Compassionate Conservatives

In a book highlighted by George Will in the Post yesterday, an author found that though liberals are stereotyped both politically and personally as caring more about the less fortunate in our society, conservatives are doing more to help.

The book cites the following:

• Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

• Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

• Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

• Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

• In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

• People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

It is a somewhat logical conclusion while conservatives reject that the government should care for the poor, they step in themselves. While liberals believe the government should do more, and so they dedicate their efforts to change the government, instead of donating their own time and money to the problems at hand. The question that follows then, is if we really care of the social and economic inequalities in our society- why aren’t we asking more of ourselves and of our government? In a era of explosive growth of social entrepreneurship, our generation is doing more to attack problems head on which we feel the government has not, or is not capable of, effectively addressing. But the two are not mutually exclusive, and for either to be truly effective they must communicate best practices and work alongside each other rather than overlap and waste funds.

This piece is also interesting when read with recent trends among evangelicals in mind. Evidence shows that Christians are becoming more progressive (do not read liberal) as younger generations become increasingly concerned with widespread social inequities, global warming, etc. If the author argues that amounts given to charity fall along religious lines, his data may be in the early stages of changing to show that as the conservative party loses some of those religious members, the balance may sway to show democrats giving and doing more.

Another Angry Black Preacher… MLK

EJ Dionne over at the Post has a great piece today about Rev. Wright and another angry black preacher, Martin Luther King Jr.

“I’m a liberal, and I loathe the anti-American things Wright said precisely because I believe that the genius of our country is its capacity for self-correction. Progressivism and, yes, hope itself depend on a belief that personal conversion and social change are possible, that flawed human beings are capable of transcending their pasts and their failings.

Obama understands the anger of whites as well as the anger of blacks, but he’s placed a bet on the other side of King’s legacy that converted rage into the search for a beloved community. This does not prove that Obama deserves to be president. It does mean that he deserves to be judged on his own terms and not by the ravings of an angry preacher.”

The Cost to Our Forces in Iraq

Released today by Senator Harry Reid’s Office

3,990: American troops who have died in Iraq since the start of the war. [icasualties.org, 3/17/08]

29,395: Number of U.S. service members that have been wounded in hostile action since the start of U.S. military operations in Iraq. [AP, 3/11/08]

60,000: Number of troops that have been subjected to controversial stop-loss measures–meaning those who have completed service commitments but are forbidden to leave the military until their units return from war. [US News and World Report, 2/25/08]

5: Number of times the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment has been sent to Iraq. They are the first Marine Corps unit to be sent to Iraq for a fifth time. [San Francisco Chronicle, 2/27/08]

2,100: Number of troops who tried to commit suicide or injure themselves increased from 350 in 2002 to 2,100 last year. [US News and World Report, 2/25/08]

11.9: Percent of noncommissioned Army officers who reported mental health problems during their first Iraq tour [Los Angeles Times, 3/7/08]

27.2: Percent of noncommissioned Army officers who reported mental health problems during their third or fourth Iraq tour [Los Angeles Times, 3/7/08]

The Cost to Our Military Readiness

88: Percent of current and former U.S. military officers surveyed in a recent independent study who believe that the demands of the war in Iraq have “stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin” [Foreign Policy/Center for New American Security, 2/19/08]

94: Percent of Army recruits who had high school diplomas in Fiscal Year 2003 [Larry Korb, The Guardian, 10/12/07]

79: Percent of Army recruits who had high school diplomas in Fiscal Year 2007 [Larry Korb, The Guardian, 10/12/07]

4,644: Number of new Army recruits who were granted moral waivers in Fiscal Year 2003. [Houston Chronicle, 10/14/07]

12,057: Number of new Army recruits who were granted moral waivers in Fiscal Year 2007. [Houston Chronicle, 10/14/07]

67: Percent of captains the Army managed to retain this year, short of its goal of 80 percent, and in spite of cash bonus incentives of up to $35,000 [Armed Services Committee Hearing, 2/26/08]

The Cost to Our National Security

1,188: Number of global terrorist incidents from January – September 11th, 2001. [American Security Project, "Are We Winning?," September 2007]

5,188: Number of global terrorist incidents in from January- September 11th, 2006. [American Security Project, "Are We Winning?," September 2007]

30: Percent increase in violence in Afghanistan from 2006 to 2007. [Reuters, 10/15/07]

21: Number of suicide bombings in Afghanistan in 2001. [Center for American Progress, "The Forgotten Front," 11/07]

139: Number of suicide bombings in Afghanistan in 2006, with an additional increase of 69 percent as of November 2007. [Center for American Progress, "The Forgotten Front," 11/07]

30: Percent of Afghanistan controlled by the Afghan Government according to DNI Mike McConnell. [Associated Press, 2/27/08]

2,380: Days since September 11th, 2001 that Osama Bin Laden has been at-large.

The Cost of Funding the War in Iraq

$50-60 Billion: Bush Administration’s pre-war estimates of the cost of the war. [New York Times, 12/31/02]

$12 Billion: Direct cost per month of the Iraq War. [Washington Post, Bilmes and Stiglitz Op-Ed, 3/9/08]

$526 Billion: Amount of money already appropriated by Congress for the War in Iraq. [CRS, 2/22/08]

$3 Trillion: Total estimated cost of the Iraq War. [Washington Post, Bilmes and Stiglitz Op-Ed, 3/9/08]

$5 Trillion – $7 Trillion: Total cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan accounting for continued military operations, growing debt and interest payments and continuing health care and counseling costs for veterans. [McClatchy, 2/27/08]

160: Percent that the cost of the Iraq War has increased from 2004 to 2008. [CRS Report, 2/22/08]

The Cost to Iraqis and Journalists

8,000: Number of Iraqi military and police killed since June 2003. [Brookings Institute, Iraq Index, March 13, 2008]

82,000-89,000: Estimate of Iraqi civilians casualties from violence since the beginning of the Iraq War. [Iraq Body Count]

4.5 Million: Number of Iraqi refugees both inside and outside the country. [Washington Post, 3/17/08]

61: Percent of Iraqis that believe the U.S. military presence makes the security situation in Iraq worse. [Agence France-Presse, 3/17/08]

127: Number of journalists killed in Iraq since March 2003. [Committee to Protect Journalists]

Economic Costs of War in Iraq

$33.51: Cost of a barrel of oil in March 2003. [Energy Information Administration]

$105.68: Cost of a barrel of oil on March 17, 2008. [NYMEX]

U.S. Troops and Contractors in Iraq

132,000: Number of U.S. troops in Iraq in January 2007, before President Bush’s escalation. [Brookings Institution, Iraq Index, 3/13/08]

155,000: Number of U.S. troops currently in Iraq. [Brookings Institution, Iraq Index, 3/13/08]

140,000: Number of U.S. troops projected to be in Iraq in July 2008. [Associated Press, 2/26/08]

35,000: Number of private security contractors operating in Iraq. [Human Rights First, Private Security Contractors at War]

180,000: Number of private contractors operating in Iraq. [Human Rights First, Private Security Contractors at War]

Progress Towards Political Reconciliation Made By Iraqis

3: Number out of 18 Bush Administration Benchmarks Met by Iraqi Government As of January 24, 2008. [Center for American Progress, 1/24/08]

18: Number of provinces President Bush said would be secured by Iraqis as of November 2007. [President Bush Speech, 1/10/07]

8: Number of provinces actually secured by Iraqis as of January 2008. [NPR, 1/7/08]

Bush-Republican Intransigence on Staying the Course in Iraq

8: Number of times a majority of the Senate has voted to change course in Iraq.

7: Number of times Bush Republicans in Congress have blocked changing course in Iraq.

1: Number of vetoes issued by the White House over changing course in Iraq.

A More Perfect Union

“In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.”

The words speak for themselves.

Read and/or watch ‘A More Perfect Union’

The reactions have been nearly as impressive… here are a few outstanding pieces by commentators…

Jim Wallis from Sojourners

Chris Durang on Huffington Post

Eugene Robinson’s Call in the Washington Post

Nicholas Kristof of the NYTimes

Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic

Jim Sleeper from Talking Points Memo

Christopher Hayes at the Nation

Passage of the Second Chance Act

“We shouldn’t be surprised that the prison door is, more often than not, a revolving door… and the only way to close the revolving prison door is to open another one.” Sen. Joe Biden

Late yesterday afternoon, after a bit of technical finagling, the Senate followed the actions of the House and passed ‘The Second Chance Act‘, a monumental event for this congress. The bill aims to reduce our extraordinary recidivism rates through substantive mental health and substance abuse programs, as well as through transitional and vocational assistance programs for prisoners reentering their communities. $362 million will be allocated to the Justice Department in 08 and 09, and $20 million the Bureau of Prisons.

The statistics on recidivism rates and prisoner reentry speak to the overwhelming need for and sheer significance of this legislation. Here are just a few…

• Today there are nearly 7 million men and women under correctional supervision—incarceration, probation or parole—in the United States, compared with 6.6 million in 2002 and 3.2 million in 1990. Over 60% incarcerated are serving time for nonviolent crimes.

• This means that 1 in 40 children have an incarcerated father.

• The average cost of incarcerating a prisoner is $22,650 per inmate, per year, with some states spending as much as $44,000 per inmate, per year.

• 95% of all prisoners are eventually released, (roughly 650,000 a year) and must transition back to their communities. Nearly two-thirds of released prisoners are expected to be re-arrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within three years of release. The recidivism rates are even higher for youth.

• 70-80% of offenders re-entering the community have histories of drug or alcohol abuse.

Obama’s 2002 Speech on the Iraq War

Often talked about, but rarely read.

“Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.”

Monstrous Indeed

April 6th will mark the 14th anniversary of the Rwandan Genocide that took the lives of an estimated 850,000 individuals as others stood by. The date will go by unnoticed by most of us in American, excluding the occasional foreign policy wonk. In Rwanda, the day will be much like others throughout the year as their citizens try to rebuild their lives and their nation, even years later.

Only in American politics could this spring also bring a Clinton campaign arguing that ‘when the red phone rings at 3a.m.’, Clinton will be ready. Her recent television ads beg the question, where were the Clinton’s when the phone rang in April of 1994? Intelligence reports obtained under the FOIA in 2004 reveal that Bill Clinton and his administration were fully aware of the genocide, and genocide is what they called it after only 16 days, and yet they stood by idly.

In 2003 a landmark book was written about the inaction of the United States during the genocide. Which… “in macabre detail, describes the calculated indifference of the Clinton administration when 800,000 Rwandans were being systematically butchered. The red phone rang and rang and rang again. I don’t know where Hillary was then. But her husband and his entire experienced foreign policy team – from the brass in the Pentagon to the congenitally feckless Secretary of State Warren Christopher – just let it ring.”

The author, is none other than Samantha Power who was fired from the Obama campaign today for her use of the word ‘monstrous’ when describing Hillary Clinton.

Mark Cooper of the Huffington Post says it best… “We gave her the Pulitzer for exposing the, well, monstrous indifference of the Clinton administration as it stared unblinkingly and immobile into the face of massive horror. But we give her a kick in the backside and throw her out the door when she has the temerity to publicly restate all that in one impolite word. Monstrous, indeed.”