[Winona Online Democracy]
"Who Really Cares: America's Charity Divide," published by Basic Books in
late 2006. "
This is a very worthwhile read (at least through the first two chapters
where I got sidetracked by something else). The Maps and Graphs are worth a
good hour by themselves.
Below is a section from I blog I stumbled on that raises some issues about
the conclusions in that book (not my words, just plain cut and pasted):
"Consider this passage (pp. 21-22):
When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a
lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to
give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less
likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the
2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)].
But this similarity fades away when we consider average dollar amounts
donated. In 2000 [citing 2000 SCCBS data], households headed by a
conservative gave, on average, 30 percent more money to charity than
households headed by a liberal ($1,600 to $1,227). This discrepancy is not
simply an artifact of income differences; on the contrary, liberal families
earned an average of 6 percent more per year than conservative families,
and
conservative families gave more than liberal families within every income
class, from poor to middle class to rich.
I am skeptical of basing so much on the SCCBS, in large part because it
reports that liberal families make more money than conservatives (it is not
clear from Brooks's book whether the survey is of a representative national
sample). In the 2000, 2002, and 2004 General Social Surveys, which are
representative samples of the US, conservative families make $2,500 to
$5,600 a year more than liberal families in each one. Although I don't have
the ANES data handy, my recollection is that the economic differences
between conservatives and liberals are usually in the same direction and
even larger in the ANES than in the GSS. Further, in each of these 3 GSSs,
the lowest income families were the political moderates, who usually made
substantially less than either liberals or conservatives."
http://volokh.com/posts/1164012942.shtml
Bryon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roy Nasstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Online Democracy" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 11:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Winona] Two Interesting Articles: The Tax Cut Myth
[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
_______________________________________________
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
