America really is a giving country

From Arthur Brook’s piece on the American:

Americans are remarkably charitable. But what sorts of people give the most? And how do we compare with the Europeans?

Q. How much do Americans give? Is the amount we give going up?
A. In 2006, Americans gave about $295 billion to charity. This was up 4.2 percent over 2005 levels, and charitable giving has generally risen faster than the growth of the American economy for more than half a century. Correcting for inflation and population changes, GDP per person in America has risen over the past 50 years by about 150 percent, while charitable giving per person has risen by about 190 percent. That is, the average American family has gotten much richer in real terms over the past half century, and charitable giving has more than kept pace with this trend.

I noticed this personally after Hurricane Katrina. I lived in New Orleans during that time and after broadcasting live during the storm. I lost my job. But, a couple of my friends reached deep into their own pockets to help me out. I’m sure this happened to thousands of others as well. This won’t even be reported in Brook’s article because that form of giving doesn’t show up in any statistic.

Another great example is the money raised for Dave last week on Ankarlo Mornings. Dave called into the show to say it was the little things in life that made him happy despite falling behind on his truck payments. Ankarlo made the call out to you. And you not only helped Dave catch up with his truck payment, you raised enough money for Dave to pay off his truck so the creditors can never take it from him. Dave, an old Marine, got emotional when he was told the news. America is a great and generous nation and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

More from Brooks:

Q. Are Americans more or less charitable than citizens of other countries?
A. No developed country approaches American giving. For example, in 1995 (the most recent year for which data are available), Americans gave, per capita, three and a half times as much to causes and charities as the French, seven times as much as the Germans, and 14 times as much as the Italians. Similarly, in 1998, Americans were 15 percent more likely to volunteer their time than the Dutch, 21 percent more likely than the Swiss, and 32 percent more likely than the Germans. These differences are not attributable to demographic characteristics such as education, income, age, sex, or marital status. On the contrary, if we look at two people who are identical in all these ways except that one is European and the other American, the probability is still far lower that the European will volunteer than the American.

The dream ticket

Sen. John McCain is struggling to get some media attention while Sens. Clinton and Obama fight for the Democratic nomination.  This week the focus has been on the “dream ticket,” a joint Clinton-Obama ticket.

On the CBS Early show, Clinton said “that may…be where this is headed.”  Then her husband, former President Bill Clinton added the two would be “almost unstoppable.”  But, who would be on top of the ticket?  Clinton says she deserves it, while Obama says the same thing.

Clinton thinks she deserves it because she won big states in the primaries such as California, New York, New Jersey and Ohio.  She also thinks she deserves it because she is Hillary Clinton.  Obama points out that he has won twice as many states as Clinton and maintains both a delegate lead and a popular vote lead.  Right now, Obama deserves it.  Yesterday in Mississippi, Obama said, “I have won twice as many states as Sen. Clinton. I have won more of the popular vote than Sen. Clinton. I have more delegates than Sen. Clinton. So I don’t know how somebody who is in second place is offering the vice presidency to the person who is in first place.”

Allow me to inject race into the dream ticket because it is important.  By all accounts Obama is winning.  But, Hillary is laying claim to the throne.   Once again, I see the whitey holding down the black man.  Think about it.  It’s Obama, the black man, that isn’t experienced enough to be the President.  But, he’s good enough to be number two.  Just a thought…

The impossibility of change

Sen. Barack Obama’s motto is “Change we can believe in.”  Assume, Obama becomes President on January 20, 2009.  What exactly will change?

Remember, the executive branch is one part of our government.   Obama can’t change politics or government on his own.  In order to pass any legislation he will have to work with both the House and Senate.  Because Congress will remain in Democrats hands, Obama will have an easier time of passing legislation.  Again I ask, what will that change?

Say Obama passes his health care plan and more Americans are covered.  How will that change the costs of health care?  Can we all agree that our health industry is great, but flawed?  The insurance industry is a disaster.  Obama’s changes will result in cosmetic changes that may look great to voters but fail to enact real change.  Obama also promised to end the war in Iraq as soon as he takes office.  What will that change?  Iraq will still be in the midst of chaos as Sunni’s, Shiites and Kurds continue to battle over land, oil and rights.  In fact, Iraq could become a power vacuum without the U.S. military there with all the sect vying for control.  Once again, the change will appeal to our eyes, but fail to be real.

Sen. Obama also wants to change Washington.  This is no easy task and probably the biggest uphill battle anyone could face.  The President can’t possibly do this alone.  He would need cooperation of Senators and Representatives.  You have heard the phrase, “you can’t teach and old dog new tricks.”  Well, here are 26 Senators over the age of 70 currently serving with 35 more between the ages of 60-69 (to be fair Sen. Conrad turns 60 on March 12 while Sen Coburn’s 60th birthday is on March 14th.  I have included them in the 60-69 category.)  Are they ready to change with Obama?

The optimist in me has always hoped Washington would wake up and politicians would change.  The pessimist in me knows better.  The problem is, even with Obama running with his message of change, the pessimist in me grows stronger.

A few more thoughts on Hillary…

Sen. Hillary Clinton has some version of this several times on the campaign trail, “Now I think you will be able to imagine many things Sen. McCain will be able to say. He has never been the president. He will put forth his experience. I will put forth my experience. Sen. Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”

Clinton’s first point here in simple.  She is trying to place Obama in the inexperienced corner by saying that experience matters. But, as Time Magazine points out, if experience alone matters, “then second-term presidencies should be more successful than first-term.”  Let’s take a look at those.  In his second term, Bush hasn’t been has the Iraq War looming over his head, the NSA wiretaps, Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.  Clinton’s Monica, Reagan’s Iran Contra Affair, Nixon’s Watergate, and Eisenhower’s Suez Canal all happened during their second terms.  After each President should have been “experienced” enough to avoid these mistakes.  Mistakes happen.  They will happen to a President Hillary Clinton, a President Barack Obama or a President John McCain.

Clinton’s second point is more cryptic.   Here is another example of her message, “I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.”  I get the feeling, Hillary would rather McCain win if she doesn’t win the nomination.  Don’t you also the feeling that Hillary feels she deserves the nomination despite Obama’s delegate lead and popular vote lead?