Skip to comments.MOST CHARITABLE STATES--RED OR BLUE?
Posted on 11/10/2004 7:09:06 PM PST by Cicero
Several readers have sent me this ranking of states by IQ, purporting to show that people in red states are dumber, on average, than people in blue states. Like a lot of what the Democrats have spewed this election cycle, the IQ chart--pushed most prominently by Bush-hater Howard Stern--is a hoax.
The Generosity Index, compiled by The Catalogue For Philanthropy, is for real. It is computed by taking each state's average income and average charitable contribution, then subtracting the second rank from the first to get a single number for each state.
I've adapted the table to show the 2004 presidential election results, by state, ranked by generosity. (Click here for the table in MS Word format; if anyone can convert the table into a jpeg, please let me know.) Many thanks to reader Richard Davis, who alerted me to The Generosity Index and came up with the title of this post.
Update: Thanks to David Schmitt and other readers, I'm now able to post the Generosity table as a jpeg:
Sorry, the picture (chart) doesn't link. You'll have to visit the web site as given above.
Howard Stern! Now there's the ultimate authority on intelligence.
This is in todays Chicago Tribune as well... :)
What Michelle's chart shows is that the first 25 states in order of generosity are ALL pro-Bush. That's fully one half of all the states before the first state that voted for kerry kicks in. It's an amazing graphic. I'm only sorry it doesn't want to be linked.
It's massive proof of what I have always suspected after seeing the income tax returns of folks like Al Gore and looking at his charitable donations.
Democrats are stingy as hell with their own money. They only want to give away other people's money. Here's the proof.
What happened in the 80s: people gathered for LiveAid to actually do something about the plight of Ethiopians.
I also looked at comparison of Average Itemized Charitable Contribution relative to the Average Adjusted Gross Income for each state as direct percentages, not just as ordinal rankings, and it's pretty similar, but the problem is when you look at another item on the site: percentage of returns with Itemized Charitable Contributions.
It seems that the Kerry states (I HATE calling them "blue") are ranked high on that list. Bush states are at the bottom, with few of the returns having Charitable Contributions. That is, the Itemized Charitable Contributions on Bush-State returns are large, but there are few of them. Kerry states have more ICC, but they are--on average--smaller.
The site also breaks it down into categories by income. Still, there are some weaknesses in this point that she addresses.
This ranking is biased against the states with the highest income.
For example, Connecticut, with an income rank of 1 cannot have a Generosity Index greater than 0 even if it was the most generous state in the country.
Try again, Ms. Malkin.
That's because Dems are such tightwads when they're spending their own money for a change that they will itemize donations totalling 3 pairs of used underwear at $2.00 a pair and the 1.3 gallons of gas they used delivering them.
Michele and Ann, conservatives are so fortunate to be represented by their class and talent.
Tell me: What is the highest "Rank Relation" Connecticut can earn. Let's assume it retains its status as the wealthiest state and during 2004 made 99.99999% of all charitable contributions in the United States (the most contributions by a factor of many)?
The best Connecticut could do is for all states to tie using this index.
No, that's not the methodology.
The ordinal ranks are created FIRST, and then the ORDINAL ranks are subtracted. The raw AGI per capita versus Charitable Deductions per capita comparison is NOT made.
See my post #7 above... I point out that the general pattern is similar when you use actual amounts, not just ordinal ranks, but that's also a very selective analysis of the data. Let's not play the same games the lefties do.
Uh...re-read the posts. I GAVE a better method. I gave a few better methods.
Why not do raw comparisons and then do ordinal ranking? Why not consider the percentage of returns that contain charitable contributions?
I'm a country boy and know the sound of crickets chirping... nice for quiet contemplation. Listen to them and think a bit.
Note that the patterns are not direct inverses. I'm not a statistician, but I'm sure someone could extract the relevant information that makes the two differ from being inverses, and decide whether that is relevant. Part of it depends on what we wish to define as "more generous," though.