Who's generous, who's not
George Will's column on our Second Opinion page today pulls me back to a point I brushed on in writing about Barack Obama's town hall meeting here Wednesday.
Joe Guarino picked up on it, too.
Obama was asked about his Christian faith, which he explained in some detail.
"I also believe in a gospel of not just words but deeds," he said -- meaning treating people with dignity, caring for the poor, taking care of the earth. "I've tried to channel this into my politics."
Which is where Will's column comes in.
(By the way, George, I wrote about this in November 2006.)
Citing research by Arthur C. Brooks of Syracuse University, Will reports significant differences between conservatives and liberals in charitable giving. In short, conservatives generally give more out of their own pockets while liberals expect government to do it.
One explanation is that conservatives are much more likely to be religious than are liberals, but there's still a giving gap between religious conservatives and religious liberals, who maybe think they can meet their religious obligations by supporting government programs.
Is Obama one of those liberals? Hard to say. In terms of his charitable donations, it looks like the answer is yes and no.
Obama and his wife gave negligible amounts to charity from 1998 through 2004 on income ranging from $180,000 to $270,000 a year, AP reports. Donations increased substantially when Obama's income rose into seven figures with a couple of book deals. The senator hasn't released his 2007 tax return yet, but his campaign says he contributed $240,000 to charity -- more than in the last nine years combined.
A cynic might suggest Obama didn't want to appear stingy as a presidential candidate. Well, that's a lot of money to prove a point. Prior to 2005, however, he WAS stingy. But maybe not in his mind if he wants the government to be more "generous" with taxpayers' money.
He's challenged Hillary Clinton to release her tax returns since she and Bill left the White House, and she says she will. That should reveal whether she puts her own money where her mouth is, or just calls for spending other people's.
Comments (7)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I wouldn't expect so much of George Will, but you know very well that money alone doesn't define generosity. You'll find Peace Corps volunteers to be overwhelmingly liberal and my experience in Charlotte nonprofits has been that the staff and volunteers at these organizations tend to be liberal too (but not nearly to the extent of PCVs). As for Obama, a large part of his life was devoted to organizing and advocating for people in Chicago. As president of the Harvard Law Review, he easily could have gone on to extremely high paying jobs. Perhaps his income on all those tax returns would have been 10 times higher. Raw giving numbers are an extremely incomplete, and misleading, figure.
Posted on March 28, 2008 11:41 AM
Right. The study referred to doesn't claim to measure volunteering (except for blood donations, something conservatives also do more frequently). But for what it does study, the results are very dramatic.
Posted on March 28, 2008 11:46 AM
George Will plagarized you, Doug. Ya oughta go after some of his syndication fees.
Posted on March 28, 2008 11:47 AM
I agree the results are dramatic. I disagree, however, of using what it does find to draw conclusions of generosity. My biggest objection was that Will's article's purpose was to show liberals as hypocrites.
And about Hilllary:
"That should reveal whether she puts her own money where her mouth is, or just calls for spending other people's."
No doubt the Clintons are in the top tax bracket, so if she advocated raising taxes, it would be hers as well.
Posted on March 28, 2008 12:03 PM
Citing research by Arthur C. Brooks of Syracuse University, Will reports significant differences between conservatives and liberals in charitable giving. In short, conservatives generally give more out of their own pockets while liberals expect government to do it.* Doug
Good Grief! Do you really believe this Prof knows where the so-call conservatives gave their money? Heck! This is nothing but Al Gore mythical Global Warming in reverse.
I bet this is the same dude who is promoting that Senator McCain is getting all of the anti-war Obama and Clinton votes and surgering to victory now?
Posted on March 28, 2008 12:48 PM
Citing research by Arthur C. Brooks of Syracuse University, Will reports significant differences between conservatives and liberals in charitable giving. In short, conservatives generally give more out of their own pockets while liberals expect government to do it.* Doug
Good Grief! Do you really believe this Prof knows where the so-call conservatives gave their money? Heck! This is nothing but Al Gore mythical Global Warming in reverse.
I bet this is the same dude who is promoting that Senator McCain is getting all of the anti-war Obama and Clinton votes and surgering to victory now?
Posted on March 28, 2008 12:48 PM
I agree that the analysis that Will cites is clever, but there are a few problems with it. Here's one. Most of what constitutes "charity" in America doesn't help the poor. An Indiana University study from last year estimates that only 31% of all charitable giving benefits poor people. The remaining 69% are gifts from middle-class and rich people to institutions that benefit middle-class and rich people: museums, universities, churches, etc.
Now, I'm certainly not saying that such gifts are bad, and as the president of Temple Emanuel here in Greensboro, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all those who so generously support our synagogue.
But the fundamental issue that Obama brought up was helping the poor, and therefore it's misleading to use data on charitable giving without making further adjustments and estimates. For all we know, the blue-staters in the study that Will cites direct more of their charitable gifts to the poor and needy.
Posted on March 28, 2008 5:48 PM