Arizona recently enacted a law that requires students to pass a U.S. citizenship exam in order to graduate from high school. Although it is the first state to require this, many other states like Indiana, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia may soon also require this of high school students.

Under the law, seniors will need to answer 60 of the 100 exam questions correctly in order to graduate from high school. The exam would include questions like, “What do we call the first 10 amendments to the Constitution?”

A few educators have complained about the law. They have reservations about requiring another standardized test. They argue that memorization of political facts will keep teachers from helping students develop a complex understanding of their world.

I would argue that we have needed such a requirement for some time. Currently voter turnout is at historical lows. A majority of Americans do not have a rudimentary grasp of government and the policy-making process. What we have been doing isn’t working.

All but ten states require students to take an American government class, but students’ knowledge about politics and government is obviously lacking. About two-thirds of students who took the National Assessment of Educational Progress in 2006 and 2010 tested below proficient on the civics portion of the test.

A survey last year by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania found that a third of respondents could not name a single branch of the U.S. government. The same survey found that less than a quarter knew what it takes for Congress to override a presidential veto.

It only makes sense that we ask graduating seniors to pass a citizenship test that we require of anyone who wants to become a naturalized citizen of the United States. Sadly some of our newest citizens in America know more about our history and our government than young people who have lived here their whole lives. That is why other states should follow the example set by Arizona.

Let me start with a troubling statistic. America has the highest corporate income tax in the world. When you think of all the countries of the world, some with free markets and many without, it is hard to justify a corporate tax rate of 35 percent. At the very least, many reformers are suggesting that we could have a tax rate in line with the average in other countries, which is about 23 percent.

As I have mentioned in previous commentaries, the corporate income tax was proposed as an alternative tax. Congress tried to pass a personal income tax in the 19th century, but the Supreme Court declared that action unconstitutional. So in the early 20th century, Congress passed a tax on corporate profits as an indirect way to force rich people to pay their fair share in taxes. When the 16th Amendment was passed and a personal income tax was established, Congress could have repealed the corporate income tax, but it did not.

In his column in the Wall Street Journal, John Steele Gordon gives “10 Reasons to Abolish the Corporate Income Tax.” Let me just mention a few. First, it would simplify the tax code that is more complex than ever before. There is a reason for that. Corporations hire an army of lobbyists who work with members of Congress to get favorable tax treatment for these corporations. That is why we hear every year about major corporations who paid no taxes in the previous year while small businesses without lobbyists and influence pay 35 percent.

Second, the U.S. economy would receive an instant cash windfall. In previous commentaries I have talked about the fact that at least $2 trillion of foreign earnings by U.S. companies is held overseas. If they no longer had to pay a 35 percent tax, this money would be quickly repatriated. This tsunami of new capital would drop interest rates. Companies would most likely use the money to invest in equipment and new technology.

For these and many other reasons, a lower corporate tax rate would be a significant boon to the American economy.

Here is an interesting question. What if the best arguments used by atheists to prove that God does not exist actually prove that He does exist? This is a question that Frank Turek considers in his new book Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case. He is the co-author of the best selling book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. His latest book may be even more helpful to those of us who engage in conversations with atheists and skeptics.

He uses an acrostic to illustrate the various arguments and the fundamental contradictions within those arguments. The acrostic is: CRIMES. The letter “C” stands for causality. We live in a world of cause and effect. To doubt causality you have to doubt everything we know about reality.

The letter “R” stands for reason. Here he shows that all arguments for anything (including arguments for atheism) fail if atheism is true. The letter “I” stands for information and intentionality. Frank Turek depends on the research by scientists who see intelligent design in biology and astronomy. He says that God’s signature is not just in the cell; it’s in all of creation.

The letter “M” stands for morality. In order to judge right from wrong, you need a standard. While it is true that atheists can know objective morality and make moral decisions, there would be no objective morality unless God exists. If God does not exist and there is no objective moral standard based on His character, then everything is just opinion.

The letter “E” stands for evil. This is one of the biggest challenges for Christians, but atheists have to deal with the concept of evil. If there is no standard for good, then how can we say anything is evil? The final letter is “S” for science. He responds with this: “To say that a scientist can disprove the existence of God is like saying a mechanic can disprove the existence of Henry Ford.” His book reminds us that atheist arguments don’t disprove God. They actually prove His existence.

On radio I have often said that presidents get too much of the blame for a bad economy and often take too much credit for a good economy. These policies might not turn around an economy as large as ours, but they do have an impact on individual citizens. Here is the possible impact of some of the policy proposals put forth by the president in his recent state of the union speech.

The president would like to raise the capital gains tax rate to 28 percent. He may believe that this would increase governmental revenue. Most economists believe that investors would merely retain their assets rather than sell them.

The president talked about increasing the child tax credit. It sounded like the president was endorsing one of the pro-family ideas put forth by Senators Mike Lee and Marco Rubio. But that is not what the president had in mind. This child tax credit could only be used to cover child-care and transportation expenses. It might offer limited help to working mothers but would not benefit families with stay-at-home mothers. It is another example of the federal government trying to pick winners and losers in the tax code.

The president’s latest plan has been to give students “free” tuition to community college. The estimated cost supposedly would be $60 billion over a decade. It is likely that the real cost would be more. However, at the same time the president proposed removing the tax benefit of the 529 college saving accounts that many middle class families use to save for college expenses. This is an example of the federal government giving something for education with one hand and taking something away with the other hand.

Finally, the president also proposed mandatory paid sick leave for workers. We don’t have the guess what the impact that policy might have since there are states that already have implemented a less expansive policy in their states. This proposed benefit would likely reduce workers’ wages and other company perks.

There are social and economic consequences to the policies proposed by the president. None of them seem like a good idea.