Liberals More Generous, With Your Money

But of course they are. What do you think the whole redistribution of wealth thing is about? In her column this week, Ann Coulter did some research into the giving habits of some prominent democrats and republicans. In her usual witty way, she hits another home run.

by Ann Coulter
December 29, 2010

Liberals never tire of discussing their own generosity, particularly when demanding that the government take your money by force to fund shiftless government employees overseeing counterproductive government programs.

They seem to have replaced “God” with “Government” in scriptural phrases such as “love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” (Matthew 22:37)

This week, we’ll take a peek at the charitable giving of these champions of the poor.

In 2009, the Obamas gave 5.9 percent of their income to charity, about the same as they gave in 2006 and 2007. In the eight years before he became president, Obama gave an average of 3.5 percent of his income to charity, upping that to 6.5 percent in 2008.

The Obamas’ charitable giving is equally divided between “hope” and “change.”

George W. Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year he was president, as he did before becoming president.

Thus, in 2005, Obama gave about the same dollar amount to charity as President George Bush did, on an income of $1.7 million — more than twice as much as President Bush’s $735,180. Again in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama’s.

In the decade before Joe Biden became vice president, the Bidens gave a total — all 10 years combined — of $3,690 to charity, or 0.2 percent of their income. They gave in a decade what most Americans in their tax bracket give in an average year, or about one row of hair plugs.

Of course, even in Biden’s stingiest years, he gave more to charity than Sen. John Kerry did in 1995, which was a big fat goose egg. Kerry did, however, spend half a million dollars on a 17th-century Dutch seascape painting that year, as Peter Schweizer reports in his 2008 book, “Makers and Takers.”

To be fair, 1995 was an off-year for Kerry’s charitable giving. The year before, he gave $2,039 to charity, and the year before that a staggering $175.

He also dropped a $5 bill in the Salvation Army pail and almost didn’t ask for change.

In 1998, Al Gore gave $353 to charity — about a day’s take for a lemonade stand in his neighborhood. That was 10 percent of the national average for charitable giving by people in the $100,000-$200,000 income bracket. Gore was at the very top of that bracket, with an income of $197,729.

When Sen. Ted Kennedy released his tax returns to run for president in the ’70s, they showed that Kennedy gave a bare 1 percent of his income to charity — or, as Schweizer says, “about as much as Kennedy claimed as a write-off on his 50-foot sailing sloop Curragh.” (Cash tips to bartenders and cocktail waitresses are not considered charitable donations.)

The Democratic base gives to charity as their betters do. At the same income, a single mother on welfare is seven times less likely to give to charity than a working poor family that attends religious services.

In 2006 and 2007, John McCain, who files separately from his rich wife, gave 27.3 percent and 28.6 percent of his income to charity.

In 2005, Vice President Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. He also shot a lawyer in the face, which I think should count for something.

In a single year, Schweizer reports, Rush Limbaugh “gave $109,716 to ‘various individuals in need of assistance mainly due to family illnesses,’ $52,898 to ‘children’s case management organizations,’ including ‘various programs to benefit families in need,’ $35,100 for ‘Alzheimer’s community care — day care for families in need,’ and $40,951 for air conditioning units and heaters delivered to troops in Iraq.”

(Rush also once gave $50 to Maxine Waters after mistaking her for a homeless person.)

The only way to pry a liberal from his money is to hold tickertape parades for him, allowing him to boast about his charity in magazines and on TV.

Isn’t that what Jesus instructed in the Sermon on the Mount?

“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do … But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” (Matthew 6:2-4)

In my Bible, that passage is illustrated with a photo of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

At least the hypocrites in the Bible, Redmond, Wash., and Omaha, Neb., who incessantly brag about their charity actually do pony up the money.

Elected Democrats crow about how much they love the poor by demanding overburdened taxpayers fund government redistribution schemes, but can never seem to open their own wallets.

The only evidence we have that Democrats love the poor is that they consistently back policies that will create more of them.

MSNBC, The Hate Network

“Great video: head of GOProud interviewed by retarded person on MSNBC,” the Bend Over network. Oh, or rather the Lean Forward network. Filling in on the Ed Shultz show, aka the Mike & Ed show,  host Chenk Uygur says Republicans hate gays. If Christopher Barron was black, Chenk Uygur would have said Republicans hate blacks too.

It is fun to watch Christopher Barron, the head of GOProud, make mincemeat out of that stereotypical jerk.

Government-Union Partnership?

And in the quid pro quo department comes this gem that garnered zero mention in the media. It apparently has been scrubbed from the Department of Labor’s website. If it’s not there, does that mean it never happened? Screenshot below tells the story. Thanks to Red State for their diligence in being the watchdog on this story. You won’t find it anywhere else.

Isn’t it amazing why too, no one has ever questioned what business it is or should be of the government to support labor unions? They are a business just like any other. But, instead of taking them over, the Obama administration is more concerned with helping them grow by advancing The Employee Free Choice Act, now commonly called ‘Card Check.’

And so it was that last week, President Obama met with union leaders and ‘[T]alked about creating good jobs for the American people, and how the partnership with labor unions is essential to growing our economy and continuing our recovery.’

President Obama is the last person on the planet who believes that labor unions create jobs or grow the economy. And that some partnership with them (aside from giving them controlling interest in Chrysler) is essential to growing the economy.  Considering that labor unions constitute only 12.3% of the workforce, down from 20.1% in 1983 when comparable records were first available, it is obvious that the president is looking for ways to pay them back for their huge campaign contributions and political activism in support of the Democrat party’s agenda. Labor unions won’t create jobs or continue a so-called recovery in the same way that the stimulus money has not created jobs or stimulated the private sector economy.

Looking at which side Obama’s bread is buttered on, it is revealing to see that union membership rate for public sector (government) workers is 37.4 percent, and only 7.2 percent in the private sector. Is it any wonder why Andy Stern is the most frequent visitor to The White House?

Check this, from Red State . . .

In light of the NLRB’s attacks on business this week, this little piece is striking, as it is the epitome of why the economy still sucks unemployment remains high.

The U.S. Department of Labor, which has become akin to the Ministry of Workers’ Councils, regularly issues a newsletter via e-mail and posts it on the Ministry’s website. This week, among other items touted, was this little gem on union bosses meeting with President Obama to discuss growing the economy and the government-union partnership.

[Screenshot below the fold just in case…well, you know.]

Obama, Solis and Labor Leaders

President Obama, Secretary Solis and key White House staff met last week with a dozen leaders from several national labor unions to discuss ways to work together to strengthen the economy. The group talked about creating good jobs for the American people, and how the partnership with labor unions is essential to growing our economy and continuing our recovery. The president and the labor secretary also highlighted critical steps that the administration has taken and pledged to continue to work closely with organized labor in the coming months on important economic issues.

It’s funny that the administration still refuses to admit that unions are the antithesis of private-sector job creation. In fact, it seems the only way unions create jobs is to buy politicians who steal other people’s money, then reward the union bosses with taxpayer dollars and government-approved discrimination.