Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Social Issues vs. Fiscal Issues

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
If you have not done so, please participate in our Patty Murray survey. It's interesting to watch the percentages remain somewhat constant while participation continues very strong.

Following the November 2008 election, Secretary of State Sam Reed wrote an op-ed piece strongly suggesting that in order to win, the Republican Party should move away from the so-called "social issues" that have become divisive. He pointed to himself and Attorney General Rob McKenna as examples.

Last week, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, (R.) said the next president, "Would have to call a truce on so-called social issues."

Can social issues and fiscal issues really be divorced from one another in regard to the health and well being of our country and communities?

Our Founding Fathers certainly did not believe that, nor have our truly outstanding leaders and presidents over our 200 plus year history.

It's a fact that the out of control spending and debt created by our government, regardless of motive, is for the most part directed toward social problems.

While so-called "moderates," which I think means you kind of believe in things and kind of don't believe in things, promise to reduce the size of government as a fiscal conservative, while not addressing the so-called hot button social issues, are promising to address big government without addressing the conditions that allows big government to thrive and grow.

Are they oblivious to the fact that it is the moral breakdown in our cultural that has caused millions of Americans to look to government and ultimately depend on government for their very existence?

We live in an era of Dependency.

Phyllis Schlafly has written an excellent column on this matter.

She says, "In the not-to-distant past, we had a society where husbands and fathers were the providers for their families. The 1.7 million out-of-wedlock babies born last year (41 percent of all births) and their unmarried moms, now look to Big Brother as their financial provider."

Schlafly says, "The decline of marriage is not only the biggest social problem America faces today, but also government's biggest financial problem."

She points to the 1965 Moynihan Report on how welfare handouts destroy families by giving financial handouts to women, thereby making husbands and fathers irrelevant, as perhaps the most prophetic government report ever written.

So many financial incentives have been written into federal appropriation laws that incent and promote cohabitation, rather than marriage, that the government has become a significant part of the problem. And has transferred power to those who hand out the money.

Even Obamacare contains a marriage penalty and incentives co-habitation.

The number of unmarried, co-habitating couples has gone from 430,000 in 1960 to 6.8 million in 2008. And no, homosexual marriage is not part of the solution.

The decline of natural marriage is a major cause of the growth of our welfare state.

This year taxpayers are spending $350 billion to support single moms. Should they be abandoned? Absolutely not. But if the state didn't demand to be so "separated" from the church, much could happen to help ease this issue, while addressing the root problem of restoring and strengthening natural marriages.

Can a candidate who recommends ignoring such issues be capable or even fit for public office in America?

Additional costs, perhaps billions of dollars, are spent on social problems related to teenage crime, drugs, STDs, teen pregnancies, runaways and school drop outs. These additional expenses are most often related to households headed only by a female.

Political correctness makes us silent. Afraid to speak. And we keep throwing money at the symptoms, rather than addressing the "so-called social issues": While the government grows under the guise of doing good, and the people's freedoms are diminished.

The secular progressives allow this problem to evolve and expand, while they gather power by spending and controlling more and more money---all without remedy or cure for those they claim to help.

You should know, 70% of unmarried women voted for Obama. Why? Probably because he and his people represented the biggest handouts.

Abortion is another social issue that impacts the economy. I personally oppose it on biblical grounds. "Thou shalt not kill." However it has a negative impact on the economy.

Our grave problems are both social and fiscal.

Are these so-called moderates running from morality, Judeo-Christian values upon which this country was publicly built or history itself?

Good grief. Even Confucius called natural marriage "The foundation of civilization."

Moderates are willing to stand by while marriage, morality, and life itself is undermined, redefined and diminished, saying, "we should sit this out---let's call a truce on these social issues." And they claim money and their elitism will fix things.

As you consider who you will vote for in a number of political races this year, keep in mind, those who feel abandonment of the social issues of our day is a good strategy, they are telling you they are only willing to address the symptoms---not the causes.

Our problems are not academic, as our President is discovering, they are social and fiscal and moral. A true leader will understand this.

Those who promote "sitting it out" on the real issues, are at best smitten by self ambition and ignorance---and at worst are part of the problem, not the solution.

Be very vigilant with your vote. Be wary of those who refuse to address social issues. Run from those who suggest ignoring them or "trucing them".

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.

Thank you for
supporting us.

God bless you.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.