The American family is in decline. But sometimes it is hard to see how far we have come because the changes are often subtle and incremental. Each generation comes into the world already taking as a baseline changes that occurred before they arrived. Perhaps the best way to document the decline of the family is to compare where we are today to where we were in 1960.

Back then more than nine out of ten U.S. households with children had both a father and a mother who were married. Married parents of children wasn’t just the majority, it was the overwhelming norm. Today married couples can only be found in about two-thirds of U.S. households with kids.

During the decades from 1960 to now, we have discovered through various research studies that children need both a father and a mother. Dr. Patrick Fagan working first at the Heritage Foundation and now at the Family Research Council has put together massive databases of studies done by hundreds of researchers on marriage. They conclude what the Bible has taught for millennia. Children need a father and a mother.

Out of wedlock births is one of the reasons children are growing up without two parents. In a column on The Great Society programs, Pat Buchanan gives these sobering statistics. “Half of all children born to women under 30 in America now are illegitimate. Three in 10 white children are born out of wedlock, as are 53 percent of Hispanic babies and 73 percent of black babies.”

Divorce is another reason for family decline. As I have discussed in previous commentaries, cohabitation increases the likelihood of future divorce. Here again we can see a remarkable change in attitudes. Charles Murray, in his book The State of White America, reminds us of a survey of women in the 1960s. It asked, “In your opinion, do you think it is all right for a woman to have sexual relations before marriage with a man she knows she is going to marry?” Eighty-six percent of the women said no.

It is easy to see that the American family is in decline. All we have to do is look back a few decades.

America is vulnerable to a cyber attack that could have devastating consequences. That is the conclusion of Kevin Freeman in his new book, Game Plan. He was on my radio program recently to talk about new forms of warfare: cyber-warfare and economic warfare.

His previous book, Secret Weapon, detailed how terrorists hit our economy in 2008. We may have created much of our economic problems back then, but savvy terrorists groups also manipulated economic instruments that helped push our economy over the brink. His book, Game Plan, picks up the story and takes the research to the next level. He then provides people with a game plan to prepare for what may unfold in the future.

The enemies of America recognize they cannot fight us militarily, but they believe they can wreck havoc through cyber attacks and economic attacks. This might involve an attack on America’s currency. It will no doubt involve hacking the financial system of America. Recent reports about hacking of credit card numbers at Target, Michaels, and Neiman Marcus remind us how vulnerable we are. A coordinated attack by terrorists or other enemies of America could have a devastating impact.

There are things that the government can and should do to prevent or at least minimize these threats. We should stop creating money out of thin air that will lead to massive inflation. We should do the hard work now to protect the nation from the possibility of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP).

Kevin Freeman dismisses many of the ways people try to prepare. While he believes that gold should be part of someone’s portfolio, he believes that gold alone is not the answer. He says stuffing money in your mattress is a bad idea. He rejects the “one size fits all” mentality.

He believes we should all know where our treasure is. Jesus said, “Where you treasure it, there your heart will be also.” Unfortunately, Kevin Freeman says, most people get this backward. They let their treasure follow their heart. His book is a reminder that we could be in for some tough times. That is why we need to get our priorities straight.

The president and members of his administration have been bragging that: “health care costs are growing at the slowest rate in 50 years.” While that is true, the slowing rate shouldn’t be attributed to the Affordable Care Act. That is the conclusion of Peter Ferrara in a recent Forbes column.

He explains that the declining growth rate for health care spending began long before the implementation of Obamacare. In fact, the decline began when Barack Obama was still serving in the Illinois state legislature.

What is a more reasonable explanation? He says, “Health Saving Accounts (HSAs) were enacted into law in 2003, and that is why the slowdown in health care costs began.” HSAs are designed to reduce the growth of health care costs because it puts financial decision-making in the hands of patients giving them more power and control. It introduces market incentives to the health care system because the patient is using his or her own money.

In a typical HSA, there is a catastrophic health insurance plan with a very high deductible. Patients pay for the rest of their health care costs out of their HSA. This makes them more concerned about costs, and it also can force doctors and hospitals to compete to control costs.

In a healthy year, the insured person usually has more than enough in the HSA to pay for all expenses below the deductible. They have money left over they can roll over to the next year and don’t have to ask for approval from an insurance company.

What about people who are sick and poor? An HSA is still a good option. They become “empowered consumers in the medical marketplace.” They can make choices and pay for care themselves out of their HSA account.

They also spend less. A 2012 Rand Corporation study found that those covered by HSAs spend 21 percent less on average on health care in the first year after switching from more traditional coverage.

In order to reduce the rate of health care costs, we need more HSAs.

John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, wrote a column recently that has been widely quoted. He talks about the perverse incentives in the Affordable Care Act. As the federal government has been implementing Obamacare, we are seeing that many of the requirements in the law are making the problem of health care insurance worse. Here are some of the unpleasant surprises:

“The deductibles are higher than what most people are used to, the networks of doctors and hospitals are skimpier (in some cases much skimpier), and lifesaving drugs are often not on the insurers’ formularies.”

John Goodman explains that the law “gives insurance buyers and sellers perverse incentives to behave in ways that create these problems.” One example of this are the mandates in the regulations that pile lots of benefits into a plan even though most people would never use the benefits. They have to pay for them anyway. One member of Congress who was on my program recently made the observation that even though he and his wife are only a few years away from retirement, they were still required to buy a health insurance plan that covered maternity. He joked, “you just never know” [if his wife might become pregnant].

Insurers have an incentive to try to keep premiums low. But the way they are doing it is to narrow the networks of doctors and hospitals. Often this leaves out the best doctors and hospitals. Some of the plans have half the doctors in their plans compared to the number in previous traditional plans.

Under the law, insurers are required to charge the same premium rate to anyone who wants to sign up, regardless of their health status. In order to fund the plan, insurance companies and exchanges must overcharge healthy people and undercharge the sick. This creates a strong incentive to attract the healthy who are most likely to pick a plan based on price and won’t be that bothered by high deductibles and less access to health care through limited networks.

These are just a few of the perverse incentives. That’s why so many Americans are becoming dissatisfied with the rollout of Obamacare.