From column: "Each candidate, meanwhile, was at pains to emphasize the other's wealth." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Actually, Jacoby, you're wrong. Warren has never criticized Brown for his wealth (go ahead, find somewhere where she has). She has criticized him for his policies which favor the wealthy, a big difference. Brown, meanwhile, has tried to denigrate Warren simply for her good fortune, even though policy-wise she favors policies that would look out for the middle class and ask more of the wealthy, herself included. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From column: "I don't know why candidates should gain some moral advantage from pointing to their own humble roots while deriding their opponent's current prosperity. It's one of the oldest storylines in American politics, however." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------It's one of the oldest storylines because everyone, wealthy included, knows that it's been one of the ongoing struggles of this nation and most others -- that between wealthy ruling elites who want to keep and increase their wealth and control and the rest of society who are looking for better breaks for themselves. What's more, most people in this nation realize that that struggle has veered off in favor of the wealthy elites over the last 30 years.

Jeff, don't you think that Warren should give more? I mean, after all, she's the one calling out to help those less fortunate. Brown's entire political philosophy goes against that notion. Fair is fair.

Governments should never run on charity something Mr. Jacoby is advocating this morning. To voluntarily add to your tax bill implies this method. Although we know charities do good work, they are a spit in the ocean compared to the financing of military, our courts, national parks, health care, and other services that bring security and a livable sense of comfort to our citizens. The problem here is one of attitude. Elizabeth Warren recognizes that we are dependent on each other to ensure our individual liberty. Sen Brown prefers to think that the boot strap is the way people make it in this world and is dependent on an entrenched monied class. Whichever vision one chooses determines who is elected. In deciding it might help to remember just what characterizes our species. We are social animals that use our individual knowledge and skills to create a functioning nation. It is important that one born into this space be given the chance to enhance their abilities not only for their sake but for the sake of others. As a physician I would frequently counsel my younger patients on why I wanted them to do well in school. "I want you to do well in school for a very selfish reason. When I'm old and gray you will be taking care of me. I really don't want any dummies taking care of me." People often don't relate to the general effect of education, health, infrastructure and defense as something that enables them to succeed. It is time everyone understands that no individual can provide all their needs and wants and therefore must have the interest of their fellow countryman as one of their priorities. To depend on charity means the giver is picking and choosing where they will give, a recipe that comes with too many left out and too often on whims or personal beliefs.

Come on, people. Give Jeff some credit for his willingness to criticize Scott Brown. Would the Glob editorial writers say anything critical about our 1/32 Native American candidate?

Has the media analyzed Obama and Romey's charitable giving? I don't recall seeing it in the Globe. It might be more meaningful. If Warren succeeds in unseating Scott the scope and impact pales in comparison. Much ado about nothing here. The low energy comments lack rant, fervor or enthusiasm and bring on the snooze of boredom that Mrs. Paul's cookie queen image in this election contest. Did I say contest? More like two snails racing a loping turtle across the open field.

Well, well ,well. A reasonably unbiased article by Jacoby. Congratulations.

There's a passage in 'Life of Brian' in which Brian says, 'I guess there's no pleasing some people.' Pity that truer words were never spoken.

There are generaous people in this country, but we generally measure true value by the amount of cold, hard, cash a person has. Hey...wealth makes you as "moral" as you need to be! Money IS the new morality! Heck, MONEY IS EVERYTHING! That should be our national motto!

The charitable giving is illuminating: Warren, with nothing to gain politically from 2008 to 2011, gave $96,000. Brown gave a total of $40,000. Warren easily doubled his contributions, which take place over the taxable year. Contrast this with Jacoby's moral imperative that Warren should have given more: You give your accountant the tax info. He does your taxes. He sends you all the paperwork plus the quarterly slips for payments to the Fed and State, neatly typewritten by a computer. You have in your hand a complete report. I for one do not give the amounts that Warren does, but I did surpass Brown in years 2008 ($4600) and 2009 ($7000.) I would not elect to pay more taxes. Neither would the vast majority of taxpayers, IMHO. Jacoby is reaching.

If Jeff thinks Elizabeth Warren should have paid more taxes voluntarily because of a moral imperative, which he implies she passionately has, should not Brown have left his daughter off the medical insurance provided by the Affordable Care Law (Obamacare) which he so passionately opposed? If you haven't realized by now that Scott Brown is lighter than air, you're not paying attention.