The post-election banter continues, as the blue states bemoan the fact that the "hicks and hayseeds" in the red states have held them hostage by re-electing George W. Bush to the Presidency. Some on the fringe left have created a new map of North America divided in to two areas, with the west coast states, the Great Lakes states and New England lumped together with Canada (the United States of Canada) and the rest of the country being dubbed "Jesusland". I think it reveals their hatred more than anything, but I am proud to live in "Jesusland".
Anyhow, the Catalogue for Philanthropy extrapolates some interesting data from the latest U.S. Census (2002). Essentially, the compute the generosity of the average person living in a state by taking each state's average income ranking and average charitable contribution ranking, and then subtracting the second rank from the first to get a single number for each state. As the site says, "Generosity in not just how much you give, but how much you give in relation to how much you have."
So, how do the red and blue states pan out?
Click here to see the states ranked in order.
What I find fascinating is how each state voted in the 2004 election. Take a look at the ranking when we view it in terms of Red (Bush) states and Blue (Kerry) states.
I don't know about you, but I see a trend here. Isn't it interesting that the liberals tend to label Conservatives as greedy and as not caring about the needs of the less fortunate. This data and chart seems to lend a hand to solidly dispelling the myth that some disingenous Democrat leaders continue to chant. I am convinced that as a rule, conservatives give out of their own hard-earned money, while liberals like to do it using OTHER people's money, ie: tax dollars.
It's Del.icio.us!
Furl It!
November 12, 2004 01:38 PM
Many of those Bush states are also heavily loaded with black and other minority voters that opted for Kerry.
I should also point out that the great majority of church money that is called "charity" goes for building and programs that benefit church members, not the "poor, the widow, the orphan or the stranger." I know of many churches that have built elaborate entertainment and recreational facilities that benefit mainly themselves.
November 14, 2004 01:45 PM
Joel, you can always find something that is out of the ordinary, but the fact is that statistics play out over a large sampling. The church I am in DOES give to the poor and needy regularly.
And being Jewish, I know for a fact that many Temples are guilty of the same thing you are accusing Churches of doing. It cuts both ways.
November 14, 2004 04:18 PM
There was a chart out the other day. It showed that of the ten "healthiest" states, Kerry carried eight. Of the ten unhealthiest states, Bush carried all ten. So what does that say?
November 14, 2004 09:31 PM
It says that statistically, the Kerry states tend to be populated with healthier people. Speaking for the Christian population only, which tends towards conservative, too many people tend to sit on their butts in the pew and eat at every church meeting. But I don't believe conservatives condemn liberals for the condition of their health. On the other hand, liberals do condemn conservatives for "being greedy" and "not caring about the poor", etc, etc...
November 14, 2004 11:48 PM
CFP's Generosity Index uses invalid statistical methodology to grossly exaggerate the generosity of poorer (Bush) states. Mississippi households earning $33,754 a year and donating $4,484 is absurd.
I checked CFP’s website for details. They average the income from every tax return, but average charitable donations only from returns that itemize them. Apples and oranges. Only 21% of Mississippi returns itemize donations, compared to 31% nationally. CFP's 15 "most generous" states average 23%, while the 15 "least generous" average 35%. The fewer who give enough to justify itemizing, the more generous a state appears, which makes no sense.
Nineteen of the 20 states with the lowest percentage of returns itemizing donations voted for Bush. They're too poor to give enough to even file a Schedule A. CFP's statistics are completely bogus. They've been getting away with this for how many years?
November 15, 2004 12:03 AM
So liberals give out other people's money, Joel? Whom do you think they give it to? Try comparing federal budget dollars received to taxes paid state by state. 12 of the 15 states with the least received back (77 cents) on their tax dollar voted for Kerry. 14 of the 15 with the most received ($1.63) voted for Bush. The red states talk self-reliance and small government, but they feed off of the blue states. He who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul's vote.
November 15, 2004 12:12 AM
I assure you. It is the Kerry constituency that feeds off the government tax dollars. Why do you think Liberals are able to get their votes again and again? They frighten them into thinking they are going to lose their "entitlement". Sorry, but the liberals have created a welfare state.
November 15, 2004 12:35 AM
Ahhhh- another class in Liberal Bashing 101. Today's bout is Liberals Vs. Conservatives - AGAIN (sigh) - so much for a common ground that will make America stronger. As usual, it is apparent that it is still more an issue of "who's right and who's wrong" - that wonderful American trait of fierce and ruthless competition that makes us SOOOOO much better than other countries, HAHA. Somehow I think that the poor kid that grows up in the ghetto or backwoods with little opportunity ares much about if liberals or conservatives are better. More likely he has had dreams and hopes of " The American Dream", that the harder he works, he might have a chance of making it. But as he tries and tries and fails and fails, working anything he can find and still not able to pay the bills or have any degree of economic future other than more poverty, he watches football players make millions for nothing, infomercials for useless products, TV reality shows and Hollywood's million dollar nosejobs, and a President that sends good jobs overseas and gives out more minimum wage jobs that can't even keep him fed. He could care less if liberals or conservatives are right or wrong, he just wants one chance to make it through a winter night without freezing. But, I guess it is more important for conservatives and liberals to prove who has the bigger "you know what" than to combine forces to help this kid and the millions like him. Why not, it's the Capitalist way. Buy, buy, Buy MORE MORE MORE!!!
November 15, 2004 01:12 AM
C'mon Robert.. it's not about whose schmeckie is bigger. It is a battle of ideas.
The whole concept of libs and conservatives working together is a myth. The two are so polar in their approach to governing, meeting "halfway", so to speak, would dilute either's attempts to affect change.
There are plenty of stories of people who began in poverty and worked their way up without a hand-out.
Incidently, the President is not the one sending jobs oversees. This is another myth. The fact is that outsourcing provides MORE jobs for Americans. When American businesses can get certain labor done cheaper, it allows their businesses to grow. When their businesses grow, it is good for our economy. And the cycle continues.
Case in point is my internet business. Being a small businessman, I cannot afford to pay web designers the $50-$100/hour they charge in the States. But I can outsource to India or Pakistan and get the job done for a fraction of the cost. When I develop new sites, I provide a new revenue stream that allows me to buy promotional materials from a printer in the U.S. I am able to hire an Internet Service Provider to set me up with another T1 line because of my increased bandwidth needs. I am paying several other services to do jobs that I did not have a use for before. Essentially, the money is pouring back into our economy. A rising tide lifts all boats.
Jobs outsourced cycle to become jobs insourced. The global economy is a beautiful thing!
November 15, 2004 02:29 AM
I suppose I can understand the logic behind outsourcing - if the way you describe it is correct. But that still doesn't change the fact that in many ways, this country's economy is still based on a rich get richer, poor get poorer mentality. The other side of the coin is that many people who did get "handouts" and STILL could not make it, basically give up and live off of the system for what they can get, since they see it a hopeless cause to work when they get more from welfare than they do 40=hour a week jobs that only pay minimum wage. Yes, there are many stories of rags to riches, but there are MANY more, millions more, of people who give up and turn to selling drugs or worse because they tried hard to be honest, tried and tried and tried to make it while inflation increased prices and minimum wge stayed the same and more jobs were lost - they tried and tried and still failed, so they gave up. This is a sad truth, but a truth nonetheless - not a "myth" as you like to call everything. This happens to them while people born into wealth like George W. and yes, even John Kerry, get richer and they prostitute themselves just to get their next meal. "America Can Do Better" ABSOLUTELY. And it starts with Libs and Conservatives giving up the arguing and getting together to be ONE NATION, instaed of fighting pettey squabbles while children starve.
November 15, 2004 06:38 PM
Joel's right, liberals did create the welfare state, but oddly enough the people who live off it now are mainly conservatives. Entitlements go overwhelmingly to the middle class, elderly and farmers. A much smaller percentage goes to the poor. This isn't the 1960s anymore.
November 15, 2004 07:46 PM
Do you have some data to back this up Dave? It is my understanding that the poor make up a large majority of the welfare state.
November 16, 2004 12:07 AM
www.nasbo.org/Policy_Resources/Medicaid/medicaid.htm <-Good pie charts but from 1998. In 1998, 23% of federal spending was Social Security and 12% was Medicare. The "Remaining Entitlements" of 5% are mainly government pensions and VA benefits. So, 40% of federal spending in 1998 was entitlements for people 65+ and are not means tested. Retirees are actually wealthier than the American average, and 56% voted for Bush. (56% of veterans voted for Bush, too.) Medicaid for the poor accounted for 6% of federal spending, but since states contribute 43% to the program, you can pretend that's 10%. "Other Means-Tested Entitlements" for the poor accounted for 6% of federal spending. Since welfare rolls have been cut in half since 1996, that number has certainly shrunk. Farm subsidies were $35B in 2002 (compared to $454B for Social Security) and we know how the Great Plains voted.
November 16, 2004 12:12 AM
If I take the time, I can find more recent data than 1998, but I may not find such nice pie charts.
November 16, 2004 05:04 AM
How is it possible to associate GENEROSITY and GW BUSH ? you have an incredibly mafioso president, who just try to get the maximum of money for its friends and family by creating wars here and here, then selling weapons...
November 17, 2004 01:42 PM
Borland is right about the Gen Index. The first weird thing I noticed about it - besides all the backwater states like Miss being the most generous(Boy! those poor people just don't when to stop giving!!) was how they use AGI instead of after-tax or disposable income. Nobody donates based on AGI, they donate based on disposable income. I recomputed the percentages for Miss and New Hampsire - the "most" and "least" generous states repespectively - using after-tax income and guess what? The difference was narrowed to 1%. It would probably go to zero or NH would overtake Miss if I went further and used disposable income. In fact, I plan on it.
November 25, 2004 07:36 PM
It has long been known that poorer people give a larger share of their income to charity than richer people.
So I think it can be argued that this blue state versus red state compassion thing is simply a reflection of where rich people live.
I've read more than once that New Hampshire has the largest number of millionaire per capita in the USA. This may explain better why NH is number 50 on this list.
So this may not be a Bush versus Kerry supporter issue at all. I suspect that if you remove the rich from those studied in both states, the difference between NH and Mississippi will disapear and may even reverse.
Then I'd like to see a study about who the rich voted for. I suspect that the rich overwhelmingly voted for Bush. Thus, although this post seems to indicate that Bush supporters are more generous to charities than Kerry supporters, I suspect that when studied scientifically, it will be borne out that Kerry supporters blew away Bush supporters in giving to charities.
But then again, why use science to study things when you can use faith alone? Isn't that one of the cornerstones of the GW Bush Presidency?
November 28, 2004 12:58 AM
"It has long been known that poorer people give a larger share of their income to charity than richer people."
Where is the evidence of that?
March 22, 2005 01:43 PM
bush isnt the worst, but HE STINkS. go Nader
September 8, 2005 12:06 PM
Ah, the Generosity Index. To start, it doesn't calculate the average amount of charitable giving for people in a state; it takes the average for those tax returns which itemize charitable giving, and extrapolates to all those who don't - - in some states that means generalizing to 85% of the population, and assuming they give over $6,000 without itemizing. Uh HUH.
Secondly, even if the richest state in the Union gave away everything, it couldn't be seen as generous. Why? Because it can't do better on its giving rank than it did on its earning rank. Similarly, the poorest state can't do worse. Bottom earning states have a greater opportunity to move "up" than high earning states have. And high earning states have a greater opportunity to move down than lower earning states do. Just by merit of where they are in the earning ranks.
I could go on, but I'd rather you read my detailed analysis at http://www.samueljohnson.com/blog/archives/0411b.html#12a.
Maybe you'll like it SO much you'll even incorporate it into your post as an update... It deserves it.