Blue State Skinflints

Hube is bringing some attention to this study on statewide charitable giving.

"We believe that generosity is a function of how much one gives to the ability one has to give," said Martin Cohn, a spokesman for the Catalogue for Philanthropy, a Boston-based nonprofit that publishes a directory of nonprofit organizations.

Using that standard, the 10 most generous states were, in descending order, Mississippi, Arkansas, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Utah, South Carolina and West Virginia.

The 10 stingiest, starting from the bottom, were New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Minnesota, Colorado, Hawaii and Michigan.

Now you may be noticing that all the top ten are red states and nine of the bottom ten are blue states. Colorado is the exception.

Now the obvious answer to this is that the blue states have higher costs of living and higher taxes. This is the reason many Massachusetts based groups are giving for their poor performance. But really is that any excuse? This is a democracy. If your state is taxing you too much, why don't you vote to cut them back a bit?

So we come back to the fundamental red/blue dichotomy. Blue states take your money via taxes and redistribute it. Part of those taxes go to social spending which is like charity, except with out the voluntary giving part. Red states want to have a small government, low taxes, and then decide for themselves how to give their money. I must say I'm with the rednecks on this one.