Love to hear the Stossel go cheap cheap cheap
Sadly, that's just how I received his latest article, in an e-mail from a conservative friend, along with the smug message that "You liberals are so compassionate other peoples money." (Funny, I don't remember ever handing $1.5 Billion of other people's money to oil companies, but that's neither here nor there.)
For the record, here are a few short points about Stossel's piece:
- His Salvation Army bucket bit is b.s. There are no controls or description of demographics to make it meaningful.
- The guy he quotes, Arthur C. Brooks, writes things like this on his website:
The average amount given per household from the five states combined that gave Mr. Bush the highest vote percentages in 2003 was 25 percent more than that donated by the average household in the five northeastern states that gave Bush his lowest vote percentages; and the households in these liberal-leaning states earned, on average, 38 percent more than those in the five conservative states.Of course, Bush did very well in states with lower cost-of-living, too. For example, Wyoming, gave him his highest percentage of votes and Massachusetts his lowest. According to this site, it's 40 percent cheaper to live in Casper, Wyoming than it is to live in Boston, which might explain some of the tight-fistedness despite higher income levels. Making only 38 percent more in Massachusetts still equates to a lower buying power. (I haven't--and probably won't--read his book, but the short excerpt on the site is filled with such "insights" and when you add in population and, say, odds of commuting, you'd probably find it's all pretty much a wash.)
- Brooks also writes lines like "Surely Jimmy Carter would have been surprised to learn that the selfish Americans he criticized so vociferously were most likely the very people who elected him president." Surely that right there merits a recheck of his numbers.
To my friend who sent the e-mail: Be smarter.