The Rise of Outrage

US Sen. Bob Bennett ousted at Utah GOP convention


Brock Vergakis, Associated Press Writer
May 8, 2010


.SALT LAKE CITY – Republican Sen. Bob Bennett was thrown out of office Saturday by delegates at the Utah GOP convention in a stunning defeat for a once-popular three-term incumbent who fell victim to a growing conservative movement nationwide.

Bennett's failure to make it into Utah's GOP primary — let alone win his party's nomination — makes him the first congressional incumbent to be ousted this year and demonstrates the difficult challenges candidates are facing from the right in 2010.

"The political atmosphere obviously has been toxic and it's very clear that some of the votes that I have cast have added to the toxic environment," an emotional Bennett told reporters, choking back tears.

"Looking back on them, with one or two very minor exceptions, I wouldn't have cast any of them any differently even if I had known at the time they were going to cost me my career."

Bennett didn't answer questions after his loss but earlier Saturday told The Associated Press he wouldn't rule out a write-in candidacy. State law prohibits him from running as an independent.

"I do think I still have a lot of juice left in me, as I said in the speech, and we'll see what the future may bring," Bennett said following his loss.

Bennett survived a first round of voting Saturday among roughly 3,500 delegates but was eliminated when he finished a distant third in the second round. He garnered just under 27 percent of the vote while businessman Tim Bridgewater had 37 percent and attorney Mike Lee got 36 percent. Lee and Bridgewater will face each other in a June 22 primary after a third round of voting in which neither got the 60 percent necessary to win outright.

"Don't take a chance on a newcomer," Bennett had pleaded in his brief speech to the delegates before the second round of voting began. "There's too much at stake."

Yet that urging, and Bennett's endorsements by the National Rifle Association and former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, did little to stave off anger toward the Washington establishment from delegates.

"The bailout bothers me. That in and of itself is unforgivable in my opinion," said delegate Scott White, a 58-year-old general contractor from Taylorsville.

Bennett, 76, initially faced seven Republican opponents who said he wasn't conservative enough for ultraconservative Utah. Lee, 38, and Bridgewater, 49, campaigned largely by saying they're better suited to rein in government spending than Bennett.

"I will fight every day as your U.S. senator for limited government, to end the cradle-to-grave entitlement mentality, for a balanced budget, to protect our flag, our borders and our national security and for bills that can be read before they receive a final vote in congress," Lee said in his convention speech.

Opposition to Bennett couldn't be chalked up solely to general anti-incumbency fervor, however. Neither of Utah's two Republican congressmen were at risk of losing their seats, and Republican Gov. Gary Herbert easily won his party's nomination.

And last week, voters in primaries in North Carolina and Ohio retained their incumbents while those in Indiana turned to a former senator — Republican Dan Coats — despite the nation's frustration with the Washington establishment.

Bennett was under fire for voting to bail out Wall Street, co-sponsoring a bipartisan bill mandating health insurance coverage and for aggressively pursuing earmarks. He tried to reassure delegates Saturday, before any voting, that he is a fiscal conservative.

"You want to get deficits under control. I have authored bills to rein in the entitlement spending that now makes up two-thirds of the federal budget," Bennett said. "I've already voted for a balanced budget amendment three times and I will again while making certain that it won't be turned into a tax increase for Democrats. Our tax burden is already too high."

Some delegates, who tend to be more conservative than other Utah Republicans, were also upset he's still in office after initially promising to only serve two terms when first elected in 1992.

"I think he's lost touch," said delegate Gary Crofts. "I'm excited to get a new person in there and fire things up a little."

Romney introduced Bennett on Saturday — to a mix of cheers and boos.

"Today, he faces an uphill battle at this convention," Romney acknowledged in his speech. "Some may disagree with a handful of his votes or simply want a new face. But with the sweep and arrogance of the liberal onslaught today in Washington, we need Bob Bennett's skill, and intellect and loyalty."

In his 2004 campaign, Bennett didn't run a single television commercial and won a third term in the general election with 69 percent of the vote.

The 2010 campaign was clearly different. He acknowledged he should have spent more time in Utah the past couple of years letting Republican activists get to know him, but didn't imagine Republicans would be angry enough with Washington to target one of their own.

Recently, he has said part of his problem with delegates has been that he doesn't go on conservative cable talk shows and offer angry sound bites. Instead, he said he likes to work on finding practical solutions.

Utah's unique nominating process also played a critical role in his defeat. The 3,500 delegates wield enormous power and can decide the fate of entire elections in a state of nearly 3 million, and winner of the Republican race is all but guaranteed victory in November because Utah is so overwhelmingly GOP.

The system forced Bennett to mount an all-out push for delegates in recent weeks as he went from one small-town political gathering to another to court convention votes. He has a huge campaign bank account but no need to spend much of it because the convention process is geared toward face-to-face encounters with delegates.

Bennett's defeat is the latest in a series of surprising political developments in a year in which the tea party movement has amassed growing power.

In January, then-little-known Republican Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate seat long held by the late Edward Kennedy. Several incumbents from both parties have opted not to seek re-election as they face difficult challenges, and GOP Florida Gov. Charlie Crist recently opted to run as an independent in his Senate bid rather than face defeat at the hands of his own party.

Other GOP candidates likely were watching Saturday's results closely to see if it's an indicator of things to come.

In Arizona, Sen. John McCain is in a tough primary fight against former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, a conservative talk-radio host. In Kentucky, Rand Paul, the son of libertarian Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, is gaining momentum in his challenge against the GOP establishment's pick of Secretary of State Trey Grayson to replace retiring U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning.

In New Hampshire, former Attorney General Kelly Ayotte is battling three Republican challengers to fill the seat being vacated by Republican Judd Gregg.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
tea baggers

Charitable Giving - States and Voting

donations

Which States Give More? Donations -

Private Source







Cost of Living Makes Big Difference in State Giving Rankings, Study Finds

By Harvy Lipman
2001


Taxpayers in rural southern and western states give the highest percentage of their earnings to charity, but a Chronicle analysis of newly released federal data shows that when the higher cost of living in urban states like New York and Illinois is taken into account, residents of those states donate a much larger share of their estimated disposable income than has previously been reported.

In California, for instance, taxpayers earning between $75,000 and $100,000 a year on average donated 2.6 percent of their adjusted gross income to charity. But when those taxpayers' incomes are adjusted to account for the state's cost of living, the share of their remaining disposable income given to charity rises to 7.1 percent.

Over all, Americans who itemized deductions on their federal income-tax returns gave a little more than 3 percent of their earnings to charity in 1999, a percentage that has remained unchanged for the past three years. Those taxpayers claimed a total of $122.2-billion in deductions for charitable donations in 1999, up from $107.4-billion the previous year. Taxpayers' charitable deductions varied widely across income levels and geographic regions. Among returns of taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes of less than $20,000, those who itemized deductions gave an average of about 11 percent to charity. Only a small number of taxpayers in that income bracket -- fewer than 6 percent -- itemize their deductions, however.

Those with the highest incomes -- more than $1-million a year -- claimed deductions for charitable giving equal to 4.6 percent of their total earnings. More than 90 percent of those taxpayers itemized their deductions.


State Comparisons

Comparing actual giving across income brackets and different states is difficult, because the percentage of taxpayers who itemize deductions varies considerably. That is important because tax and philanthropy experts believe that people who don't itemize give less -- both in terms of total dollars and as a percentage of income -- than those who do.

For the first time in its annual analyses of the tax data, The Chronicle took into account the varying costs of living in different parts of the country, subtracted living expenses from the total income within income categories for each state, and then computed what percentage of taxpayers' remaining -- or disposable -- income was claimed for charitable donations.

That new calculation did not make much difference in the state rankings for taxpayers earning more than $200,000. That result would be expected, given the limited effect that living costs like housing and food have on the wealthy. However, for taxpayers with incomes of $75,000 to $200,000, the new measurement drastically changes the rankings of states where most residents live in urban areas.



Utah Tops Rankings

In every income bracket, Utah taxpayers were the most generous. Researchers have generally ascribed the high giving rates in Utah to its high population of Mormons, whose religion requires that church members tithe 10 percent of their income to the church. Wyoming taxpayers with incomes above $1-million gave a slightly higher percentage of their income to charity than did those in Utah, but Wyoming's numbers are skewed significantly because only 78 percent of its highest-earning residents itemized deductions, versus 94 percent of Utah taxpayers.

However, when the cost of living is taken into account, several states move up significantly from where they would be ranked if those costs were not used to analyze giving. In the $75,000-to-$100,000 annual income category, for example, Maryland's taxpayers were the third most generous in the nation once their giving was adjusted for living costs -- up from No. 18 when the dollar figures were not adjusted.

Among the states whose rankings drop when living costs are factored in for the $75,000-to-$100,000 income category: Montana, which moved from 34 to 48, and West Virginia, which dropped from 29 to 46.

New Tax Break

The vast majority of taxpayers, however, do not itemize their deductions and therefore cannot receive any tax benefit from making charitable donations. The House of Representatives last month passed legislation that would allow taxpayers who do not itemize to claim charitable deductions of up to $25 in 2002; the amount would be double for couples filing jointly.

The Chronicle analyzed giving by lower-income taxpayers who do itemize their deductions, and found that those with incomes of less than $20,000 gave an average of about $850. Those with incomes of $20,000 to $30,000 donated an average of $1,280, and those earning between $30,000 and $50,000 gave an average of $1,525.

Patricia Read, a vice president at Independent Sector, said her group's research shows that low-income taxpayers who itemize deductions donate about $300 annually to charity, while those who do not itemize give only about $30. That, she said, is because taxpayers in lower income-tax brackets who itemize deductions tend to be wealthier, retired people whose taxable income is low.


*****************************************

From 2003, same source - The Chronicle of Philanthropy


80 Percent of Donations




The Chronicle's studies of giving by city, county, and state are based on Internal Revenue Service records of Americans who earned $50,000 or more and itemized their deductions, representing 18 percent of all U.S. taxpayers and accounting for nearly 54 percent of all money earned in the nation. Those taxpayers donated $97-billion to charity, about 80 percent of the total $122-billion donated by all individuals in 1997, according to estimates compiled by Giving USA, the study of charitable giving published by the AAFRC Trust for Philanthropy. Since people who don't itemize don't report their donations, little reliable data are available on people who make less than $50,000.






 
 
 
 
 
donations

Conservatives give more than Liberals

March 27, 2008


Conservatives More Liberal Givers

By George Will



WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- 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.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."



In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.











donations