A Tale of Two America(n)s

We've all seen the bumper stickers...."Better a Bleeding Heart Than None At All" and "Republicans Are People Too....Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" but how accurate are those statements?

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

The Logical Household is not "rich" by any stretch of the imagination but we do faithfully give to charity. Last year, we gave almost 14% of our total income to church and charity (Lupus Foundation, DAV and others). I don't say this to brag - I say it as confirmation of the thesis of the article. I also know from conversations past that there are many liberals here whose actions blow this thesis apart....however, in general the thesis is valid. Which leads us to...Barack "We Can Be Better" Obama.

Recently Sen. Obama released his tax records for the last 1o years. For a man who bitterly complains about how poorly certain portions of the country are treated...who exhorts us to do better, the records are another example of a politician who couldn't "walk the talk" if their lives (or careers) depended on it.

In 2002, the year before Obama launched his campaign for U.S. Senate, the Obamas
reported income of $259,394, ranking them in the top 2 percent of U.S. households, according to Census Bureau statistics. That year the Obamas claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income.

That amount increased when Senator Obama hit the financial "lottery" by signing two book deals.

Their giving rose to a laudable five percent in 2005 and six percent in 2006, with the explosion of their annual income to near $1 million, and the advent of Mr. Obama’s national political aspirations (representing a rare case in which political ambition apparently led to social benefit).

What is so laughable (and hypocritical) about this is how the campaign tries to excuse this miserly giving...

According to an Obama spokesman, the couple’s miserly charity until 2005 “was as generous as they could be at the time,” given their personal expenses. In other words, despite an annual average income over the period of about $244,000, they simply could not afford to give anything meaningful.
Before we dismiss this explanation, it is worth noting that this is not an uncommon upper-income excuse for not giving. According to 2000 data from the Independent Sector (a trade group for nonprofit organizations), among people with above-average incomes who do not give charitably, a majority actually say it is because they don’t have enough money.

Well if I may be so bold as to borrow a piece of advice you give all of us poor working stiffs when we dare to complain about or tax burdens "maybe you should find somewhere to cut back".

The release of this data can backfire on the candidate as the Chicago Tribune (a REAL newspaper) points out...

Candidates who skimp on personal donations risk a political price, said Lehane, a former spokesman for Gore who also worked in the Clinton White House."For a Democrat in particular, given that they tend to be professing a 'we, not me' message, it's always an opportunity to step on the third rail if your charitable contributions don't stack up," Lehane said.

It is especially dangerous for a candidate like Barack Obama who has made the inequity of America the lynchpin of his political career and his Presidential run.