Not so long ago, the biggest problem in the job market was that there weren’t jobs for the American worker. Now many employers are complaining that they are unable to fill many jobs. In other words, the job market is weak in many areas, but tight in various job sectors.

Stephen Moore provides one estimate that there are 30,000-35,000 trucker jobs that could be filled if workers would take these jobs. Domino’s Pizza says that the franchises around the country are having a hard time filling delivery and clerical positions.

Why are we having this problem? Stephen Moore has a few answers. First, we have government programs that often discourage work. I have talked about this in previous commentaries. We should be helping those who cannot work, but should be be enabling people who have little motivation to work? We have record numbers of people on food stamps, disability, and other welfare benefits. Does that discourage work? I think we all know the answer to that question.

Second, we have a public school system that fails to teach students basic skills. He asks, “Whatever happened to shop classes?” In past radio programs, I have talked with Tom Pauken who served as the Chairman of the Texas Workforce Commission. He argued that we should be teaching kids who weren’t planning on going to college skills that they could use in the workforce. Today, mechanics, carpenters, and technicians can make good wages.

That leads to a third reason jobs can’t be filled today. Our culture has developed negative attitudes toward blue-collar work. Parents are often disappointed if their kids want to become electricians, plumbers, or craftmen instead of going to college.

Finally, we have a cultural bias against young adults working. The labor participation rate is falling faster among workers under 30. Government policies, like frequently raising the minimum wage, often keep young people from working and developing a skill.

We have jobs that aren’t being filled. We need to change public policies and cultural attitudes if we are to turn this around.

Atheists cannot live consistently with their worldview because it contradicts what we know about the world. That is just one of the key principles in the new book by Nancy Pearcey, Finding Truth: 5 Principles for Unmasking Secularism, and other God Substitutes. She develops five principles from Romans 1 that provide a guidebook on how to evaluate other worldviews while also making a convincing case for Christianity.

One of the stories she tells in her book and told on my radio program comes from Rodney Brooks. He is professor emeritus at MIT and is author of the book, Flesh and Machines. He writes that a human being is nothing but a machine—a “big bag of skin full of biomolecules” interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry.

We might add that it is difficult to see people that way. But Rodney Brooks goes on to add that: “when I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, . . . see that they are machines.”

But is that how he treats his children? Of course not! He admits, “That is not how I treat them . . . I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis.” Nancy Pearcey says that his worldview sticks out of his box.

How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? Actually, he really doesn’t even try. Brooks ends by saying, “I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs.” He (like so many other atheists, materialists or secularists) lives with an inconsistent set of beliefs because their worldview does not correspond with reality.

Nancy Pearcey’s book treats us to many of these “secular leaps of faith.” She talks about “free loading atheists” that steal ideals and principles from Christianity to prop up their beliefs and arguments. And she explains why worldviews commit suicide.

Her book will help you understand the world and hone your skills as you defend the Christian faith.

Today is Tax Day. But a more important date is Tax Freedom Day. That is the day when your tax burden is lifted. It is calculated by dividing the official government tally of all taxes collected in each year by the official government tally of all income earned in each year. Put another way, it is when you are no longer working for the government but are now working for yourself and your family.

This year Tax Freedom Day arrived on April 24. This is nine days after tax day and that is something new. Back in 2009 when I started doing commentaries on tax day, the Tax Freedom Day was on April 13. That was before the April 15 Tas Day. Now it is more than a week after Tax Day.

Don’t forget this. Not only does Tax Freedom Day arrive after Tax Day, but Americans will pay more in taxes than they will spend on food, clothing, and housing combined.

But before you declare freedom from government, I need to tell you about another day. It is called Cost of Government Day. This is the date on which the average American has paid his share of the financial burden imposed by the spending and regulation that occurs on the federal, state, and local levels. I haven’t seen the date for 2015, but last year the Cost of Government Day was July 6.

Think about that date for a moment. It takes a little more than half of the year to finally get government off your back so that you can begin to earn a living for you and your family. Recent estimates show that the cost of government is increasing faster than national income. That would suggest that the Cost of Government Day will be later and later each year.

These dates help us realize what is happening around us. There is a cost, but often we don’t see it. Our taxes are withheld from each paycheck, so we often don’t think about what we are paying. And since the cost of most regulations is hidden, we don’t see those costs either. But imagine if we had to pay all our taxes today in one lump sum. You can bet there would be an outcry.

A few weeks ago, the editors of the Wall Street Journal wrote about “The New Intolerance.” They argued that “Indiana isn’t targeting gays. Liberals are targeting religion.”

The Indiana law was merely a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act that passed overwhelmingly in 1993 and was signed by President Clinton. Indiana actually needed such a law because “neither its laws nor courts unambiguously protected religious liberty. Amish horse-drawn buggies could be required to abide by local traffic regulations. Churches could be prohibited from feeding the homeless under local sanitation codes.”

The law merely required a balancing test when reviewing cases involving the free exercise of religion. A commercial vendor would still have to prove that his or her religious convictions were substantially burdened. In most of these cases, the vendor still has lost in court. Similar laws or legal principles haven’t proved to be that helpful in other states to florists, bakers, or photographers.

This brings us to the paradox that the editors were addressing. They observe: “even as America has become more tolerant of gays, many activists and liberals have become ever-more intolerant of anyone who might hold more traditional cultural and religious views.”

We can see this in politics and in the corporate world. We can also see it in how former proponents of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act now oppose it. When the law was passed in 1993, the editors remind us that: “liberal outfits like the ACLU were joined at the hip with the Christian Coalition. But now the ACLU is denouncing Indiana’s law because it wants even the most devoutly held religious values to bow to its culture agenda on gay marriage and abortion rights.”

A culture that has become more tolerant of homosexuality is also becoming more intolerant of religious people who don’t embrace same-sex marriage.

Sometimes events covered by the press create a perception that is far from reality. That is certainly the case with the press coverage of the political events in Indiana. Reading the newspapers and watching TV coverage, you would think that that the whole nation is disturbed by the fact that the legislature passed a Religious Freedom Restoration Act that was subsequently signed by the governor. Recent polls show a much different picture.

Let’s start with the poll I mentioned last month. The WPA Opinion Research found that more than eight in ten (81%) of the registered voters they polled agreed with this statement: “Government should leave people free to follow their beliefs about marriage as they live their daily lives at work and in the way they run their businesses.” That statement goes beyond even what was contained in the Indiana law. It is also worth mentioning that each and every demographic group agreed with this statement with an overwhelming majority.

Last week a Rasmussen poll found that seven in ten (79%) of likely voters “agree that a Christian wedding photographer who has deeply held religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage has the right to turn down working a job at such a wedding.”

Back in February, an Associated Press poll found that a majority of Americans (57%) agreed that: “wedding-related businesses with religious objections should be allowed to refuse service to same sex couples.”

This brings us to the latest Marist poll. It asked specific questions tailored to the controversy in Indiana. A majority (54%) of adults support “religious liberty protection or exemptions for faith-based organizations and individuals.” A smaller minority (39%) opposes such protections. They also found that three-fourths (75%) of adults oppose leveling a fine on individuals who refused to provide wedding-related services.

The media and some outspoken business executives have created the perception that all of America rejects any attempt to provide protection to people with a religious objection of same-sex marriage ceremonies. As you can see, reality is much different.

Psychiatrist Lyle Rossiter wrote an article entitled, “Following the Rules.” He has noticed among his clients and among Americans in general an unwillingness to follow basic rules in various arenas. As he points out, there are consequences for breaking the rules in those five areas.

“In the care of our bodies we have to obey the rules of physics, chemistry, and biology.” When we break these rules we get fat, we get sick, and we can even die. Moreover the epidemics of substance abuse and STDs also illustrate this principle of sowing and reaping.

“In marital and family relations we have to follow certain rules of fidelity, thoughtfulness, and responsibility.” When we don’t, divorce and broken families result. Children are raised without both parents and grow up with emotional deficits or scars.

“In economic transactions we have to obey the laws of supply, demand, price, and scarcity.” Failure to do so results in consumer debt and bankruptcy. At the national and international level rising debt and an economic crisis occur.

“In social behavior we have to follow rules of honesty, fairness, mutuality, and courtesy.” If we disobey those rules, we have social turmoil. The coarseness of society is seen in profanity, vulgarity, and violence.

“In political transactions we have to follow rules set out in our Constitution that protect individuals from harmful actions by governments.” Breaking those rules leads to political corruption and chaos.

So if these are the rules, why do we fail to follow them? Rossiter believes it is because, “We are driven by sexual and aggressive impulses, by attachment and dependent impulses, by acquisitive and narcissistic impulses.” I agree, but to that I would also add that we are poor students of history. As the old saying goes, “The only thing we learn from history is that we fail to learn from history.”

These are the rules for success. Follow them, and you are likely to succeed. Break them, and you are guaranteed to fail.

Are Americans ready to embrace socialism? A Rasmussen poll does show that a mere majority (53 percent) say capitalism is better than socialism. And one in five (20 percent) say that socialism is better than capitalism. America may not be ready to reject capitalism for socialism, but this poll does show less enthusiasm than in the past.

If you look at adults under the age of 30 in the poll, you find they are essentially evenly divided. More than a third (37 percent) prefer capitalism, another third (33 percent) embrace socialism, and the rest (30 percent) are undecided.

What are we to make of this? First, the terms capitalism and socialism weren’t defined in the poll. I suspect that if the pollsters made it clear that in socialism all or most of the means of production and distribution were owned by the state and that the economy was centrally planned by the government, the percentages would change. Defining capitalism would also be important since many would not necessarily associate it with a free market but instead might have visions of an evil, greedy capitalist. After all, that is how many businessmen are portrayed in the media.

Second, those under 30 are probably the least likely to associate socialism with Soviet-style repression. Instead, they may have in their minds the current government push toward European socialism and find that more attractive. Also, they are less likely to have “skin in the game.” When you ask investors this same question about capitalism and socialism, they favored capitalism by a 5-to-1 margin.

Still, this poll does illustrate the need to educate adults and young people about economics and the free market system. In my book, Making The Most of Your Money in Tough Times, I not only set forth principles about giving, saving, spending, debt and credit, but I also devote chapters to economics and economic systems. For example, what are the moral criticisms of capitalism? What are the economic criticisms of capitalism? What are reasonable answers to those criticisms?

I believe the Rasmussen poll illustrates why we need to devote time and attention to these important issues.

Each month Iran gets closer to a nuclear weapon. This is not only bad news for Israel but also for America. We might think that one nuclear bomb wouldn’t pose much of a threat to the United States.

Recently on my radio program, a guest explained that Iran has not only been working on nuclear materials but has also developed a rocket and tested whether it could explode a nuclear weapon in the upper atmosphere. That poses a threat to us.

Exploding a nuclear weapon above the United States would set off an Electro Magnetic Pulse (known as an EMP). I have talked about this threat in previous commentaries, but let me summarize the danger once again. The gamma rays and x-ray effects of an EMP would be catastrophic. The massive electronic disturbance would move at the speed of light towards earth. This overload would short out all electronic equipment, power grids, and electronic devices.

It would wipe out televisions, radios, phones, automobiles, and all electronic devices. There would be no way of keeping food cold, no way of heating or cooling homes, and virtually no communication. Our power grids, our communications networks, and our transportation system would come to a grinding halt.

Some people tend to discount this as a threat, but all you need to do is read one of the U.S. government reports to understand the gravity of this threat. Unfortunately, the only time the public has probably heard about an EMP is when it was used as a plot device in the movie “Ocean’s Eleven” or in the television show “24.”

Unfortunately, we have been lulled into thinking that the nuclear threat has lowered because of the collapse of the Soviet Union. It is tempting to think that Iran poses little threat with merely one nuclear weapon. But rogue nations or terrorists can disrupt American life with one rocket and one nuclear weapon.

It is time for tough talk and clear thinking. We need to reconsider the current treaty and revisit our commitment to missile defense.