Young Evangelicals are considered to be a key swing vote in this upcoming election. I’d suggest the issue of Young Evangelicals is far more important than this upcoming election. How they ultimately go but could determine the fate of our nation.

It is said that these young Evangelical voters are concerned about issues such as social justice, poverty, and the environment. These are not bad things to be concerned about in and of themselves. If because of this concern people become aware of the crisis of human trafficking, band together in community to help people escape poverty, and create backyard oasises n their home town, that’s a good thing. If, on the other hand, we recreate the mistakes of the 1960s and 70s and destroy people by making them dependent on government, create useless feel good government policies, and cripple the economy through idiotic legislation based on pseudo-science, that’s another matter.

How We Got Here

Why are so many Young Evangelicals being lured by people who are generally pro-abortion, anti-traditional morality, and radical? I would suggest that there are issues within the church and within the conservative movement and the Republican Party that will explain these issues. This column as well as the next one will deal with the issues in the church. A series next week will deal within the conservative movement.

Given the wide disparity between different churches under the label of Evangelical, there will be some general issues that will perhaps not apply to your church or my church, but their presence in many Evangelical churches across the country helps explain why so many young Evangelicals are moving left.

No comprehensive training of the mind: Catholics and many mainline Protestants use Catechisms to communicate the formal views and doctrines of their church and instill them into their children. There is no catechism for Evangelicals, in fact many would disdain the idea as formalistic. The result of this is that Sunday School classes and Youth Groups often provide a hodgepodge of scattershot ideas, but fail to inculcate a Biblical worldview, which Barna has found only 5% of Americans hold to.

Sermons are in many cases no help. The Word of God is as deep as the ocean, but I would think it fair to say that, in many churches across America, it’s a rare event when the congregations’ ankles get wet. Too often these sermons are general and non-challenging in order to be “seeker sensitive.”

While the church is lackadaisical about teaching a consistent biblical worldview, the public schools that 90% of church kids attend are certainly not lackadaisical about secularist views, nor are the makers of movies that Christian parents send their kids to without a second thought. Secular humanism is pushed in both education and the arts, and those two mediums take scores more of a child’s time than does the Church.

This general lack of biblical literacy allows secular liberals to slap a couple scriptures on old style Socialism and sell it to young Evangelicals hungry for adventure and purpose.

Focus on the Family has produced a wonderful series called, “The Truth Project” that teaches a biblical worldview, but it’s definitely an upstream effort against a sleepy church and a culture that’s more than happy to fill in the gaps.

Materialism: Within American Christianity, there are many people who sincerely love and serve God, regardless of denomination. However, there is also a greater degree of materialism than you will see in churches across the world. This is made even worse by the presence of a prosperity gospel that teaches God’s will for everyone is material prosperity.

There are many Evangelical Christians who live to keep up with the Joneses: bigger houses, bigger cars, more expensive toys. These are the things of a blessed life. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with these things in and of themselves. But when they become the focus of our lives, and when we would rather insure that we hold onto these things than put them at risk by standing for what’s right, children see. Many people do not become involved in public issues such as abortion, the display of the Ten Commandments, or the sanctity of marriage because they fear it will cost them their bobbles.

Ultimately, Christianity teaches that man has needs that go beyond the material, and it doesn’t just end with salvation as the focus of some churches would seem to indicate. As a minister, Paul declared, “Woe to me if I don’t preach to the Gospel.” And with each of us, it’s the same. “Woe to us if we don’t do what God has called us to do.” This spiritual shallowness at home, in the midst of physical abundance, leaves a great emptiness, a search for meaning.

It may be filled by Mission organizations that work through the local church. When it is not, and far too often, it is not, far left organizations are more than happy to provide grandiose meaning and purpose that promises something better than the shallow and materialistic faith witnessed at home.

Podcast Show Notes

Obama tries to buy the Evangelical vote while halting between two opinions on gay marriage.  Kos agrees with me that Obama is no new type of politician. (Hat Tip: Stop the ACLU.) And Binky Boy jumps off the bus, Obama has merrily thrown others under.

Things the left would like to do when they take over: Fund colleges that refuse to allow military recruiters on campus. (Hat Tip: Talk Left.)

Plus the Beverly Hillbillies in North Dakota. There’s oil in them thar plains.

No cutting in line, the State of California says it’s the law.

The danger of lowest low fertility (i.e. irreversible population decline.)

Plus the media makes a big deal anytime any Republican no matter how obscure does anything wrong, why is this story about a Democratic leader in North Carolina not getting more play? (Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin.)

Plus more complications from Gardasil. (Hat Tip: Idaho Values Alliance.)

Click here to listen, click here to download.

Well, Club For Growth is crowing about Governor Huckabee’s endorsement of Don Young. I’m on record saying that this was something I couldn’t go along with it.  I support Sean Parnell for Congress.

Huckabee didn’t pick the right guy. Nobody does 100 percent of the time. Huckabee’s choice comes from mostly out of loyalty for Young’s support. I can understand it, I don’t agree with it.

That said, the Club for Growth is full of hot air:

Over the past year, the Club for Growth has been criticized by Huckabee and some conservatives for painting the Arkansas Governor as a fiscal liberal. If ever there was proof that that the Club was right from the start, it is this outrageous endorsement of Rep. Young who embodies the worst of the Republican Party’s wasteful habits.

So, endorsing Don Young proves one is a fiscal liberal? Perhaps. I mean after all, Huckabee called him a hero to taxpayers with the bridge to nowhere, etc. Oh wait, that wasn’t Mike Huckabee, that was Grover Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform. (Clarification from someone who works at ATR.)

Why hasn’t the CFG run an ad explaining why Don Young is a corrupt fiscal liberal just like Grover Norquist? Probably because Norquist is one of the most powerful men in Washington. You give him this type of smackdown and you’ll smart from it. Huckabee, though is fair game. I don’t believe it’s true of Norquist (who I have many disagreements with) nor do I think it’s true of Huckabee.

To me, this show’s how blindly destructive the Club’s Huckahate is. Is there little press release going to hurt Don Young? Is it going to make people more willing to vote for Sean Parnell? Or, if this thing spreads will it make Alaska’s huckavoters (Huckabee finished 2nd in Alaska) give pause about whether they want to give Parnell their support and give the Club a victory in the Huckawar.

Instead of making this election about Don Young, Sean Parnell, the future of Alaska, and Congressional reform,  CFG is trying to turn this into a battle between them and Mike Huckabee, thus reducing the chance of their guy and my guy winning up there. It’s stupid and it’s destructive, but it’s anti-Huckabee, so the CFG says, “Let’s do it.”

Finally, Kathryn Lopez declares, “Goodbye, Huck.” as if:

1) She’s had anything positive to say about him since Iowa and there was any chance of her supporting him in any future effort after he beat Romney.

2) One Endorsement finishes a political career. This has never been the case, and if so who is going to go and check everyone’s “Endorsement purity” record to decide who is forever voted off?

Back in the eighties, there was a great movie about a kid who traveled back in history in a time machine made out of a De Lorean. He was able to go back and meet his parents in their younger years and straighten out a number of issues that would have affected his family in a negative way had he not gone back and intervened. Good flick. I’m sure you’ve seen it.

With all the talk about rolling back the Bush Tax Cuts - the ones that basically every Democrat says helped mainly “the rich,” I started to do a little thinking. How would the future life of the average American family be affected if they were suddenly, with today’s costs and obligations, thrust back eight years and made to live under the tax rates of 2000 - the rates that were in place before Bush cut them?

As the oddball scientist who likes to do some tinkering in my spare time, I imagined what it would be like to have a time machine that could transport a typical American family - we’ll call them the Smiths - back eight years to experience what life would be like for some non-rich people who need to pay today’s expenses without the Bush tax cuts. Let’s pretend that they’re loaded into the time machine with the destination set on 2000. They take with them their 2008 salary and their 2008 bills but need to pay their Federal Taxes with the 2000 tax code - the last tax code before Bush cut them “for the rich.” This way, we can get an understanding of how the Bush Tax Cuts affected regular, non-rich people. And hey, maybe by going back in time to learn the truth about the tax cuts, we can get some information that can help our family avoid hard times in the future. Let’s rev up the engine.

(Eh. I don’t think they make De Loreans anymore. I wanted to build the imaginary time machine with a Lambourghini. But the gas is pretty expensive these days. Mind if we use a Prius?)

Before the Smiths go back to the tax rates of 2000, let’s talk about their life today. The census bureau says that in 2005, the average income for a four person family was $67,019. In today’s world, assuming that they take have two kids, take the standard deduction, and pay an average state tax rate of 5.71% (using the Wikipedia numbers), they pay $5,626 a year in Federal Taxes, $4,155 in Social Security taxes, $972 in Medicare taxes, and $3,827 in state taxes. After taxes, they’ve got $52,439 left over every year. And using the 2005 figures from the Census bureau on the average household expenditures, the Smiths spend $32,444 of that in essential living expenses. Of course, these average figures assumed annual gasoline expenses of only $1,610 and annual utility bills of $2,697 (hmmm … I think they might be a little higher now). But with the 2008 tax rates, our family has some leftover money to pay some of the difference in inflated gas and utility bills, to save some cash for their kids’ education and for retirement, and to buy clothes, go on vacation and grab the occasional pizza.

But, once they ride back to 2000 and find themselves facing the tax rates of that era, they find that making the same money, they would pay $10,161 in Federal Taxes. That’s a $4,535.00  dollar increase. Even though they’re not rich, they clearly were reaping a pretty nice benefit from the Bush Tax Cuts - the taxes that were waiting for them in 2000 were 81% higher than the ones they left in 2008. In this strange world, they now only have $47,904 left over after taxes - instead of today’s $52,439. They still have at least $32,444 in essential living expenses, plus a need for a considerably higher amount of gas and utilities. But now they have less cushion than they had in 2008 to pay for these increased costs. It very well may be that something else has to give - maybe the savings for education or retirement. Maybe the clothes. Maybe the vacation or other entertainment.

Hey - wait a minute, buddy. I’ve always heard that the Bush Tax Cuts were just for the rich!

My response: (knock knock knock). C’mon. Think, McFly!

Although many politicians verbally slam the Bush Tax Cuts, the facts are that these cuts were not just “for the rich.” They benefited taxpayers of different income levels. And if they were repealed, the increase in tax rates would affect taxpayers of different income levels.

If the Bush tax cuts are reversed, it will hurt families who are not rich and who will have one more big fat bill that they can’t choose to not pay - the Federal Tax Bill that would in some cases be nearly twice what it is today. They might have to choose to not pay other bills instead, which will in turn hurt all the businesses that depend on disposable income (places which often employ other non-rich people who depend on the business to survive so that they can have jobs). I am not an economist and cannot speak to what exactly will happen on Wall Street if taxes are raised. But the prospect of a tax increase - through the rollback of tax cuts - will hurt the economy here on Main Street.

In case you’re wondering, you don’t need to worry about how much the family would be able to tuck into the savings account each year if taxes are raised. Savings accounts? Where we’re going, we don’t need … savings accounts.

“The Values Voter”