Joseph Fried earned a degree from the Eastman School of Music (clarinet), but later joined the "real world" by switching to business. In 1979 he earned an MBA at the prestigious Case Western Reserve University, became a CPA, and was hired by Ernst & Young, where he served as a senior accountant in audit and taxation. During the 1980s Mr. Fried started his own CPA practice. The firm, Koester, DiSalvo and Fried, specializes in governmental auditing, the audit of nonprofit organizations, and the peer review of other CPA firms.

Mr. Fried serves as director of the Public Program Testing Organization (PPTO), an Ohio-based nonprofit organization that seeks to identify and eliminate waste in the governmental and nonprofit sectors. Working on behalf of the PPTO, Mr. Fried determined that several Texas school districts were illegally giving workers Social Security coverage in a scheme that will cause the government to pay over $2 billion to ineligible beneficiaries. The Office of Inspector General investigated these allegations and confirmed their accuracy and validity in a report issued in 2007. (See report at http://www.ssa.gov/oig/ADOBEPDF/A-09-06-26086.pdf.)

Fried is an expert in Social Security policy, and the waste, fraud, and abuse that are reflected in all facets of the program. He has published two books with Algora Publishing.

Getting tired of books filled with political bombast and hot air? Here’s an alternative. Within these pages you will find no unsupported views, only comprehensive and objective information. Questions about the...

Getting tired of books filled with political bombast and hot air? Here’s an alternative. Within these pages you will find no unsupported views, only comprehensive and objective information. Questions about the constituents of America’s two major political parties are answered in a straightforward, thorough, and easy-to-understand manner. Much of the information is presented graphically. Most chapters have a theme, examining, for example, who pays more taxes, who is smarter, or who is the better citizen. The themes were not selected with the intent of making one political group look better than the other. Rather, they were chosen because they involve verifiable distinctions, distinctions which have two essential attributes:

• They can be supported with credible evidence.

This concept can be illustrated with the following example: A verifiable distinction would exist if we had credible survey evidence showing that, during the last three months, Democrats were more likely than Republicans to give money to charity. A verifiable distinction would not exist if the evidence merely showed that Democrats were more likely to say that society should help the poor. In the former case we have a record of personal actions or achievements; in the latter case we simply have words.

The evidence in this book came from the survey results of large and well-respected nonpartisan organizations. Where possible, I used data from the General Social Survey (GSS) and the American National Election Studies (NES). GSS has been accumulating data since the early 1970s, and NES has been conducting its surveys since the early 1950s. Where more support was needed, I looked to surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (Pew), the Gallup Organization, the Institute for Public Policy and Social Research, Harris Interactive, and other well-established research entities. In some instances, conclusions are supported by non-survey evidence. This is particularly true with regard to the chapters on taxes and Social Security. In all cases, however, credible sources are used, identified, explained, and referenced.1 In addition to comparison data, you will find lots of rhetoric in this book.

There are numerous quotations from Democrats, Republicans, philosophers, comedians, pundits, actors, statesmen, and garden-variety fruitcakes. Some of this rhetoric will make you think, some will make you laugh, some will make you mad, and some will make you wince. There was no particular method (or objectivity) used in the selection of rhetoric; I simply chose the quotations that felt right to me.

No doubt some people will hate the book and feel it is mean-spirited, biased, or both. In anticipation of this reaction, let me give a brief defense. No matter how careful we try to be, comparisons are never completely fair, and one side (or both) will probably be slighted. Nevertheless, it would be a dull world if we did not make comparisons. More importantly, comparisons are needed to promote greater understanding and to facilitate progress in our lives. How else do we learn how the other guy thinks, and how else do we identify shortcomings so that solutions can be achieved? Speaking of solutions, Chapter 12 is filled with constructive lessons that, in my opinion, can be learned from the comparisons made throughout the book.

Have I been biased in selecting and presenting the comparison data? I hope not. I am not a political pundit; I am a CPA who has strived to present quantified information in a clear and balanced manner. This is a very transparent work, with sources and methods described in detail. Almost all source information is publicly available and, in nearly every case, relevant statistical information is provided. If a reader believes that I have erred, I hope he will contact me via the publisher so that the appropriate correction can be made.

Finally, I’d like to discuss a matter of potential controversy: the use of the Democrat–Republican paradigm. Some may wonder why this book makes comparisons based on party identification rather than political ideology (e.g., liberal versus conservative). I compare Democrats and Republicans because party identification is where the “rubber hits the road.” In America, most of us support a candidate — with time, effort, money, or votes — based on his identification with one of the major political parties. In this manner, our political feelings are connected to tangible action of some sort. This is not true with regard to our ideological identifications such as “liberal” or “conservative.”

In addition, the term “conservative” can be very misleading because it is not well understood. How many people realize that, during the last 35 years, 25 to 50 percent of all self-identified “conservatives” have been Democrats? And, how many realize that Democratic conservatives and Republican conservatives are as different as “night and day”? More discussion of these matters is found in Chapter 11 and in Appendix E.

I believe this is an informative, fair, and constructive book that can broaden your understanding of Democrats and Republicans. Also, it’s pretty good if you just need some ammo for that next encounter with your brother-in-law.