Confidence in church is rising. Giving away free money doesn’t help people. And Publishers’ Clearing House goes bankrupt, welching on past winners.
Confidence in Church Is Rising
Americans’ trust in the church as an institution had been dropping, but now it’s on the rise.
So reports Anugrah Kumar in the Christian Post. According to an annual Gallup poll that tracks institutional trust (more on that later), 36% of Americans say that they have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in “the church or organized religion.”
That’s much less than it was 50 years ago, when the 1975 answers to that question reached a recorded high of 68%. Then the confidence declined, reaching rock bottom with 31% in 2022. The next two years the number plateaued at 32%. But this year the percentage jumped up to 36%, which is said to be the first meaningful increase since 2020.
Republicans increased their confidence in the church from 49% last year to 64% today, but Democrats’ confidence fell, from 22% to 21%. Here is some good news:
Women, younger Americans and lower-income households showed marked increases in trust toward the church over the past year. Women’s confidence rose eight points to 36%, closing the previous gender gap. Americans aged 18 to 37 experienced the largest increase, rising from 26% to 32%. . . .
Those with some college education but no degree reported one of the steepest increases — up 11 points to 36%. People earning less than $50,000 per year also grew from 31% to 39% in confidence, while those in households earning more than $100,000 rose from 29% to 36%.
Why do you think confidence in the church has gone up?
Giving Away Free Money Doesn’t Help People
A new liberal on-line magazine entitled The Argument has published an article by Kelsey Piper entitled Giving people money helped less than I thought it would, with the deck, “Ending the war on poverty will take more than cash transfers.”
She reports on research findings as to the effectiveness of multiple programs across the country that just gave money to people in need. Here is her summary of what she found:
A few years back we got really serious about studying cash transfers, and rigorous research began in cities all across America. Some programs targeted the homeless, some new mothers and some families living beneath the poverty line. The goal was to figure out whether sizable monthly payments help people lead better lives, get better educations and jobs, care more for their children and achieve better health outcomes.
Many of the studies are still ongoing, but, at this point, the results aren’t “uncertain.” They’re pretty consistent and very weird. Multiple large, high-quality randomized studies are finding that guaranteed income transfers do not appear to produce sustained improvements in mental health, stress levels, physical health, child development outcomes or employment. Treated participants do work a little less, but shockingly, this doesn’t correspond with either lower stress levels or higher overall reported life satisfaction.
Homeless people, new mothers and low-income Americans all over the country received thousands of dollars. And it’s practically invisible in the data. On so many important metrics, these people are statistically indistinguishable from those who did not receive this aid.
Read Piper’s entire article for the details.
Noah Rothman discusses her article. He comments:
It seems rather intuitive that those who received income supplements both worked less but reported no personal psychological or material benefit (for either themselves or their families) as a result. Just giving people money did not and “will not” make its recipients “measurably healthier or happier, or get them better jobs, or improve their children’s intellectual development.” Why would anyone feel more “economically secure” if their security is predicated on the perpetual disbursement of taxpayer dollars from mercurial politicians?
But Rothman, who brings in confirming research about Finland’s experiment with a larger scale guaranteed annual income, commends Piper for her honesty and The Argument for publishing the piece, even though it shoots down one of the left’s longtime goals.
Publishers’ Clearing House Goes Bankrupt, Welching on Prizewinners
An elderly beloved relative of mine used to pin her hopes on winning the Publishers’ Clearing House Sweepstakes. She would hoard the mailings, clip the stamps and coupons, and send everything in. She also took the bait. Despite the promise that purchases are not necessary, she had it in her mind that her chances would improve if she bought just a few subscriptions to magazines she would never read.
Nothing her family and friends said could dissuade her. She fantasized about what she would do if she won. To the point of hesitating to leave her house on the date the winners would be announced, for fear of missing the Publishers’ Clearing House car with all of its photographers pulling into her driveway. She worked out how much she would give each of her children and grandchildren after she had paid off all her bills.
I thought of her when I read that Publishers’ Clearing House has gone bankrupt. Among its unsecured creditors are 10 past winners, eight of whom were owed more than $2 million apiece. The Wall Street Journal interviewed a disabled couple who won the big prize four years ago, which was doled out at $200,000 per year. Now the money has stopped coming.
A company bought Publishers’ Clearing House out of bankruptcy, but it is liable only for prizes won this year. The past winners will have to file a claim against the bankruptcy estate, which are usually settled, if at all, for pennies on the dollar.
The Wall Street Journal report said that prizes used to be insured with an annuity, but that practice was discontinued.
Under the new company, the mailings will continue. You could be a winner!
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In