Conservatives More Liberal Givers

March 27, 2008

Conservatives More Liberal Givers

By George Will

WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."

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.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the leastcharitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

Nearly Half of U.S Lives in Household Receiving Government Benefits

• 

• JANUARY 17, 2012, 11:44 AM ET
• 
  
• Nearly Half of U.S Lives in Household Receiving Government Benefits

The pool of Americans relying on government benefits rose to record highs last year as an increasing share of families tapped aid in a weak economy.

Some 48.6% of the population lived in a household receiving some type of government benefit in the second quarter of 2010, up a notch from 48.5% in the first quarter, according to Censusdata.

Expanding government programs combined with the worst downturn since the Great Depression have led to an explosion in the share of Americans relying on outside help. To combat prolonged economic weakness, Congress extended unemployment benefits to a record 99 weeks (up from the normal 26-weeks offered in most states). The food stamp program was tweaked so it was more generous. Americans flocked to Social Security disability, a last bastion of support for some of the long-term unemployed. (See a timeline on the history of government benefits programs here.)

Experts predict recipient rolls will decline as the economy grows healthier, but the rising federal deficit has brought government spending, and particularly benefits programs, under closer scrutiny. House Republicans, for example, have proposed block-granting Medicaid (the federal-state health care program for the poor) in order to cut costs. The shift would put more of the responsibility on the states for both designing and paying for their health care programs.

The largest chunk of benefits flowing to families came from means-tested programs. In the second quarter, 34.4% lived in a household benefiting from food stamps, subsidized housing or Medicaid, among others.

That number is up from 32.8% a year ago (when a total of 46.8% of the population lived in a home receiving benefits). The biggest increases came from an uptick in those turning to food stamps and Medicaid.

Nearly 15% of Americans lived in a household receiving food stamps in mid-2010; Almost 26% had access to Medicaid.

Only a small share of the population accessed cash welfare benefits as the 1990s overhaul made it more onerous in many cases to receive and maintain those payments. Some 1.9% of the population lived in a household that received welfare in the second quarter of 2010.

Copyright 2008 Do

Survey: Small businesses don’t want anything to do with the government

By Alexis Levinson Published: 10:52 PM 01/18/2012

By Alexis Levinson

Bio | Archive | Email Alexis Levinson

 Follow Alexis Levinson Get Alexis Levinson Feed

inShare8

Barack Obama, left, answers a question from plumber Joe Wurzelbacher in Holland, Ohio, Oct. 12, 2008. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

Economic uncertainty and concern about government regulations have small businesses worried for the future and disinclined to hire new employees, according to a fourth quarter survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The study surveyed 1,322 small business executives, and found that just over half said “economic uncertainty” was one of the top reasons they were not hiring new employees.

Government regulations, the federal deficit and the national debt also worried the business owners. 84 percent of respondents indicated that  the national debt made them uncertain about the future. 86 percent said that regulations, restrictions and taxes were major concerns.

What could be coming down the pipeline next is also scary, with 59 percent saying the possibility of future regulations is even scarier than the current regulations.

Ideally, 82 percent of small business executives said, Washington would just stay out of their way, rather than try to help. Only 6 percent want more help in dealing with the current economic climate.

As far as dealing with unemployment, 63 percent of respondents said they’re unlikely to expand their workforce in the next year, and just 19 percent said they hired more people over the past year.

The reasons include economic uncertainty, as well as low sales, and 36 percent said concern about possible new regulations kept them from expanding their payroll. Just under a third said the new health care law and the requirements that come with it are keeping them from hiring.

The antipathy toward Washington is focused on bureaucrats, who were blamed by 47 percent of business executives, while President Barack Obama was blamed by 29 percent, and Congress by just 18 percent.

“The policies coming out of Washington are only exacerbating the economic uncertainty that small businesses continue to cite as their greatest challenge,” said U.S. Chamber President and CEO Thomas J. Donohue. “Heading into an election year, our country’s job creators are speaking with a unified voice in saying that we need a change of course in Washington.”

Nonetheless, there is optimism about the success of these businesses. Forty percent of respondents believe their best days are in the future, and just 20 percent say they are behind them. Moreover, 34 percent said they believe that the small business climate is likely to improve in the next two years, an uptick since the third quarter, when just 23 percent expected this outcome.

The Chamber of Commerce began conducting the survey in May 2011, as a means of tracking the outlook of small businesses. This survey was conducted online from December 30, 2011 through January 6, 2012.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/18/survey-small-businesses-dont-want-anything-to-do-with-the-government/#ixzz1jvvuWgFr

FED-UP LIMBAUGH UNLEASHES FIRESTORM: OBAMA ‘PRETENDS TO CARE ABOUT THE MIDDLE CLASS BUT LIVES LIKE A KING AT THE PUBLIC TROUGH’

• Posted on January 18, 2012 at 8:33pm by  Becket Adams
• Print »
• Email »

• Comments (114)

Ever since former governor Mitt Romney made his “about 15 percent” comment Tuesday morning, media outlets have been reporting almost non-stop that a) the GOP candidate is wealthy and b) his effective federal tax rate seems very low.

Apparently, the media’s fascination with the former Massachusetts governor’s comments proved too much for radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. On his show Wednesday, Limbaugh had some “you shoulda’ said” advice for the GOP hopeful.

“When all this kerfuffle starts about Mitt Romney, this 15 percent tax rate, he can say, ‘Look, we live in America, not some failed Soviet satellite. I favor a flat, or fair tax. I want to get rid of the IRS, or most of it. I favor denying big spending Obamacare liberals our income. I favor putting Obama and his reckless spending radicals on a diet, a diet we call private property rights. We call it limited government. We call it taking our country back,’” Limbaugh said.

However, Limbaugh was just getting warmed up. It’s not enough to simply refute the attack, Limbaugh said, but conservatives should go on the offensive and preach the message of conservatism.

“This class warfare garbage, it might work in these cloistered campaign circles surrounding Obama, but this is not our country. This is not a country that has been living under class envy all of these years since its interception. This is not about have and have-nots. It’s about protecting all of us from a bloated federal government. It’s about protecting us from everybody who benefits from bloated federal government and never-ending federal spending,” Limbaugh said.

From there, Limbaugh launched into the type of heated tirade that made him famous in the early 90s (via Daily Rushbo):

Full transcript (via Rush Limbaugh):

Now, here‘s what Romney doesn’t do, all this talk about Romney, 15 percent, his speech income, he doesn’t know how much, how little and so forth. Let me tell you what Romney doesn’t do. Romney has not played over 90 rounds of golf in three years while everybody is suffering. Romney has not flown all over the world on the federal government’s dime. Romney has not had lavish parties and concerts on the public’s dime. Romney has not lived like a king on other people’s money. He has sent his wife on government jets four hours ahead of him to the same destination. Romney is not responsible, nor is any other Republican, for the 16 percent unemployment, real unemployment in this country. Romney is not responsible for increased fuel and food costs. He’s not responsible for any of this.

That would be Obama, who pretends to care about the middle class but lives like a king at the public trough. Mitt Romney’s not the problem. Newt Gingrich isn’t the problem. Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, not the problem. We find ourselves in this mess because of Barack Obama. And here come some people who want to dramatically change course, reverse course. And all we get in the news media is what a bunch of reprobates they are, when every one of them is a fine human being. Every one of them is a decent person. Every one of them is an average American in their own ways. Obama is not, his wife is not.

Now, if the left wants to discuss this kind of thing and the media wants to talk about it, let’s talk about it. What financial sacrifices have the Obamas made? What money of theirs do they have that is theirs, that they have earned? How many no-show jobs has Michelle Obama had? How many people get to spend other people‘s money like they do and then act like they’re entitled to do it, in the midst of so much economic suffering throughout the country? Mitt Romney‘s not up there telling people don’t go to Las Vegas, don’t go to resorts. Mitt Romney’s not up there promising to focus laser-like on jobs and then not do it. Mitt Romney hasn’t grown the federal budget by $5 trillion.

Do you realize that Barack Obama has already spent the federal budget for the two years of the next administration, whoever’s in charge of it. He’s already spent it. The entire federal budget for fiscal 2013 and 2014 is already spent.  That’s how much money Obama spent. Romney hasn’t spent a dime of it. Nor has Newt Gingrich. The entire federal budget for two years after Obama loses in 2012 is already spent, folks.  How much money did Mitt Romney throw at Solyndra?  How much of your money did Mitt Romney throw at Solyndra and all of these other green energy companies?  How many automobile companies did Mitt Romney take over with your money and then demand they start making cars that nobody wants?

Did Mitt Romney turn down the Keystone pipeline?  Is Mitt Romney responsible for rising energy costs and depleting energy supplies?  All of this is Barack Obama.  Every ounce of misery, economic misery in this country is directly traceable to the Oval Office and the offices of Pelosi and Reid, and every other Democrat on Capitol Hill, and every Democrat staff member.  Mitt Romney‘s tax rate is not responsible for one deleterious thing that’s happened to any person in this country.  Mitt Romney has done more to empower and enrich individuals with Bain Capital and the other things he‘s done at the Olympics than Barack Obama could ever hope to do because Barack Obama’s done nothing but ruin people’s lives.  And we want to talk about Mitt Romney’s 15 percent tax rate and how much he makes on speeches, while we don‘t talk about Bill Clinton’s $82 million in speeches, his average fee of $181,000 a speech.

Mitt Romney had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis. Mitt Romney had nothing to do with the bottoming out of the housing market. Mitt Romney had nothing to do with half this country losing the value of its number one asset, its home.  And nor did Newt Gingrich, and neither did Rick Perry or Rick Santorum.  What are we talking about here? Mitt Romney has not traveled to a foreign country and apologized for America any time, anywhere, anyplace. Nor has Newt Gingrich, nor has Rick Santorum or Rick Perry. Not one decision that has led to economic disaster in this country, the decline of this country, has been made by Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney or Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann or Jon Huntsman, any of the others that have sought the Republican nomination.

And in all of this economic downturn I ask you: What financial sacrifices have the Obamas made? See, one thing Romney could say: “If I’m elected president, I will actually be taking a pay cut, but for Barack Obama the presidency was a path to becoming a millionaire.” The presidency is going to cost Mitt Romney money. The presidency was a path to wealth for Barack Obama and for Bill Clinton. Now, you want to talk about morality and decency and who’s a good guy and who cares about the little guy and so forth? This is all a crock, folks. This is all the way this silly game is played. Of course, it‘s frustrating for us that there’s (groans) apparently not a candidate that thinks like I am articulating things here.

I know it’s frustrating, but this is what happens when there’s not a genuine conservative. Newt comes close, in his moments where he shines. If somebody said something like this in a debate, the standing O [ovation] would never end. The moderators would lose total control of the debate. Plus, everything I said has an added benefit: It’s all true. None of it is made up. In fact, I just scratch the surface. Nobody ever says this kind of stuff to Obama’s face. They asked Jay Carney yesterday, “Well, what about the Clem transcripts?” Carney said, “Well (muttering). It’s not important. It’s not relevant! What do you mean? He’s the King! He doesn’t have to tell you that.”

That’s just their attitude.

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

President Barack Obama deserves to be called "the most successful food stamp president in American history" because "47 million Americans are on food stamps."

Newt Gingrich on Sunday, May 15th, 2011 in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press"

Newt Gingrich defends calling Barack Obama "food stamp president"

Share this story:

Fresh off his official announcement that he'd be running for president, Newt Gingrich sat for an interview with NBC's Meet the Press on May 15, 2011. We checked his facts.

On the May 15, 2011, edition of NBC’sMeet the Press, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich defended his earlier characterization of President Barack Obama as "the most successful food stamp president in American history."

Host David Gregory first showed a clip of Gingrich’s earlier comment, made at a Georgia Republican Party dinner.

 "You want to be a country that creates food stamps, in which case frankly Obama's is an enormous success," Gingrich said in the recorded excerpt. "The most successful food stamp president in American history.  Or do you want to be a country that creates paychecks?"

Gregory then asked Gingrich if that comment included overtones of racism.

Gingrich shot back, "Oh, come on, David!"

Gregory responded, "What did you mean? What was the point?"

Gingrich replied, "That's, that's bizarre. That -- this kind of automatic reference to racism, this is the president of the United States. The president of the United States has to be held accountable. Now, the idea that -- and what I said is factually true.  Forty-seven million Americans are on food stamps.  One out of every six Americans is on food stamps."

We're not going to address the racial implications but decided to check Gingrich's main comment. We see two points to investigate. First, are Gingrich’s numbers accurate? And second, is it fair to blame Obama for today's high use of food stamps?

First, the numbers.

We’ll start by noting that "food stamps" -- which provide qualifying, low-income Americans with vouchers to buy groceries -- have officially been known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, since October 2008, although many people still use the informal name.

For the most recent month with available data -- February 2011 -- roughly 44.2  million people received SNAP benefits. That’s a bit less than Gingrich had said, but it’s in the ballpark. That also wasn’t a fluke: February marked the third consecutive month that the number of recipients topped 44 million.

In fact, based on our look through the historical data, February’s numbers appear to be the highest number of beneficiaries in any month since the program was established in 1969. As recently as October 2007, about 27 million Americans received SNAP benefits. That’s more than a 60 percent increase in beneficiaries in three and a half years.

The 44 million accounts for about 14 percent of Americans -- slightly less than one out of every seven, rather than one out of six, as Gingrich said.

Now the second question: Is it fair to lay the blame on Obama?

Obviously, the rise in food stamps is a direct consequence of the serious recession that began in December 2007 -- more than a year before Obama took office. It’s hard to determine how much blame Obama deserves compared to his predecessor, President George W. Bush, but the experts we spoke to, conservative and liberal, agree that Obama inherited a serious economic situation.

Part of the reason it’s tricky to divvy up blame is that there is typically a lag time before an upturn in the broader economy begins to show up in decreased SNAP usage. The monthly growth has slowed over the last three months, and if current trends continue, it could start declining in a month or two.

It’s also impossible to know how high SNAP usage would have gone had the Republicans, rather than Obama, shaped policy in 2009 and 2010. However, the fact remains that SNAP usage has continued to climb every single month of the Obama presidency despite some signs of an economic recovery. So Gingrich’s charge cannot simply be dismissed out of hand.

One last point: The number of food stamp beneficiaries had started to head upward under Bush, partly because of more aggressive efforts to get eligible Americans to apply for benefits, and partly because of changes in the rules that had the effect of broadening eligibility. The experts we spoke to agreed that both policies began under Bush but were retained by Obama.

The changes produced consistent increases in the number of average monthly beneficiaries. The number rose in seven out of the eight years of Bush’s presidency -- most of which were years not considered recessionary. All told, the number of recipients rose by a cumulative 63 percent during Bush’s eight-year presidency.

Where does this leave us? Gingrich was close on the numbers of Americans receiving SNAP benefits. In addition, the number of beneficiaries is at a record level, and it has risen every month of the Obama presidency. On the other hand, Gingrich oversimplifies when he suggests that Obama should be considered "the most successful food stamp president in American history," because much -- though probably not all -- of the reason for the increase was a combination of the economic problems Obama inherited and a longstanding upward trend from policy changes. On balance, we rate Gingrich’s statement Half True.

Obama: More jobs in jobless benefits than Keystone

Obama: More jobs in jobless benefits than Keystone

byJoel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer

Follow on Twitter:

President Obama said that he will delay his vacation and keep Congress in session until the passage of his desired payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits extension -- two proposals that Obama said would create more jobs than the Keystone XL pipeline that his administration recently delayed.

"I would not ask anyone to do something I'm not willing to do myself," Obama saidwhen asked if he would go on vacation while keeping Congress in Washington D.C. "We are going to stay here as long as it takes [to get unemployment extended and pass the payroll tax cut]."

As Obama called for passage of those bills, he also responded to a recent Republican push to require him to approve the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada. "However many jobs might be generated by a Keystone pipeline," he said, "they're going to be a lot fewer than the jobs that are created by extending the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment insurance."