During the presidential campaign, we didn’t hear too much from the two candidates about our nation’s debt and liabilities. But we cannot ignore all of this debt and our liabilities. So, let me try to put some of this in perspective.

Our current national debt is around $20 trillion. But you get quite different estimates when you begin to talk about our liabilities. I have seen all sorts of numbers depending on how much you count. Even just adding the liabilities from Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security you end up with an estimate of at least $75 trillion. This is five times America’s GDP.

Other economists put the entitlement liabilities at more than $100 trillion. As large as that number is, it doesn’t include all the state and municipal debt. If you include that debt as well, then the final number is more than $150 trillion. This is twice the total worth of the United States and more than seven times the $20 trillion figure we usually hear from politicians.

How can you put that number into any context? It is difficult to understand this number (150,000,000,000,000) because it is the kind of number we usually find only in a book about astronomy. Even then the number is beyond what we humans can really imagine. It is beyond what we experience on this planet.

Here is one analogy. Imagine you could spend a thousand dollars every second from now going backwards in time. You would run out of money in 2500 BC. That is five centuries before Abraham was even born.

I think we can learn two things from this thought experiment. First, an enormous amount of money is currently kept “off the books.” We owe much more than $20 trillion. Second, the true amount we owe is really beyond our comprehension.

Donald Trump wants Congress to pass legislation that will implement tax simplification. We all know how complicated income tax forms can be, so let me give you a brief history provided by an op-ed by John Steele Gordon.

After the Civil War, nearly all the taxes (including the nation’s first income tax) were repealed, and the federal government relied mostly on tariffs for revenues. This income was more than enough to run the government and generated significant surpluses. The problem is that tariffs are essentially a consumption tax that is regressive. The poor are adversely affected because they have to spend a higher percent of their income on necessities than the wealthy.

This created political pressure to institute an income tax on the rich. President Grover Cleveland and the Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress passed an income tax that affected only the wealthiest one percent of Americans. The tax was attacked in the court because it represented a “direct tax” which the Constitution requires to be apportioned equally among the states according to population. This was not the case and led to the Supreme Court striking down the law.

After that decision, pressure grew to tax incomes of the largely untaxed rich. President William Howard Taft proposed a constitutional amendment to legalize a personal income tax, while also imposing a tax on corporate profits as a stopgap measure.

By 1913, the 16th Amendment was ratified. President Woodrow Wilson promptly passed a personal income tax. Unfortunately the corporate income tax, intended to be a stopgap, was left in place and often has been used by the rich to play one tax against the other.

Today we have separate corporate and personal income taxes with lots of complexity and loopholes that favor one group over another. That’s why we need to change our tax code that is arbitrary, complex, and unfair.

The recent election is another reminder that Americans still value their culture of free enterprise that was established by the founders of this country. Arthur Brooks (American Enterprise Institute) comes to this conclusion in his book, The Battle.

The founders promoted a free market where Americans were able to enjoy their political and economic liberty. Thomas Jefferson famously said this in his first inaugural address. “A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”

People from other countries began to realize how exceptional America’s culture of free enterprise was. French nobleman Alexis deTocqueville called Americans ‘”the freest people in the world.” During his time in America he was struck by the fact that Americans pursued their interests under the supervision of limited government and banded together in voluntary associations.

Arthur Brooks contends that we live in a 70-30 nation. A Pew Research Center poll asked a broad range of Americans this question: “Generally, do you think people are better off in a free market economy, even though there may be severe ups and downs from time to time, or don’t you think so?” Almost 70 percent of respondents agree that they are better off in a free market economy.

The good news is that 70 percent of Americans believe in free enterprise. The bad news is that the other 30 percent are in control of important arenas in our society such as the academy, media, and government.

This leads to the subtitle of the book by Arthur Brooks that says, “How the fight between free enterprise and big government will shape America’s future.” Donald Trump and the new Congress have an opportunity to slow the growth of big government. We the people have the responsibility to hold them to it.

No doubt you have heard the phrase, “politics is downstream from culture.” It is a way of explaining that what is at stake in our world often begins upstream in the culture.

Popular culture is all around us and delivered to us through broadcast media and social media. We perceive the world through news reports, through movies, through entertainment programs, and through music. Every form of communication has a message. Sometimes it is blatant and intentional. Often it is subtle and not even perceived by the artist, actor, musician, or broadcaster. He or she may simply be telling a story but that story comes from a worldview perspective.

A wise and discerning Christian should frequently ask: What message is being delivered? Is the viewpoint true or false? How does it line up with biblical principles? But let’s face it many of us merely accept what we read, see, and hear uncritically.

And that brings us to politics. We are bombarded by messages every day. Most Americans watch lots of television, listen to a fair amount of music, and visit various websites. Unless they are approaching all of this entertainment with lots of discernment, they will begin to accept the worldview perspective of the writer, the actor, the director, the musician control the story and the perspective.

Most of these stories come from a liberal, secular viewpoint that becomes easier to embrace. If someone stood before you and lectured about abortion, homosexuality, or gender identity, your guard would be up. But if these stories portray liberals, feminists, and gays in a positive light, they get into our head and emotions. And if they portray conservatives and Christians in a negative light, the same thing happens.

All of this to say, that we need to pay attention to popular culture, because politics is downstream from culture.

The election of Donald Trump now brings questions about what a Trump administration will look like next year. We can begin to speculate who will be in the cabinet, but we don’t have to speculate what will be his administration’s priorities.

A few weeks ago, Donald Trump released his Contract with the American Voter. This document was modeled on the 1994 Contract with America written by Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey. There are four parts to Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter.

First, he has six measures to clean up corruption and special interest. This includes term limits on members of Congress, a hiring freeze, a 5-year-ban on government officials becoming lobbyists, and a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

Second, he has seven actions to protect American workers. The list includes withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an attempt to renegotiate NAFTA, lifting restrictions on energy reserves, and directing the Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator.

Third, Donald Trump promised on his first day in office to take a number of actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law. They include comments he has made in the past about suspending immigration from terror-prone regions until vetting can be done safely. He would also cancel funding to Sanctuary Cities.

Finally, he puts forth ten bills that would be introduced into Congress. His list includes a bill for middle class tax relief and tax simplification. It also includes an attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare. There is a bill for school choice and a bill that would begin to rebuild the military. And there is an end to illegal immigration that involves many of his proposals made during the presidential campaign.

If you want to know what a Trump administration will look like, read the playbook he put out a few weeks ago.

The election is over, and it is time to bring the country together. But is that possible? Every four years we see a map of red and blue states showing the vote for president. But there is growing evidence that we aren’t just a divided country. We are essentially two countries within the same border.

Bill Bishop made this case many years ago in his book, The Big Sort. Americans have sorted themselves into various enclaves that are often so separate from each other they might as well be different countries. Consider the fundamental differences between Democrats and Republicans.

“Democrats want to live by their own rules. They hang out with friends at parks or other public places. They think that religion and politics shouldn’t mix. Democrats watch Sunday morning news shows and late-night television. Republicans go to church. They spend more time with family, get their news from Fox News or the radio, and own guns. Republicans read sports and home magazines, attend Bible study, frequently visit relatives, and talk about politics with people at church.” They even differ on their preference of pets. Democrats are more likely to own cats. Republicans are more likely to own dogs.

Michael Barone commented in one of his columns that most Americans choose to live in a place that is culturally congenial. “Most people in the San Francisco Bay area wouldn’t consider living in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, even for much better money. Most Metroplexers would never relocate to the Bay Area.” I have lived in both places and can validate Michael Barone’s conclusion.

Yes, we are a divided country. But we are more than that. We are essentially two countries within the same border hardly on speaking terms with each other. This is the challenge for any politician in America. Trying to bring people together is difficult when we are essentially two countries within the U.S. border.

Will pastors be required to turn in their sermon notes to government officials? That question probably sounds odd unless you have been paying attention to what has been happening right here in America.

Two years ago, the mayor of Houston, Texas subpoenaed the sermons of five pastors who opposed the city’s transgender bathroom ordinance. After some controversy, the mayor and the city backed down. Now the Attorney General of Georgia requested the “sermon notes and/or transcripts” from Dr. Eric Walsh.

Eric Walsh has a medical degree and doctorate in public health. He has worked with both President Bush and President Obama to combat AIDS and was recruited from California to serve as district health director for Georgia’s Department of Public Health.

One week after accepting the job offer, Dr. Walsh was asked to submit transcripts of sermons he preached in church. The public health officials divided up his sermons, held a meeting, and fired him. With the help of the First Liberty Institute he is suing the state. That is why the state asked for his sermons (which could even include notes he wrote in the margin of his preaching Bible).

The state contends that his firing has nothing to do with religious discrimination. Then why does the state want copies of his sermons? They have backed off the initial request but still demand all contracts and agreements Eric Walsh has with his church.

A few weeks ago, Michael Brown wrote a column with the arresting title: “Christian Conservatives, Be Assured that President Hillary Clinton Will Declare War on You.” Less than two weeks later, his new column dealing with Eric Walsh had this title: “Pastors, They’re Coming for You!” Obviously, he is concerned about the future of religious liberty in America. His argument is that it is time for Christians to wake up.

I would say to all of the pastors in this country that it is time for you to pay attention to what is happening and make sure you wake up your congregation.

One of the issues that the next president and the next Congress must address is health care and insurance. Most Americans are facing sticker shock as many of them discover that their premiums have increased and their coverage has decreased.

A few weeks ago we saw headlines reporting that ObamaCare premiums will soar 25 percent on average next year. Actually, it was worse than the headlines might indicate. The rate spike was for the cheaper “silver” plans. Moreover, some face even more significant increases. A 27-year-old buying a plan in Arizona faced an increase of 116 percent. Huge increases could also be found in Oklahoma (69%), Tennessee (53%), and Minnesota (59%).

Federal officials also confirmed that nearly one in five people in the states that use HealthCare.gov must shop from only one insurer. While a few (15) new insurers will enter the exchanges in 2017, many more (83) insurers are dropping off the marketplaces.

When he was out on the campaign trail, former president Bill Clinton criticized the signature legislation of President Barack Obama. “So you’ve got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 million more people have health care and then the people who are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half.”

Over the next few months and years, we will hear two significantly different solutions being proposed. One has been to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act in an effort to bring competition back into the marketplace. The other will be to travel further down the road to more government intervention into health care leading to a nationalized system of health insurance.

Of course, there will be many who will argue that we need to only make small changes to our current law. But Americans are paying more and more for less and less. It is time for a fundamental redesign of a system that is obviously not working.

Today is Election Day, and two important questions should be resolved very soon. The first question is: Who will win the election? Unless there is some glitch in election reporting, we should know that in a few hours. The second question is: How peaceful will be our transition of power? In the past we have had a few bumps in the road.

Back in 1960, there was some question about whether John F. Kennedy won the presidency fairly. Rumors quickly spread that voting in Illinois and Texas had been manipulated. Perhaps the narrow margin of victory (112,000 votes) should be challenged. Richard Nixon conceded the election because he said, “our country cannot afford the agony of a constitutional crisis.”

In 2000, George W. Bush led Al Gore in Florida after the first results were tallied. Because the vote was so close, a statewide recount was implemented. The machine count was even closer, so a legal battle developed. Those of you who are older probably remember the debate over the “hanging chads.” The case finally reached the Supreme Court that ruled the hand recounts unconstitutional and essentially declared Bush the winner. Al Gore then conceded by saying, “While I strongly disagree with the Court’s decision, I accept it.”

What about this election? Much has been made of Donald Trump saying he would have to decide if he would concede the election if Hillary Clinton was the winner. Some commentators fear this might threaten the age-old tradition of a peaceful transition of power that comes when the defeated candidate concedes to the winner.

But it is reasonable to ask what might happen if Donald Trump wins. Hillary Clinton might concede the election, but what about all the angry protestors who have shown up at Trump rallies? Are they likely to start marching into the streets?

We can hope that none of this happens, and we should also pray to that end.