[Winona Online Democracy]
Before this colloquy goes off into the morass of Iraq-everything ends up in
Iraq these days-it might be useful to provide some information on the study
Paul Double referred to. The author is Arthur C. Brooks. The book is titled
"Who Really Cares: America's Charity Divide," published by Basic Books in
late 2006. Brooks is Professor of Public Administration and Director of the
Nonprofit Studies Program at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of
Citizenship and Public Affairs. He specializes in the economics of charity
and philanthropy. Brooks has been a Democrat and then a Republican. He now
lists himself as an independent. Needless to say, his book has elicited
quite a bit attention in the political arena.
He found that self-identified conservative households give proportionally
far more money to charity than did liberal households. (Moderates were
excluded from study.) They also provide more volunteer service and donate
more blood! Using Internal Revenue Service data, Brook found than did those
in red (conservative; Bush) states donated far more to private charities
than did those in blue (liberal; Kerry) Many conservatives have jumped on
this information to castigate the hypocrisy of liberals in two specific
areas: caring about people only in the abstract while ignoring them
individually, and depending on everyone to support through taxes their
(liberals') pet projects, whether productive or not.
Even though there may be some truth to the charge, the issue appears more
complex. Liberals often prefer government largess because they feel that
their redistribution of tax moneys to particular groups can satisfy general
needs more fairly than assistance provided through private donations to
groups that conservatives deem worthy. Moreover, although conservatives do
donate to all causes, religious and secular, more frequently than liberals,
their interest in religious groups may be of special concern to liberals who
watch the church-state issue carefully. (It must be pointed out, however,
that very religious liberal people, a group smaller than very religious
conservatives, give far more time and money to charities in general than
secular liberals, although not as much as conservatives.) Although the
liberal-conservative differentiation is the basis of the study, Brook has
implied that the charity gap is not a function of politics per se, but of
underlying values and culture involving religion, the concept of individual
responsibility, and views of the role of government.
Neither the findings nor the analysis in the study can be given full justice
in small space. Several variables and nuances of interpretation deserve to
be looked at closely, and only by reading the book itself can this be done.
The book will certainly lead to further investigation. A study with
different methodology and different definitions might show somewhat
different results. But until such studies are made, Brook's work must be the
standard.
Before this multilayered colloquy goes off into the morass of
Iraq-everything ends up in Iraq these days-it might be useful to provide
some information on the study Paul Double referred to. The author is Arthur
C. Brooks. The book is titled "Who Really Cares: America's Charity Divide,"
published by Basic Books in late 2006. Brooks is Professor of Public
Administration and Director of the Nonprofit Studies Program at Syracuse
University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. He
specializes in the economics of charity and philanthropy. Brooks has been a
Democrat and then a Republican. He now lists himself as an independent.
Needless to say, his book has elicited quite a bit attention in the
political arena.
He found that self-identified conservative households give proportionally
far more money to charity than did liberal households. (Moderates were
excluded from study.) Conservative households also provide more volunteer
service and donate more blood. Using Internal Revenue Service data, Brooks
found that those in red (conservative; Bush voting) states donated far more
to private charities than did those in blue (liberal; Kerry voting) Many
conservatives have jumped on this information to castigate the hypocrisy of
liberals in two specific areas: caring about people only in the abstract
while ignoring them individually, and depending on everyone to support
through taxes their (liberals') pet projects, whether productive or not.
Even though there may be some truth to the charge, the issue is more
complex. Liberals often prefer government largess because they feel that
their redistribution of tax moneys to particular groups can satisfy general
needs more fairly than assistance provided through private donations to
groups that conservatives deem worthy. Moreover, although conservatives do
donate to all causes, religious and secular, more frequently than liberals,
their interest in religious groups may be of special concern to liberals who
watch the church-state issue carefully. (It must be pointed out, however,
that very religious liberal people, a group smaller than very religious
conservatives, give far more time and money to charities in general than
secular liberals, although not as much as conservatives.) Although the
liberal-conservative differentiation is the basis of the study, Brook has
implied that the charity gap is not a function of politics per se, but of
underlying values and culture involving religion, the concept of individual
responsibility, and views of the role of government.
Neither the findings nor the analysis in the study can be given full justice
in small space. Several variables and nuances of interpretation deserve to
be looked at closely, and only by reading the book itself can this be done.
The book will certainly lead to further investigation. A study with
different methodology and different definitions might show somewhat
different results. But until such studies are made, Brook's work must be the
standard.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Double" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Online Democracy" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:34 PM
Subject: FW: [Winona] Two Interesting Articles: The Tax Cut Myth
_______________________________________________
This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy
All messages must be signed by the senders actual name.
No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list.
To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit
http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona
Any problems or suggestions can be directed to
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page at
http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
