Wednesday, November 24, 2004


~Jen~ who runs Fair-haired, yet strangely unbalanced has often blogged on that exclamation of surprise, "But you're so can you be a Republican", that is all too familiar to the conservative voter. Many have tried to dispel the 'greedy uncaring Republican' myth by explaining that we all want the same things --we just have very different ideas on how we should achieve them...

It is my view that it is the responsibility of individuals to take care of the less fortunate among us. That the government should be running the government and not engineering society. I believe that as a conservative it would be wrong and hypocritical if I did not donate to charity and volunteer my time to those less fortunate. If I don't want the government to do it --it becomes MY responsibility. This is a well-known conservative concept...but one that is foreign to most on the left. "You volunteer at a soup kitchen?...but your a Republican..." I HATE that. But then you get..."well if all republicans were like you...maybe I could understand the thinking..." But they are! My conservative friends do & give way more than my liberal friends. Most Dems take an AIDS walk once a year and call it a day. See, the difference is they think the government should solve all life’s woes and we think that it is our responsibility. I HATE when the WWJD argument is thrown up by the left...Jesus said take care of the lesser of your brothers.... Exactly...he didn't say, "Let Caesar take care of them"...He said YOU do it. YOU...not Caesar...

As I was thinking about this today, I looked around to see if there was any data that would back up my belief that Republicans give more to charity...that Republicans truly are (on average) the more compassionate party. I found plenty...

This was an article from the Wall Street Journal based on the 2003 report from the Catalogue For Philanthropy:

"RED STATES CARE: In news sure to depress those for whom Republican stinginess and antipathy for the less fortunate is an article of faith, the Massachusetts Catalogue for Philanthropy has just released its Generosity Index 2003, which ranks states not just by how much their residents give per capita but also by how much they give relative to what they earn. As reader Gabriel Openshaw pointed out to us, the resulting index shows that the top 20 states all went for George W. Bush in the 2000 election--while 15 of the 20 least generous went for Al Gore. Maybe, he suggests, the difference is that those in red states are more generous with their own money while those in blue states are more likely to be generous with other people's money."

Also 2003 tax return for the Bush's, the Kerry's and the Cheney's:
Cheney's: $321,141 (included all Mrs. Cheney book precedes)
Bush's: $95,043
Kerry’s: $43,735

The piece de resistance was this:

"This year's findings reveal that 80 percent of the red states rank higher in generosity than any of the blue states and that all the blue states are in the lower half of the list.
Also, some of the red states with the lowest generosity ratings are those that voted for Bush most narrowly."

These findings/charts are based on the percentage of what is earned against what is given.

So, stop with all the unabashed shock and awe at the thought of altruism at the hands of the GOP rank and file. The numbers are there...Compassionate conservatism is not a myth. We don't want Senate to pass a bill to send 20 cases of chicken noodle soup to a shelter in North Philly...we want to take it there and dish it out ourselves.

No comments: