Speaking of Donations

I've heard this before, but I think it's more pressing now. We blue-staters love to talk ourselves up, but there's no denying a problem here. From the CS Monitor:

At this time of the year, charities of every shape and size are hunting for the most generous donors. To find them, the Catalogue for Philanthropy has a counterintuitive suggestion: Look in the nation's poorest states. That's because the Catalogue's Generosity Index for 2004 shows that giving as a percentage of income is highest in states where folks have the least to give. Mississippi - the nation's poorest in terms of average household income - ranks No. 1 in generosity, followed by Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana.

By contrast, residents of the nation's richest states appear downright Scrooge-like. Connecticut claims the highest average household income but ranks 44th in terms of percentage of income donated to charity. New Jersey and Massachusetts seem even stingier, ranking 47th and 49th respectively in giving, despite their second- and third-place rankings in income.

Why is this the case? Well, religion, obviously.

"The reason low-income states give a lot is religion," said George McCully, president of Massachusetts-based Catalogue for Philanthropy, whose index uses 2002 IRS tax return data to compare each state's average itemized charitable deduction with its average adjusted gross income.

"They are tithing, evangelical Protestants, and they are giving in proportion to their income," he says. "Up here [in the Northeast], religion doesn't help our giving. I wouldn't say it hurts, but it doesn't help, either."

Few dispute such a connection between religious faith and giving; American religious institutions depend almost entirely on gifts from members. But even so, other factors - including race and denomination - also appear to influence giving.

See, this is where I find faul with this article. Unlike in blue states where I imagine most people who are donating are giving to AIDS groups and the John Doe Fund and the like, red-staters more often give through their churches. But, church donations predominantly go towards the upkeep of the church. Therfore, while perhaps blue-states give less, it is in a way more altruistic because those charities receiving the donations do not return anything to the donater. Church donations, on the other hand, inherently help those who give because it helps keep the church the donaters attend in business. Do I make any sense?

This is still not an excuse for the lack of funds charities receive today, especially in the wealthy, blue states.

Here's a neat little map showing you why you suck.