice to run the CFPB.

With the holidays upon us, the public is not paying attention and Obama is content to run out the clock. When Congress goes home, he has indicated that he will make a recess appointment. At that point, there will be no turning back.

Once Cordray is placed in office, this one man will have the unbridled power to regulate consumer financial products and services previously regulated by the seven regulatory authorities listed above. There is virtually no check on his power as with the other regulatory bodies controlled by boards or that have budgets controlled by Congress.

As created, the CFPB is an independent bureau within the Federal Reserve System. Its status within the Fed effectively shields it from presidential oversight but the Fed is statutorily prohibited from “intervening” in the affairs of the CFPB. Furthermore, the CFPB can demand up to 10 percent of the Fed’s budget or about $600 million a year to do with as it pleases.

Technically, the CFPB can be overruled by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (another creation of Dodd-Frank) if its action would endanger the “safety and soundness of the United States banking system or the financial system of the United States.” A tall order to be sure and made even taller with the requirement that any veto of the bureau’s action must be approved by two-thirds of the council’s 10-member board. Fat chance!

Interestingly, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two major contributors to the housing meltdown and large contributors to Dodd’s and Frank’s re-election campaigns, are explicitly exempt from CFPB oversight.

Can Obama be persuaded to forgo this recess appointment until needed reforms can be made to insure that the CFPB does not end up hurting consumers and the economy by limiting our choice in financial products and services and by driving small businesses out of the marketplace? Unlikely!

If you like the Federal Reserve System, you will love the new CFPB!

Every year, the Federal Reserve returns the excess funds from its earnings to the Treasury. Under Dodd-Frank the CFPB is funded out of that excess. Even without a director, the CFPB already has requested $329 million.

This Christmas, the CFPB will be an expensive gift from the Democrats and the Obama Administration to the American people that just keeps on giving.

Enjoy!

Would you sell out your country for a million dollars, a billion perhaps? What is the freedom that you now enjoy really worth? If you had a cool billion in your pocket, would you be willing to take your chances in another part of the world, under a dictator perhaps?

What about the future of your children? Okay, I will admit to considering this question on one of their really bad days, but let’s be serious. Most of us wouldn’t take a billion to trash the future of our own flesh and blood. And Granny? You’ve got to be kidding!

Nevertheless, President Barack Obama, most Democrats and, sadly, many Republican leaders think you are willing to sell out your country, your kids and Granny for a mere thousand bucks.

This is crazy but it is on the table, and the politics of extending the payroll-tax holiday in the run-up to the new year seems to be working.

What are they thinking? What are we thinking?

The problem is most of us aren’t giving this much thought at all.

Allowing the debate on extending this short-term stimulus to be framed as a tax cut is just plain wrong. The Social Security money deducted from your payroll is for your government-run retirement plan. It’s not a very good plan. You don’t have any choice in the matter so, technically, it is a tax, but not in the traditional sense.

You pay this money into the program and you expect it to be returned when you retire. However, we should be paying more, not less, in order to sustain this program.

Most Americans understand that Social Security is going broke. The average worker who retired last year will get back, $72,000 more than he paid into the system. The average married couple who retired last year will get back $300,000 more than they paid into the system.

We might have covered the shortfall if the money collected from Social Security recipients really had been put in a trust fund earning interest or properly invested, but that didn’t happen. Congresses robbed that trust fund in order to cover their penchant for overspending. All we have left in the so-called trust fund is a bunch of worthless IOU’s.

In a few short years, Social Security will be taking in a lot less than it will be paying out. Therefore, allowing working Americans to pay less, even in the short term, is not helping to sustain this system.

Another payroll-tax holiday may be a small help to those people who have jobs but it does very little to help those who need jobs.

The whole idea of a short-term stimulus is wrong-headed. Historically, short-term stimulus measures never turn out very well.

The economists who try to tell us that the payroll-tax holiday prevented a worse recession are straining at gnats trying to prove a negative. Furthermore, their calculations are based on the idea that every worker went out and spent every penny. Many of those workers wisely used their extra cash to pay down credit card debt.

The average worker received about $1,000 extra in their paychecks over the course of a year. Hardly a windfall. That’s roughly $19 per week. It’s enough to buy the family a meal at McDonald’s, nothing more. While McDonald’s may be hiring – and that’s a good thing – this does not produce the kind of jobs that are needed in the long term.

This temporary stimulus produced little bang for the buck, and those bucks that were spent on the payroll-tax holiday worsened the Social Security shortfall and added to our behemoth national debt.

Is Granny more secure? Is the country more secure? Are your children more secure?

Presently, the government has to borrow 40 cents on every dollar it spends and the majority of those dollars are borrowed from the Communist Chinese who are not our friends.

What the economy needs – what businesses need – is economic certainty, not a new tax on the job creators. The last thing we need is more borrowing because the borrower will become a servant to the lender.

Obama and the Democrats are offering a bribe for your vote for a mere $1,000 to $1500. Unfortunately, this has Republican leaders shaking in their boots. The end result is likely to be more debt making your future, your children’s future and Granny’s future less secure.

Are you really going to fall for this?

In the past, I and many others gave him the benefit of doubt. The sexual harassment claims against him that were settled by the National Restaurant Association appeared frivolous at best. Sharon Bialek’s assertion was a “he said, she said” and appeared to be financially and politically motivated. However, Ginger White’s allegation that she carried on a13-year affair with Cain, backed up with records of telephone and text messages, is troubling. At best, it is a case of poor judgment on his part and there is no wiggle room in that.

Mr. Cain, in addition to his many business accomplishments, is an associate minister. I have been present when he delivered the devotion. This man knows the Word of God and the Word says that you are to avoid even the appearance of evil. Also, you are to flee situations that might lead you into temptation.

Like Mr. Cain, I have been married over 40 years. As a broadcaster, I traveled frequently. However, I did not make a habit of dining alone with a member of the opposite sex. While on the road, I ate in my room or with a group. On rare occasions, I have grabbed a quick bite with a colleague in a brightly lit restaurant but would go to the trouble of phoning my husband beforehand to tell him what I was doing and would phone him again when safely back in my room. That is just what you do if you take those admonitions in the Bible seriously!

To add insult to injury, Cain’s attorney, Lin Wood, lectured reporters telling them they had no right to ask his client about these allegations:

“This is not an accusation of harassment in the workplace… this is not an accusation of an assault . . . Rather, this appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults — a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public.

“No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life.”

Wood could not be more wrong!

We are talking about elevating this man to the highest office in the land. We can overlook Cane’s foreign policy lapses. No one person can be expect to know everything about every issue he or she will encounter as president. However, this is an office where only those people who have demonstrated the highest character and good judgment should apply.

No one has to get married. However, those who do, take a vow to remain faithful to a spouse. There is no greater commitment on earth. We, rightfully, put our commitment to our spouse and our family second only to our commitment to God. Now I ask you, would a person who cheats on his or her spouse be more or less likely to cheat on his or her country?

You know the answer to that. Yet we frequently make excuses for philanderers in public office because we bet the farm on them. They are our guy so we bury our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn’t matter.

It does matter!

It is ironic that much of Cain’s support has gone to the thrice-married Newt Gingrich. No one is perfect. We all make mistakes and to Gingrich’s credit he has been up front about his. However, most people learn from their mistakes and, if they are sincere, they don’t stay in a mistake or keep on making the same mistakes.

Gingrich cheated on, not one, but two wives. Furthermore, while married to wife number two, he carried on an affair with his present wife for five long years while Speaker of the House during the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

Little wonder that Gingrich ultimately was forced out of office by his own party!

We have had presidents who were known adulterers, but never a first lady. It could happen. There is no law against it but, right or wrong, we tend to put our first ladies on pedestals. Would the country accept such a first lady?

You can forget those dream debates. Obama would love to run against Newt Gingrich.

Make no mistake. There is no perfect candidate. Never has been; never will be. However, character and good judgment should be the very least we demand from a man or woman seeking the highest and most important office in our land.

In the years that followed, days of thanksgiving were solemn yet joyful occasions. Hard work was a fact of life but no guarantee that a family would have the necessities needed to survive. Our ancestors understood that they could plant and plow but only God could make things grow.

This was a time when those with plenty willingly shared their provisions with the less fortunate, ever mindful of God’s admonition, “If you shut your ears to the cries of the poor; you, too, will cry out and not be heard.”

In the early years of our country, nothing was taken for granted and the fittest and bravest were not ashamed to bow the knee.

Today, thankfulness has been replaced by a sense of entitlement and the Thanksgiving holiday has become little more than an excuse to overindulge. We prepare the traditional turkey and pies. We may volunteer for a few hours to serve free meals, but this is largely to satisfy our own needs, not to meet a real need in the community.

Robert Rector, the poverty expert at the Heritage Foundation, pointed out to me that much of what is done today in the name of Christian charity isn’t even Christian. A handout without a hand up is meaningless, even harmful. In fact, the Bible says, “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”

Ironically, the biggest health problem we have among those classified as “poor” in this country is obesity. We give people in this category free food. Meanwhile, the “poor” with school age children can’t be bothered to get off their couches and pack lunches for them. Why should they? We turn around and give their children free breakfasts and lunches and, in many areas, dinner.

While listening to a local talk show, I heard an Iraqi immigrant express his frustration with what has become the new “American way.” This young man had become a citizen, worked, saved and started a small trucking company. He works long hours to provide for his family but nets about $40,000 a year and has a hard time making ends meet. He complained that his brother-in-law refused to work a 40-hour week in order to qualify for free health care, food stamps, free preschool for his kids, and a host of other goodies that this small business owner works to provide. This man’s frustration was that his deadbeat brother-in-law lives better than he does with no worries.

Is this an isolated situation? Hardly! Recently, Rector and Rachel Sheffield produced a study on the state of poverty in America. The average “poor” household in the U.S. has a car or two, lives in a house or apartment in good repair with more square footage than that of the average European. These homes have all the modern conveniences, including air conditioning and cable TV. In fact, the average poor family has two color televisions, a DVD player and VCR. If there are children in the home, most have a gaming system as well.

These are hard times. Many otherwise responsible, hardworking citizens have lost their jobs, their homes and their hope as a result of a government that is sucking the very life’s blood out of the economy in order to take over the responsibilities once left to individuals and charities.

Many have been forced into the welfare system they once shunned. If left there long enough they, too, will lose their skills, their initiative and their pride.

It is little wonder that, with many, an attitude of gratitude has been replaced by an attitude of entitlement. It is little wonder, that a willingness to share part of what we have with those less fortunate has be replaced by a feeling of resentment.

This is unfortunate because there are many Christian charities that still offer a hand up. The good ones take no government money. They are truly doing the Lord’s work, but struggle to survive.

There are those who are hopelessly lost in a sea of despair, whose lives will never be restored by a government handout or program.

We need to remind ourselves why this holiday was created and, with an attitude of gratitude, thank God for the blessings that only He can provide.