Category: Public Policy

Blog author: jballor
Tuesday, October 16, 2007

As a quick follow-up to Ray’s post yesterday, be sure to check out the work of Arthur C. Brooks on charitable giving. The spring issue of Religion & Liberty featured an interview with him, and his book, Who Really Cares?, was the basis for a special focus on ABC’s 20/20 (hosted by John Stossel):

John Stossel: “But it turns out that this idea that liberals give more is a myth. These are the twenty-five states where people give an above average percent of their income, twenty-four were red states in the last presidential election.”

Arthur Brooks, Who Really Cares, author: “When you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about thirty percent more per conservative-headed family than per liberal-headed family. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money.”

Connecting the links between so-called “red” states, conservatism, religiosity, and the south are interesting and instructive exercises.

I remember riding back to seminary in Kentucky a couple years ago with a young lady and we pulled off the expressway to grab a bite. As we were getting ready to pay our bill, the young lady, who happened to be from Mississippi, said, “God is telling me to give 100 dollars to this young man behind the counter of this restaurant. ” Needless to say this young man was thankful of God’s decision to speak through the young woman in this manner.

An article by Heather Donckels and a study by empty tomb, inc shows that Southerners as a group give the most to church and religious organizations. Empty tomb, inc. is a Christian research organization in Champaign, Illinois.

If there are any Southern evangelicals who have been a member of a church during a building campaign, this study makes even more sense. Midwesterners placed second in the study. While Southerners lead in overall charitable giving, they give less as a group to charities outside of the religious domain.

Donckels notes in her piece:

The North American Religion Atlas, using data from the 2000 census, shows a high concentration of Protestants in the South while Catholics dominate the Northeast. For example, only 8 percent of people in the South are Catholics, compared to 42 percent of New Englanders.

Francis Butler, president of the Washington-based Foundations and Donors Interested in Catholic Activities, said research shows Catholics give about 1 percent of income to charity. Protestants, meanwhile, generally give double that, he said.

While this may be one factor of many, there is obviously more to giving than denominational demographics. One obvious factor may be that religious participation and church attendance is higher in Southern states, compared with other regions. Cultural differences are probably more of a factor than denominational factors.

Also in the article, University of Mississippi professor Charles Reagan Wilson is quoted as saying:

The South’s approach to giving has stressed private charity over governmental assistance. Southerners have long tended to be conservative on issues of government, stressing provision from family and churches rather than government intervention in times of crisis.

So it seems, there is still a flickering spirit of Jeffersonian political philosophy alive in Dixie.

Truth is definitely stranger than fiction, with Gore and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sharing this year’s Nobel Peace Prize.

In recent years, the Nobel Committee has shown itself more and more willing to name the Peace prize for political reasons. In awarding Al Gore and the IPCC the Peace Prize, however, the Nobel Committee has lost all pretense to objectivity. Not only are Al Gore and the IPCC shamelessly partisan choices, but also irrelevant ones. Whatever one thinks of their crusade to convince the world of catastrophic, human caused global warming, it has precious little to do with furthering world peace.

Gore seems to have anticipated the criticism. In his first statement, he explains: “The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level.” Methinks this issue has much to do with ideology, and little to do with science.

[Ed. note: Hear Jay Richards discuss Gore’s peace prize on the G. Gordon Liddy show here.]

A stony-faced Al Gore reflects on his failure to win a Nobel Prize for Science.

In a stunning turn of events, the Nobel Committee failed to award a Nobel Prize for Science to Al Gore, instead opting to present him with the Peace Prize despite the scant evidence that his recent climate change-related activities have contributed anything to the advancement of global peace.

The award can be seen as something of a consolation prize for Gore, however, as in recent days even the British judicial system has ruled that “An Inconvenient Truth,” Gore’s global warming documentary, is full of “alarmism and exaggeration.”

Gore joins other non-luminaries of the global peace pantheon who have also won the award, including Kofi Anan and the United Nations and Yasser Arafat.

More: Czech President Vaclav Claus:

“The relationship between his activities and world peace is unclear and indistinct,” the statement said. “It rather seems that Gore’s doubting of basic cornerstones of the current civilization does not contribute to peace.”

Blog author: jspalink
Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Society is changing as economic freedom and diversification gradually creep into the Middle East. Dr. Samuel Gregg, director of research at the Acton Institute, explores the effects of free trade on nations including Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates and, in turn, the effect those nations are having on their neighbors.

The diversification of economies, notably the development of new products and services for export, allows nations to grow out of reliance on oil production as the main source of capital. The emerging economies create an entrepreneurial atmosphere open to all and encourages foreign investment. The result is a rise out of poverty and more open foreign relations.

Read the full commentary here.

Normally, I’m not a huge fan of Congressman John Dingell. But on this issue, I have to at least give him points for honesty:

Democrats took over Congress vowing to make global warming a top priority, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi planned to notch a quick victory with a bill that was long on political symbolism and cost, if short on actual emissions reductions.

Standing in her way has been Mr. Dingell. Much to the speaker’s consternation, the powerful chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee is insisting that any bill should actually accomplish something, and that its pain be borne by all Americans (rather than just his Detroit auto makers). In recent months he has been circulating his own proposals for hefty new taxes on energy, gasoline and homeowners–ideas that are already giving the rest of his party the willies.

His position arguably makes Mr. Dingell the lone honest broker in the global warming debate. But it also makes him a headache for all his Democratic friends, who’d prefer he just play political nice. For his part, the 81-year-old Dean of the House–as feisty and courtly and colorful a congressman as you’ll ever find–is unrepentant.

“I wasn’t sent down here to destitute [my district]. And I wasn’t sent down here to destitute anyone else. . . . I’ve got a responsibility to legislate, but I’ve got a responsibility to legislate well. I’m going to be honest with the American people about this and say ‘look here, fellas, this is what we’re going to have to do to you to fix global warming. You tell us whether you like it or not.’ “

Read the whole interview, and be sure to savor the ease with which Dingell talks of directly controlling or changing your life from his perch in the government. Honest, and frankly – chilling.

Blog author: eschansberg
Saturday, October 6, 2007

Well…except Goliath is mostly a good guy too– and he’s the one putting rocks in the air– and David got beat in this case by the government.

From yesterday’s (Louisville) Courier-Journal, Charlie White and Sara Cunningham report on the stand-off between homeowner David McCarty and the local Wal-Mart under construction in Lebanon, KY.

Complying with a court order, a Central Kentucky man yesterday ended his sit-down protest a few feet from a blasting site — part of the construction of a Wal-Mart development adjacent to his property. As dusk approached, David McCarty took refuge in his house just outside Lebanon before workers set off the dynamite near his back fence.

On Wednesday, weary from months of the nearby construction work and angry over what he said was damage to his property, McCarty had been determined to keep Wal-Mart from detonating the dynamite to make way for a water line…

The explosions occurred about 5 p.m., ending an exhausting couple of days for the family, whose members say they dealt with daily noise, dust and debris for about four months before deciding to take action…

The police couldn’t intervene in the stand-off because neither side is breaking the law, said Shelton Young, chief of the Lebanon Police Department.

“There was no legal basis for us to make him go in or stop (construction workers) from detonating,” Young said. “The homeowner was just as cordial and courteous as could be to the officers and to the Wal-Mart construction people. The workers weren’t aggressive either. We stayed for a couple hours to make sure everyone was keeping friendly and then we left.”…

The McCartys, who have lived at 2040 Campbellsville Road just outside the Lebanon city limits for 10 years, are now surrounded on all sides by the development.

“They are literally on an island in a sea of construction,” Spainhour said of his clients. “You can’t stand in his yard without getting covered in dust.”…

McCarty said he is eager to sell his property. “I want out of here,” he said in an interview late Wednesday night…he gave a quote for the land to Wal-Mart officials, but would not specify the amount. He acknowledged that the quote was more than the property is worth.

“It may not be worth it right now, but when the new Wal-Mart is up and running, it will be worth every penny,” he said.

Beyond an interesting story, economists would point to the “externalities” involved here. This is a case where one party causes damage– and benefit– to another party. Wal-Mart is damaging McCarty by lowering the value of his property in the short-term (e.g., he can’t sit in his back yard when they set off the dynamite) and helping him by enhancing the value of his property in the long-term (his land is worth much after a Wal-Mart is next door).

But in addition to Wal-Mart’s impact on McCarty, the latter can mess with the former– whether by sitting in his lawn chair or by demanding an artificially high price for his land (or going inside his house while they blow things up). Once Wal-Mart bought the property next to McCarty, he gained tremendous bargaining power over the company and the control of its land!

At least in theory, all of this could have been handled privately. I suspect that WalMart and McCarty could have reached a contractual agreement that was mutually beneficial. When that didn’t/couldn’t happen, the matter must be settled by some aspect of government. The police (as enforcement officers of the State) had no jurisdiction since no laws were being broken. So, it was left to a judge’s interpretation.

How hard did David and Goliath work to avoid the stand-off? It’s not reported. But in this case, a market solution was available before people started throwing stones.

(cross-posted on