You have only to look at the implosion of Ukraine's fledgling democratic institutions to see the effectiveness of the new tactics the Russian bear is using to claw back its influence over its former empire. Moscow has not forgiven Ukraine for its Orange Revolution in late 2004, which saw Kiev sweep away decades of Soviet repression and assert its desire to become a functioning, Western-style democracy. On that occasion, the Kremlin resorted to the decidedly unsubtle tactic of poisoning Viktor Yushchenko, the principal pro-democracy campaigner, who, thanks to the prompt intervention of a team of Viennese toxicologists, survived the assassination attempt and went on to win the election.

Since then, Moscow has adopted a different approach, seeking to use its new economic strength to intimidate its former ally. Early last year, it switched off the oil and gas supplies, in effect leaving the country without heat or light in the depths of a Ukrainian winter. More recently, the Russians reached for their cheque books and bought off enough parliamentarians (the going rate for a Ukrainian MP is said to be £2.5 million) to render the democratic process unworkable, to the extent that President Yushchenko, as he now is, was compelled this week to prorogue parliament and call new elections.

The reason the Russians have gone to such lengths to eradicate the seeds of Ukrainian democracy is their fear that, left to its own devices, Kiev would follow the same path as other former Soviet republics and seek to guarantee its hard-won freedom by joining the EU and Nato.This is anathema to Moscow, where the heady days of glasnost and perestroika, and the prospect of Russia becoming a democracy, are but a distant memory.

These days, Vladimir Putin, the autocratic Russian President, makes no secret of his contempt for the EU and Nato, which he insists took unfair advantage of Russia's economic weakness in the 1990s to advance into areas in eastern Europe that the Kremlin regards as its natural sphere of influence.Putin wants to restore Russia to the superpower status it enjoyed under the Soviet Union, whose demise he describes as "the geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century".

It is often said that the primary cause of the collapse of the USSR in the 1980s was the fall in oil prices to $10 a barrel. Now, with crude prices averaging $60, Moscow is awash with petrodollars, not least because of the brutal manner in which Putin has renationalised the nation's lucrative energy resources, with opponents driven into exile or, in the case of Mikhail Khordokovsky, the former head of the Yukos oil conglomerate, handed lengthy jail sentences in Siberia.

And Putin has not been slow to use these riches to fund a range of subversive activities aimed at destabilising and reclaiming the former satellite states. Apart from usurping Ukrainian democracy, the Kremlin has placed an economic stranglehold on Georgia and Moldova, arguably two of the weakest former Soviet republics.
Similar pressures have been applied to the Baltic states, which, despite joining both the EU and Nato, have found themselves subjected to economic and political intimidation by their former occupiers.

It is against this unpromising background that Putin has found the confidence to confront the West, citing the Bush Administration's plans to establish missile defence bases in Poland and the Czech Republic as his justification. The intended purpose of America's national missile defence project is to protect both America and most of Europe from nuclear missile attacks from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea.
Not for Putin the détente of the Reagan-Thatcher era that ended three decades of nuclear stand-off.

On the contrary, the Russian President seems intent on using the proposed American missile deployment to fund a new East-West arms race. Russia's all-powerful security council - which reports directly to Putin - announced earlier this month that it needed a new military "configuration" to counter the threat posed by Nato's expansion and Washington's missiles, and Russia's military budget has been dramatically increased.
Nor is there any realistic prospect of Putin being dissuaded from initiating a second Cold War against the West.

The Kremlin's suppression of political opposition has been so successful that the most vociferous opponents today are the likes of Garry Kasparov, the former chess grand master, whose bravery in denouncing Putin's autocratic tendencies is not matched by any groundswell of public support. Kasparov and his supporters have been successful in organising a number of street protests - more are planned for this weekend - but, in Putin's Russia, such open defiance is more likely to see Kasparov languishing in Siberia than taking over the Kremlin.

There was the original sin; messing about in lightly armed little boats in a waterway contested by Iran - a bit like poking a mad dog in the eye without being prepared to clobber it with a big stick if it bites. There has been the miserable, cringe-making behavior of the sailors and marines when in captivity.

As Max Hastings, distinguished military historian and journalist, said in the Daily Mail: Yes, the 15 had a very unpleasant and frightening ordeal, but if they were not ready for such a risk they should have worked at Tesco rather than in the armed forces.

And there has been the extraordinary, pantomimical flip-flop by Britain's Defence Secretary, Des Browne, on whether the sailors and marines could sell their stories (yes they could; oops, no they couldn't) to a media that has itself bounced from treating the 15 as plucky heroes one minute, the next sniveling weeds, and the next money-grubbing yobs. Government, armed forces, media all have seemed to epitomize a society that knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.

How did Britain get like this? How did a society whose professed virtues were once those of duty, honor and discretion become a place of in-it-for-myself, let-it-all-hang-out emoting? Step forward those two women whose influence, combined though one suspects they loathed each other shaped a nation: Margaret Thatcher and Princess Diana.

Thatcher first. Her political party may have been called Conservative, but she was in truth one of the most radical leaders Britain has ever had. Thatcher could not abide the cozy and mildly corrupt arrangements that as she saw it had condemned post-1945 Britain to a managed decline, and was determined to blow them up. As one of her more waspish M.P.s once said, Thatcher could not see an institution without "hitting it with her handbag."

But she never understood that once you removed the need to show deference to any institution, the BBC, the labor unions, the professions, you had undermined them all. If deference to the established order was so bad, why show it (for example) to the monarchy? Moreover, really for the first time in British politics, Thatcher placed market values, not abstract ones of duty and honor, at the heart of a social definition of success. In the 1980s, if you didn't make money (loadsamoney ), if you didn't cash in on your talents or luck, then you were worse than an idiot - you were somehow letting the side down.

Diana's contribution was just as subversive of the old Britain. In her later life through the hugs, the tears, the riveting BBC interview of 1995 and even more in her death, the Princess of Wales turned traditional British values on their head. It was all right to cry! It was bad to suffer in silence, repress your emotions, say, "Steady on, old girl," and generally act in a tight spot like Trevor Howard on the train platform at the end of Brief Encounter. In today's remake, Howard would be bawling like a baby; or as we now know , like a young squaddie.

Taken together, Thatcherite and Dianist thought has given us the recent horrors: a situation in which not even members of the armed forces, hell, not even the leaders of the armed forces, seem comfortable framing military obligation in terms of duty and honor, and in which the media's badge of heroism is conferred on those who are merely victims (only for it to be ripped off again when the victims behave less like heroes than heels). It is a sad and miserable tale.

But here's the uncomfortable truth. Britain needed both Thatcher and Diana. Its old institutions were indeed rotten; its disdain for trade, for market values, was indeed debilitating, and condemned generations of Britons to stunted life chances. Britain's traditional masculine values of the stiff upper lip and "mustn't grumble" did indeed breed emotional cripples, unable to appreciate the heights or handle the depths of human experience.

A Britain in which those captured at sea would have just given name, rank and number; would only have been men; would have done no more in captivity than suck on a pipe while dressed in a peacoat;, would have just muttered, "Hello sir, glad to be back," when released, was not in most ways a better place than the insanely meritocratic, undeferential, deinstitutionalized Britain that Thatcher and Princess Diana unleashed. Every so often, however, Britons should be allowed to look back at that older nation and mourn its passing.

While China finished behind Germany and the United States in total exports for the full year, it overtook the United States in the last six months of 2006 and will almost certainly finish above the US in the 2007 totals.

At current growth rates, China is projected to overtake Germany as the world's biggest exporter in 2008. The WTO report said China's imports rose 20 percent last year to US$792 billion -- a surge that was "faster than global trade but continued to lag behind export growth."

The publications aimed at the teen market have been condemned as irresponsible by primary teachers and are banned in some schools, but Ofsted suggests they have an important role to play. Parents may regard them as unsuitable but they can hardly complain when they are failing to provide the information themselves, says the report on personal social and health education in primary and secondary schools published yesterday.

The inspectors admit that the magazines can give "a perception that all young people are sexually active when it is not the case" but defend their use as a source of information and reassurance. They also tell teachers of personal social and health education, a curriculum subject, that there is no evidence that preaching abstinence helps to reduce the teenage pregnancy rate.

The most effective secondary schools have centres offering contraceptive advice and nurses able to dispense the morning-after pill, they say. Schools have been urged by the Government to consider employing nurses to dispense advice and contraception as part of the campaign to halve the 1998 teenage pregnancy rate by 2010.

Official statistics published last February showed pregnancies among under-16s in England rose to 7,464 in 2005, an increase of 283 on 2004 with some being as young as 13. Nearly six in 10 ended in abortion.

I would not depend on faith alone to explain the whole picture, Benedict, a former theology professor, told his former students in September at a private seminar outside Rome on evolution, according to an account of the book from Reuters.

As pope, Benedict has not publicly defined his position, amid angry debates in the United States over intelligent design and questions raised two years ago by a leading cardinal on whether evolution was compatible with Catholicism.

But his comments at the seminar, published in German by students who were present, seemed largely to avoid any such debate: Rather, they seemed consistent with his often-stated views on other subjects that science and reason, however valuable, should not rule out God.

The debate over evolution, he said, concerned the great fundamental questions of philosophy: where man and the world came from and where they are going.The book, called Creation and Evolution, was not publicly available on Wednesday, and Reuters did not say how it had obtained a copy.

As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, before he became pope two years ago, Benedict had expressed concern that on several fronts, including evolution, science was overstepping its competence, denying the existence of God and becoming its own system of belief. Though he did not reject evolution, he noted in the remarks quoted from the book that science could not completely prove evolution because it could not be duplicated in the laboratory.

But, Reuters reported, he also defended what is known as theistic evolution, the idea that God could use evolutionary processes to create life, if not through the direct engineering suggested by intelligent design, which posits that life is so complex that it requires an active creator.

One of the four-star generals said he declined because of the chaotic way the war was being run and because Dick Cheney, the vice-president and the leading hawk in the Bush administration, retained more influence than pragmatists looking for a way out.

The deputy White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, confirmed yesterday that George Bush was considering restructuring the administration to create a new post, dubbed the war tsar by US media. It would involve co-ordinating the work of the defence, state and other departments at what she described as a critical stage in the wars. One of the retired generals approached, Marine General John Sheehan, told the Washington Post: "The very fundamental issue is they don't know where the hell they're going."

The unwillingness of the generals to take the job undermines recent attempts by the Bush administration to put a positive spin on the Iraq war. Mr Bush has claimed repeatedly over the past few weeks that there are signs his strategy of pouring extra US troops into Baghdad and neighbouring Anbar province is working.

Gen Sheehan said Mr Cheney and his allies "are still in the positions of most influence" in spite of two leading pragmatists, the defence secretary, Robert Gates, and the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, winning support in the past four months for a diplomatic approach. After two weeks of discussing the job with Mr Hadley, Gen Sheehan rejected it: "So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks.'"

Mr Cheney last week reiterated claims of links between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein's Iraq in spite of newly released US intelligence assessments saying there had been no evidence. Mr Cheney, unlike Mr Gates and Ms Rice, also favours air strikes against Iran's nuclear sites.

"Measures such as freezing our bank accounts, compulsory mortgages, insolvency of our self-employment are making our lives difficult," the letter said. "Even the custody of our children was to be taken from us, but GOD prevented it." Now more fines are being imposed, and "even our homes are to be sold for that," the letter said. "We ask that you pray for us and that you make your voice heard before the secular powers," said the letter.

"The German government is taking these actions simply because these parents homeschool their children," he said. "With a very strong Christian faith and a conviction that they should be allowed to raise their children in a Christian educational environment, these families are taking a stand, particularly regarding their right to oversee the sex education of their children as well as protect them from occult influences.

Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, has commented on the issue on a blog, noting the government "has a legitimate interest in countering the rise of parallel societies that are based on religion or motivated by different world views and in integrating minorities into the population as a whole."
Drautz said homeschool students' test results may be as good as for those in school, but "school teaches not only knowledge but also social conduct, encourages dialogue among people of different beliefs and cultures, and helps students to become responsible citizens."

"The minister of education does not share your attitudes toward so-called homeschooling," said a government letter in response. "... You complain about the forced school escort of primary school children by the responsible local police officers. ... In order to avoid this in future, the education authority is in conversation with the affected family in order to look for possibilities to bring the religious convictions of the family into line with the unalterable school attendance requirement."

Iran is preparing for a possible confrontation with the United States and Israel over its nuclear program and has been training and funding Palestinian groups to carry out large-scale terror operations in the event of a U.S. or Israeli attack against Tehran, according to Palestinian security officials and terror leaders speaking to WND.

The officials and terror leaders said Iran has in recent days been funneling money to Palestinian terror groups in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to compensate for the loss of loyalty of other Palestinian terror groups receiving funds from competing sources.

The Palestinian security officials said Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah organization, in coordination with Israel-based U.S. security coordinators, has stepped up payments to Fatah militias and cells of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group on condition the militias and Brigades members cut contact with Iran and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia.

The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Fatah's declared military wing, took responsibility together with the Islamic Jihad terror group for every suicide bombing in Israel the past two years. Israel says cells of the Brigades receive funding from and have coordinated attacks with Hezbollah.

A senior leader of the Brigades in the northern West Bank City of Nablus confirmed to WND his cell has recently received funds from Fatah to compete with financing from Iranian groups. Palestinian security officials say Iran has been compensating for the loss of loyalty of some militias and Palestinian groups by stepping up financing for units of Islamic Jihad, Hamas' so-called military wing, and the Gaza-based Popular Resistance Committees terror organization.

"Iran is making contingency plans for war," said a security official. Security officials say state-run Syrian media have been broadcasting regular warlike messages unseen since the 1973 Yom Kippur War, in which Syria and Egypt launched invasions from the Golan and the Sinai desert. "The tone [in Syria] is one of preparing the public for a war," said a senior security official. Tehran and Damascus, which both support Hezbollah, have signed several military pacts.

"This is still an intrusion of the state into religious liberty, and makes [Christian organizations] subject to state control," David Crowe, of Restore America, told WND. "It favors the homosexual community and puts the church in a defensive posture, having to defend itself and its beliefs, policies, doctrines and employment," he said. "This is very objectionable. It reveals that this is an agenda. They couldn't care less about what the people of Oregon think," said Crowe.

He said the attitude on the part of lawmakers was typified by a comment from state Rep. Peter Buckley, from Ashland, who didn't want to provide "more exemptions," likening the situation to "past racist employment motives." It used to be signs that said "No Irish need apply," he suggested. "Only now it's like, 'No gays or lesbians need apply for jobs.'" Buckley insists the church must employ homosexuals, said Crowe.

"He has no regard, no understanding whatsoever of the religious community at all, and certainly no respect for the U.S. Constitution," Crowe explained. "He says he's going to summarily override anything in the Constitution. He believes we ought to be forced to hire homosexuals. They come to the door, we ought to hire them."

He said the homosexual-rights promoters are becoming "very righteous" in their attitudes, saying, "We're against any kind of discrimination and certainly this kind as well." Churches, meanwhile, are being portrayed as impeding "what is really good."

The entire issue, however, is built on false pretenses, Crowe said, because the need for such legislation can only be substantiated if there is a significant problem with discrimination against homosexuals. In Oregon, while about 170 cases have been reported since 2000, a state agency confirmed the validity of only a handful of cases. "The substance is not there," Crowe said.

But the proposal leaves churches unprotected in their religious beliefs and actions that derive from those beliefs, he said. It states churches are exempted "only if the employment, housing or the use of facilities is closely connected with or related to the primary purposes of the church or institution. " Then the issue is left to the state courts to determine any relationship to "the primary purposes of the church."

"The bill restricts religious freedom. It denies religious liberty to business owners. And the bill goes even further to establish 'a program of public education calculated to eliminate attitudes upon which practices of discrimination because of sexual orientation are based,'" he wrote. "People who view homosexual conduct as wrong, sinful and or unhealthy will see their tax dollars at work against their own moral code."

Crowe said the results of the bill would be to "limit your free speech rights and rights of conscience; require public schools to teach that homosexual/lesbian/bisexual behavior is 'okay' and 'moral'; impact your rights as a business owner; and put judges in authority on certain church matters."

"The law, and this is onerous, has a clause that talks about developing a program of education to change our attitudes," Crowe said. "To change our attitudes? Is it the government's business to change attitudes? But that's precisely what's in the bill."

Crowe called the plan "the most sweeping and culturally devastating law in Oregon history, establishing pagan morality under the guise of a 'civil right,' and imposing it upon all Oregonians under the cover of 'law.'"

The pivot and crux of the controversy is the announcement of an intended replacement for the failed EU constitution which will have the same content under a different title and is to be ratified as quickly as possible. This arrangement has occasioned great displeasure in several European capitals. The most influential German think tank, the Bertelsmann Foundation, maintains that European unification must be driven forward; the greatly contested EU constitution is to be merely the "point of departure".

For the first time, the foundation recently presented a draft paper to top politicians from twenty European countries and the USA over the "strategic reorientation" of the EU in which it recommended, as a first step, that the national armed forces of all member states should be combined into a single EU army. The German Chancellor has taken up this suggestion. Frau Merkel warned against refusing so-called integration. She said "The ideal of European unification is today again a matter of war and peace".

To increase pressure on the smaller EU members, the German government is dropping bellicose hints and portraying their EU plans as a method of avoiding descent into a new catastrophe - war. The Federal Chancellor announced in tones pregnant with disaster, "We should not take peace and democracy for granted. The ideal of European unification is still today a question of war and peace."

Similar threats already enabled the Federal Government to force through the Eastern expansion of the EU against massive resistance in the mid Nineties. Then the present Minister of the Interior, Wolfgang Schaeuble, declared in a strategy paper that "Germany might be required or compelled by its own security considerations to achieve the stabilisation of Eastern Europe alone and in the traditional manner".

The paper was published on 1st September 1994, the 45th anniversary of Germany's attack on Poland. The Federal Chancellor's warning is a spin on those threats of war in a scarcely concealed form. It makes clear the radical determination of German foreign policy to achieve a total reordering of Europe under the aegis of Berlin, enforced by all means - apparently not excluding military.

For years, the vaccine debate was confined largely to the traditional childhood vaccines like DPT (diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus), MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) and polio. Even then, there were major concerns. The pertussis vaccine, for example, is notorious for having rare but horrendous side effects, and most polio cases in the world in recent years have been caused by the live-virus vaccine itself!

But in recent times, many new childhood vaccines have been introduced, from rotavirus and chickenpox to hepatitis B, meningitis and pneumonia, each with their own controversies and, in some cases, scandals. At first, the new vaccines are just "suggested," then they became "recommended" by pediatricians, and before long they're "required" before entering public school.

"A one-year-old healthy child today can get 10 different antigens injected into his body in one day," warns columnist Barbara Simpson in this issue of Whistleblower. "No one knows the effect on his immune system, and such tests haven't been conducted."
But it gets worse, much worse. As a result of today's vaccine mania:

Right now, state after state is attempting literally to force young, prepubescent school-girls into getting a brand-new vaccine, with an unproven safety record, to prevent a sexually transmitted form of cancer. The manufacturer, pharmaceutical giant Merck, has lobbied state politicians to make their vaccine mandatory.

There's major movement toward an AIDS vaccine. Once approved by the government, will there be another push like the current one to immunize schoolgirls against a sexually transmitted disease, only this time to mandate the AIDS vaccine for everybody?

Despite publicity to the contrary, the controversial mercury-based vaccine preservative Thimerosal ? thought by some researchers to be linked to rising levels of autism in the U.S. ? is still used in some vaccines.

Then there's the U.S. military, which compels soldiers to get multiple vaccinations. Some experts, citing compelling evidence, blame the military's anthrax shots for the epidemic dubbed "Gulf War Syndrome."
In this highly polarized debate, on one side there is the medical establishment, including the federal government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which endlessly repeats the mantra that vaccines are safe and effective and everybody should get them. To question their wisdom tags one as a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

On the other side is a substantial and growing movement of skeptics, including many medical professionals, who openly question vaccines. Some are strident, claiming all vaccines are bad for all people at all times and places, and a few even impute a sinister motive to vaccine manufacturers and the doctors that give the shots. But many others are careful and nuanced and very well informed. They consider each vaccine individually on its merits as well as its known and suspected negatives ? and come out holding up a big "caution" sign.

The Kremlin is considering active counter-measures in response to Washington's decision to base interceptor missiles and radar installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, a move Russia says will change "the world's strategic stability".

The Kremlin has not publicly spelt out its plans. But defence experts said its response is likely to include upgrading its nuclear missile arsenal so that it is harder to shoot down, putting more missiles on mobile launchers, and moving its fleet of nuclear submarines to the north pole, where they are virtually undetectable.
Russia could also bring the new US silos within the range of its Iskander missiles launched potentially from the nearby Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, they add.

In an interview with the Guardian, the Kremlin's chief spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said Moscow felt betrayed by the Pentagon's move. "We were extremely concerned and disappointed. We were never informed in advance about these plans. It brings tremendous change to the strategic balance in Europe, and to the world's strategic stability."

The Bush administration says the bases are designed to shoot down rogue missiles fired by Iran or North Korea. Its proposed system would be helpless against Russia's vast nuclear arsenal, it says. But this claim has been greeted with widespread incredulity, not just in Russia but also among some of the US's nervous Nato allies. They include Germany, where the Social Democrat leader, Kurt Beck, warned last month that the US and Russia were on the brink of another arms race "on European soil".

Defence experts say there is little doubt that the real target of the shield is Russia. "The geography of the deployment doesn't give any doubt the main targets are Russian and Chinese nuclear forces," General Vladimir Belous, Russia's leading expert on anti-ballistic weaponry, told the Guardian. "The US bases represent a real threat to our strategic nuclear forces."

"Shame on the Democrat politicians for attacking and redefining marriage," said Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, a nonpartisan organization that defends traditional marriage and the family.

"This is an attack upon the voters and our system of government as much as it is an attack on marriage," he said after testifying before the committee against AB 43. "AB 43 shamelessly violates the California Constitution, which expressly prohibits the Legislature from repealing voter-approved ballot initiatives. This is political arrogance in the extreme."

Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute, said the bill clearly flouts the will of the people.
"Yet again the California legislature has shown that it will arrogantly ignore the will of the people," said England. "Even though the vast majority of citizens oppose homosexual marriage, radical activists continue to push their agenda."

Meredith Turney, who serves as CRI's legislative liaison, said the issue was decided with Proposition 22. "The governor has made clear, by his previous veto, that he will honor the people's decision. And yet agenda-driven legislators have decided that they will override the wishes of Californians," she said.

"Gov Schwarzenegger, regardless of his personal beliefs, has committed to honor the people's vote and already vetoed a previous homosexual marriage bill," said England. "So why are radical legislators wasting taxpayer money and time by once again pushing an issue clearly decided by the people?"

"The answers is obvious: they will push their extreme agenda until they get their way," she said.

A new study by the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector found a household headed by an individual without a high school education, including about two-thirds of illegal aliens, costs U.S. taxpayers more than $32,000 in federal, state and local benefits. That same family contributes an average of $9,000 a year in taxes, resulting in a net tax burden of $22,449 each year.

Over the course of the household's lifetime that tax burden translates to $1.1 million. If the lower figure of 12 million illegal aliens is used for estimation purposes, the total tax burden translates to $2.2 trillion.

"Would any of us buy shares in a company that we knew would produce a loss of a million dollars a share," asks Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, in response to the study. "Cheap labor is not cheap at the cost of over a million dollars per head of household."

Rector's study, "The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer," examines the economics of the 17.7 million American households made up of people without a high-school degree. Using numbers from the Census Bureau, the Congressional Research Service, the Bureau of Labor Standards and other government agencies, Rector determined what they earn, what they spend and what they receive in government services.

About half of the 17.7 million households studied are illegal aliens. About two-thirds of illegal alien households are headed by someone without a high school degree. Only 10 percent of native-born Americans fit into that category.

"Over the next ten years the total cost of low-skill households to the taxpayer (immediate benefits minus taxes paid) is likely to be at least $3.9 trillion," Rector writes. "This number would go up significantly if changes in immigration policy lead to substantial increases in the number of low-skill immigrants entering the country and receiving services."

Since 1971 the proportion of all people living in "traditional" family households of married couples with dependent children has fallen from 52% to 37%. Nearly a quarter of children lived with only one parent last year and nine out of 10 of those households were headed by lone mothers.

SOCIAL TRENDS SURVEY - KEY FINDINGS
In 2005 there were a record 60.2m people living in Britain. The number of households has risen 30% since 1971, but the population only rose by 8% . One in seven children live in households where no parent is working.
Source: Office for National Statistics

Sue Palmer, an independent education adviser, said she believed growing up with a single parent could be detrimental to children. "It's not many adults. What you need when children are growing up is constant consistent care from the adults who love them and that's very difficult to provide if there's just one of you," she said.

David Green, director of the Institute for the Study of Civil Society, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "If you take almost any measure - how well children do in school, whether they turn to crime, whether they commit suicide, etc - it's better to have two parents. "It's also the biggest disadvantage of lone parenthood that you're much more likely to be poor."

More children are born in Britain today outside of marriage than in most other European countries, the report also said. The average figure is 44%, compared with just 3% in Cyprus, and just 12% in Britain in the early 1970s. BBC home editor Mark Easton said that in Wales and the north east of England the numbers of children born to unmarried parents were even higher, at 52% and 55% respectively.

More than seven million people in Britain also live alone now, compared with three million in 1971. This, the report said, had left societies more fragmented and led to much less trust and co-operation between neighbours.

Other findings included: Second marriages made up two-fifths of all marriages in 2005. In the same year, the average age at first marriage in England and Wales was 32 for men and 29 for women - up from 25 and 23 respectively in 1971. Divorces in 2005 fell to 155,000 from a 1993 peak of 180,000. In 2005, 66% of single-parent families lived in rented housing compared with 22% of couples with dependent children.