[Winona] Two Interesting Articles: The Tax Cut Myth

[Roy Nasstrom]

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" <pdouble at hbci.com>
To: "Online Democracy" <winona at mnforum.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:34 PM
Subject: FW: [Winona] Two Interesting Articles: The Tax Cut Myth