John Kerry, US presidential candidate in 2004: ‘It’s long overdue time to raise the minimum wage.’ ‘Raise the minimum wage and training fund to help the poor.’ ‘Desperate need to build more affordable housing.’ ‘Expand EITC as anti-poverty measure.’ ‘Voted YES on welfare block grants.’ ‘Voted NO on allowing state welfare waivers.’

You’ll recognise the ‘concerns’ of the Left on such issues – they wish to ensure that the poor and needy and poverty-stricken and disadvantaged and handicapped and disgruntled and dissatisfied and Plain Lazy are well taken care of.

Except…. when it comes to using their OWN money.

Because you’d expect, wouldn’t you, that those who are so anxious to ensure the wellbeing of those less fortunate than themselves would be keen to empty their own pockets before they seek to take it by force from the rest of us?

The Generosity Index, compiled by the Catalogue For Philanthropy, is a table showing which states are the most charitable givers. It is computed using each state’s average income and average charitable donations by comparison. And they do it for non-political reasons; it took a third party, right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin, to adapt the table to show the 2004 presidential election results, ranked by generosity.

And the results are VERY interesting:

(Click for a closer look.) The states in RED voted for Bush and therefore appear to be mostly conservative. The states in BLUE voted for Kerry and therefore appear to be mostly liberal. The states are ranked from top to bottom, most charitable to least charitable.

Notice anything? Which part of the United States appears to be more concerned about the poor; liberal or conservative?

The most generous half of the United States (by state) ALL VOTED FOR BUSH LAST YEAR! All but 7 states of the LEAST charitable half of the United States voted for John Kerry!

This should be devastating to the Left. Of course it won’t be, because they will challenge it on one precept or another, but they have been clearly caught red-handed here not practising what they preach, as the saying goes. Of course, conservatives have always known that their approach to economic matters results in less poverty; they don’t need this index to tell them that. But the reactions of the Left to the results will be interesting. It seems to be incontrovertible: liberals give less to the poor than conservatives.

Draw your own conclusions.

John Wright