At this time of year it is worth reminding all of us that the mainstream media rarely explains the real economic threat to our nation. This fall we heard lots of talk about the threat of a shutdown. We had a shutdown, and most of the country operated without too much of a hardship. Whenever it is time to raise the debt ceiling, we hear about the potential threat of default. We always raise the debt ceiling in time, but even if the government did not, I doubt America would be considered a nation in default.

No, the real threat to America is the accumulated national debt that has now rocketed past $17 trillion. Perhaps we have just grown accustomed to the number. Perhaps we don’t really fathom how much $17 trillion of debt really is.

Here are three facts that we should not forget. First, a national debt of $17 trillion exceeds the total gross domestic product of the United States. Everything we produce in the American economy in one year is less than the debt we owe.

The second fact should concern us even more. The national debt has increased faster in the last few years. When President Obama took office, the national debt was $10.6 trillion. Now it is more than $17 trillion. While it is true that previous presidents and previous members of Congress all were responsible for our national debt, it is also true that the debt has grown faster in recent years.

The final fact is that the $17 trillion figure for our national debt does even come close to this country’s financial obligations. Stanley Druckenmiller is considered one of the most successful money managers of all time. He says we should add to the national debt figure all of our obligations through Social Security and Medicare. He concludes that: “the future liabilities are $205 trillion.” That is a number 12 times the size of the U.S. economy.

When it comes to reporting on a potential economic crisis, the media rarely focuses on the one that is most important.

New research from the Parent’s Television Council found that “the volume and degree of violent content shown on broadcast and cable television are virtually indistinguishable.” They also documented what many of us have suspected for some time: that the TV ratings aren’t accurate at all when warning about violent episodes on television programs.

I had Tim Winter, president of the Parent’s Television Council, on my radio program recently to talk about their findings. He has been in the television industry for many years before assuming his position at the council. But even he was surprised as some of the findings.

Most parents would assume that the level of violence (and other objectionable material) in broadcast TV would be lower than on cable TV. Their study demonstrates that any line between the two is completely blurred. They found only a 6 percent difference between the two.

For example, children watching four episodes of Revolution were exposed to an average of 91.5 acts of violence per episode. That is one act of violence every 39 seconds. Other TV programs (like The Blacklist and Criminal Minds and CSI) had similar violent episodes.

Tim Winter reminded us that their report came out on the one-year anniversary of the shooting at Sandy Hook. On January 10, 2013, entertainment executives met with Vice President Joe Biden at the White House. They emerged from the meeting saying that they have a “longstanding commitment to provide parents the tools necessary to make the right viewing decision for their families.” That illustrates the second concern that surfaced in the research.

The TV programs they analyzed contained graphic violence but did not have the correct descriptors. They may have included a V-descriptor for “intense violence” but not one of them was rated to warn parents of the presence of “graphic violence.”

Tim Winter tells me they will be rolling out a campaign this month so that we can express our concern to the TV industry. As they say in the business, stay tuned for more information.

The cross in San Diego is back in court, this time to determine whether it is constitutional or whether it must be torn down. If you are getting tired of hearing about the court battles concerning crosses, consider this. Michelle Malkin reminds us that: “Taylor Swift wasn’t even born when the fight over the Mount Soledad cross began.”

At the center of this controversy is a 29-foot cross that has stood on public land since 1954. The memorial association erected the monument to commemorate the sacrifice of American soldiers in our two World Wars and the Korean War. It is symbol of the selfless sacrifice and service of our nation’s military. Six concentric walls surround the monument that display the photos, names, and diverse religious symbols of our veterans. They paid the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom.

We have been here before. Three years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that a similar cross in the Mojave National Preserve was constitutional. The Mohave Desert cross stood on Sunrise Rock since 1934. The veterans put it there as a memorial to those who died in World War I.

One would think that the similarity of the cases would make it clear to anyone (including judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) that the Mt. Soledad cross is also constitutional. Nevertheless, a U.S. District Court Judge has to rule (reluctantly, I might add) that the cross must come down. He stayed the order so that the case could go back to the Supreme Court.

This is a case worth fighting. If the court rules that the Mt. Soledad cross must be torn down, the other veteran’s crosses around the country could be torn down as well.

Kelly Shackelford, President of Liberty Institute, explained: “We are confident we can win, just as we won the Mojave Desert Memorial Cross case at the U.S. Supreme Court.” While that it true, it is a sad commentary that so much time, money, and legal effort must be expended to keep the government from tearing down a cross erected to honor those who died for our freedom.

Yesterday I took the time to alert you to some proposed IRS regulations. Today I

would like to continue by talking about a new proposal to govern political activity of

501(c)(4) groups. This is supposed to merely clarify confusing laws. Kimberley Strassel,

writing for the Wall Street Journal, believes it is one more example of the IRS targeting

tea party groups and other conservative organizations.

Members of the House Ways and Mean Committee suspect that the regulation

was reverse engineered. It was “designed to isolate and shut down the same tea party

groups victimized in the first targeting round.” It appears they combed through tea party

applications and then decided to restrict those activities with this new rule.

Here is how this new regulation will be applied. To receive or to keep your 501(c)

(4) status, your organization must devote a majority of your work to your “primary”

social welfare purpose. Most tea party groups were set up with a primary purpose of

educating citizens about economic and social issues. They did this through voter’s

guides, speaker forums, and voter-registration drive. The proposed regulation would

classify all of this as “political activity” thus making it impossible for tea party groups to

qualify.

Representative Dave Camp serves as the Chairman of the House Ways and Mean

Committee. He believes the “new regulation so closely mirrors the abused tea party

group applications” and leads him to “question if this new proposed regulation is simply

another form of targeting.” It appears to him that the goal is “to put tea party groups out

of business.”

Bureaucrats are trying to sell the idea that this new regulation is merely an

attempt to clarify the law. There is more evidence that this regulation would be used to

target tea party groups. The IRS has not earned our trust. This new regulation looks like

just one more way to target tea party groups.

Now that we are beginning our new year, I want to alert you to some proposed

IRS regulations that could have a negative effect on political activity. And I might add

that all of this is happening just months after the inspector general of the IRS revealed

that the tax collection agency had been targeting conservative political groups.

The proposed regulations from the IRS would place various restrictions on what

nonprofit groups could discuss before an election. More significantly, the regulations

would force these 501(c)(4) organizations to disclose private information about donors to

political candidates and parties.

A little history is in order. In previous decades, the Supreme Court ruled that

people have a right to engage in anonymous political activity. Those rulings protected

citizens who donated to civil-rights organizations and other similar organizations from

harassment. It did rule in one 1976 case that in very unusual and narrow circumstances

that the government could compel the disclosure of information.

Until the 1990s, liberal groups dominated most of the 501(c)(4) organizations.

That has changed, and these new rules appear to be an attempt to silence conservative

groups, such as pro-life, pro-family, and tea party groups.

In a world where all citizens respect the right of other citizens to donate to

political causes, financial disclosure would be a good idea. But that is not the world in

which we live. After voters in California passed the Proposition 8 initiative, gay activists

began to target anyone who donated to the campaign to define marriage as one man and

one woman. In previous commentaries, I’ve talked about the threats, harassment, and

even vandalism aimed at pro-family people who donated to the campaign to define

marriage.

Less than a year ago, we learned that bureaucrats in the IRS targeted conservative

groups. We should be suspicious of IRS regulations that would expose people who might

have donated to those groups. These are rules we can do without.

Let me begin by wishing you a Happy New Year. Have you made any New

Year’s resolutions? Whether you have or not, I want to encourage you to “strive for

mediocrity.” I have borrowed the phrase from an article written by Tristan Taylor

Thomas.

His argument is that we should consider a number of things before we make any

resolution. His advice to us is not to pick something that too big to achieve. When we

aim lower and strive for mediocrity, we will probably be more successful.

I know we hear from promoters, coaches, and motivational speakers that we

should strive for excellence. We should pick goals that stretch us and empower us to be

better than we are. I don’t disagree with that, but I also think we should inject some

reality into our lives.

Many people who are going on a diet today, and many people who will be signing

up at a fitness club this week will fail to keep their resolution a month from now. A diet

that lasts a month or a workout that lasts a month isn’t going to be very effective.

Let’s face reality. Where you are today is the result of lots of cumulative,

incremental decisions. It took awhile for you to get here. It will take some time to get to a

different place. I think that a person who plans to lose a pound a week or a pound a

month and keeps at it will be much more effective than someone who plans to lose ten

pounds a week. He or she might have a good week or two but seems more likely to

relapse.

Of course this also applies to your spiritual life. If you have no prayer time or

quiet time, getting started may be much more effective than saying you will devote an

hour a day. A regular, consistent quiet time that lasts only a few minutes each day will

certainly serve you better than an occasional quiet time. Consistency is better than hit or

miss.

Feel free to set big goals, if you want to do so. But I would also recommend you

consider the value of striving for mediocrity. Making smaller goals or resolutions that

you can keep is a good way to be successful.