Heritage study: Democrats are the new party of the rich?
posted at 12:59 pm on November 23, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
The rich favoring a party that supports an endless supply of cheap illegal labor for big business? That can’t be right.
Behold at last the answer to the question of what’s the matter what Kansas: not enough rich people.
In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation’s wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.
He also found that more than half of the wealthiest households were concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats hold both Senate seats.
“If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those jurisdictions,” Mr. Franc said…
But in a broader measurement, the study also showed that of the 167 House districts where the median annual income was higher than the national median of $48,201, a slight majority, 84 districts, were represented by Democrats. Median means that half of all income earners make more than that level and half make less.
Mr. Franc’s study also showed that contrary to the Democrats’ tendency to define Republicans as the party of the rich, “the vast majority of unabashed conservative House members hail from profoundly middle-income districts.”
“A fair number of these districts are represented by freshmen,” Franc notes, suggesting that the stereotype of the rich voting their economic interests while the rubes in Wichita vote for values doesn’t wash. The wealthy are capable of Big Issue voting too, as likely happened last year vis-a-vis Iraq. In fact, the Journal asked one GOP analyst last week why he thought more rich voters were trending blue. His response:
Scott Reed, who managed Republican Bob Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign, sees three overlapping problems for Republicans among business leaders and high-income voters. One is desire to go with the winning side at a time when Democrats have captured Congress; a second is loss of confidence in the Bush administration’s competence; and a third is “a sense that the leadership of the Republican Party is too beholden to a small group of self-appointed social conservative leaders.”
Exit question: On balance, is the Dems’ new bourgeois constituency good news or bad news? No one wants to lose supporters, especially ones with thick checkbooks, but this will make Her Majesty and the Democratic Congress think twice about the tax hikes needed to pay for those million good ideas we’ll be treated to shortly.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I don’t see the link between the update and the original article.
Anyway, of course the Democrats are the party of the rich. Anyone who’s been to the Upper West Side knows that.
Sydney Carton on November 23, 2007 at 1:06 PM
D’oh. Updated the wrong post.
Allahpundit on November 23, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Party of the Rich makes sense, it fits with Gore-style environmentalism; “We (the rich/have-nations) got ours, now through taxes and regulations, we make sure you (the poor/third-world nations) will never get yours.”
Frozen Tex on November 23, 2007 at 1:14 PM
You mean rich people favor a party that stops upward mobility of people who would challenge their lofty position by centralizing power into their elite hands? Damn…woulda never guessed.
Bad Candy on November 23, 2007 at 1:23 PM
100 highest-income counties in the United States
Entelechy on November 23, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Not if she is listening to Warren Buffett, who advises Congress on tax issues when he’s not mentoring A-Rod.
dedalus on November 23, 2007 at 1:26 PM
Rush has an interesting take on Buffett’s motives. Two examples:
-He owns a fractional aircraft leasing business. So one “tax” he opposes is the proposal to raise the fees on private aircraft for use of the air traffic control system. At present, the commercial airlines overwhelmingly pay for the system and the big-wigs get a free ride.
-Buffett wants an estate tax because it forces many businesses to be sold upon the death of the founder. Buffett swoops down and buys it.
I don’t know how true this stuff is, but some of Buffett’s newer positions are so inconsistant with what he’s done his whole life.
JiangxiDad on November 23, 2007 at 1:32 PM
dedalus
I like how many of the Hollywood types and those rich enough that their great-great grandchildren will never have to work want ot pay higher taxes. They remind me of long proven tactic of throwing money at the problem hoping it will fix it (it never does because they will always ask for more money).
And then you have people like Sosrs who is oblivious to the economic system that is keeping him rich. Couild it be that these people who are so filthy rich want to pay more taxes because they know that they can afford to do so or find loopholes to get out of it, and in turn hope that any comptetition will not be able to keep up and grow due to higher taxes and eventually will wither away?
Just a thought. In communism, the richest elite survived that was, after they bought off the politicians.
El Guapo on November 23, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Thanks! I forgot about that point that supports my last post. Wouldn’t that be a clandistine way to seek monopoly, thus illegal?
El Guapo on November 23, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Party of the Rich?
Is this a typo?…I thought it was spelled with a “B”…
landlines on November 23, 2007 at 1:40 PM
No surprise. That’s why these Dems have no problem taxing everyone to death because it doesn’t affect THEM. Just the hard working masses who live paycheck to paycheck. It’s easy to give away what doesn’t affect you.
katieanne on November 23, 2007 at 1:45 PM
I can’t look at that picture on the main page without wondering where Waffles’ right hand is. From the look on Ted’s face, it makes me wonder if that isn’t the Taxachusetts liberal secret handshake or something.
ReubenJCogburn on November 23, 2007 at 1:46 PM
I am still perplexed at the estate tax. Why would you tax someone’s death? So when my father dies, I had to pay an estate tax on his house and good. Then when I moved, a few months later, I had to pay another estate tax (capitol gains) for the sale of that house. Isn’t that double taxing?
Maybe it is becuase I’ve been out of college for a decade now (I was an Econ minor), I just don’t get the rationale of it. Why not just have them pay hte capitol gains tax on hte sale of any asset? You technically don’t get any $$ from the inheritance of a house until you sell it. I was taxed twice for the same thing.
El Guapo on November 23, 2007 at 1:52 PM
El Guapo on November 23, 2007 at 1:54 PM
But what about the democrat party being beholden to a bunch of kooks? I’m sure some of these wealthy people are raving moonbats but not all of them.
liquidflorian on November 23, 2007 at 1:56 PM
And what about the democrats who seem to have the monopoly on lobbyists and other interest groups related to global warming kooks?
An Inconvenient Book, by Glenn Beck is a very interesting read.
El Guapo on November 23, 2007 at 1:58 PM
Party of the Hoi Polloi
Kini on November 23, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Think you ought to check with your accountant on that one. If you are the bene. of his estate, you should have received “stepped-up” basis for the value of his real estate and bond/stocks. That means, the value of those assets on the day of death determines the value of the estate, for “estate tax” purposes.
The federal estate tax exemption is very high now. If you were hit with fed. estate tax, it must have been quite an estate. (There may be a state estate tax where you live with different levels than the federal gov’t.) Finally, if the home appreciated between the day your Dad died and you sold it, then you would be responsible for paying capital gains tax, albeit at a relatively low 15% I believe.
JiangxiDad on November 23, 2007 at 2:10 PM
“new” part of the rich? Since when is this “new”?
RightWinged on November 23, 2007 at 2:10 PM
For who? Non-partisan conservatives? Yes for reasons you stated. Democrats start wanting to pass tax hikes and their constituency realizes “Hey! they are talking about me!”
For the identity politics crowd, bad, bad news. Large cities that are controlled by Democrats are filled with two types of voters. Poor urban uneducated zombies that pull the Democrat lever based on, class warfare, raise taxes, increase spending on the poor uneducated zombies, type rhetoric and… the high than average income liberal leaning person that can afford to live in a densely populated city.
What to do? The rhetoric gets the poor uneducated vote, but implementing said rhetoric means raising taxes on the big city liberals. Quite the conundrum.
Is this trend going to continue? Clogeed big cities drive up real estate prices. Dividing the populace into two decidedly different categories. This trend is not only not going to change it is going to speed up. Gentrification is going to be one of the nemesis’ of identity politics. (The other is the attitudes of the Black demgraphic). Cities are filled with homes that are owned by minorites that are going to be eaten up by being willed to people that cannot handle money and have to sell the home, reverse mortgages, and normal developement of depressed properties.
As the gulf between these two types of city dwellers grows something has to give.
Theworldisnotenough on November 23, 2007 at 2:11 PM
Kini Funny stuff! However..
Please don’t insult the Three Stooges again. Notice how they never went on welfare or totally relied on “bread lines”? All of the episodes involving the economy or job market situation had them working (usually humorously failing, but working nonetheless) or trying to get a job and relying on themselves no matter how poor they were depicted in the show. They kept trying no matter what (which is what capitolism loves and rewards). This is a sharp contrast to today’s liberal way of thinking.
El Guapo on November 23, 2007 at 2:14 PM
JiangxiDad
Thanks i ws aware of these things. However his death was a LONG time ago. The house was appraised and we were taxed for that inheritance. Then when we sold it because my sister needed the money for her 2 kids and deadbeet husband (who she recently divorced thank God) we were taxed for capitol gains. Two different tax names/definitions, but when you boil it down, it is being taxed on the value of your home/asset, twice.
El Guapo on November 23, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Nice analysis. Las Vegas and Manhattan are infamous for that. Outrageous realestate prices for what little you get. Only the rich can afford nice neighborhoods.
El Guapo on November 23, 2007 at 2:23 PM
I’ll have to check that out….
liquidflorian on November 23, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Insult??? Why I oughta…..!
Here’s a little something for ya. It’s not unusual for Democratic State party machines, like New Jersey and this story, to push out the hoi polloi.
Kini on November 23, 2007 at 2:44 PM
In the People’s Republic of Taxachusetts, the Dhims are the Party of the Rich. If you look at our two loser Senators, our tool of a Governor, and our reps. You’ll have a hard time not finding one who isn’t a millionaire.
Mooseman
Mooseman on November 23, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Thanks.
Theworldisnotenough on November 23, 2007 at 3:52 PM
duh
libertytexan on November 23, 2007 at 4:22 PM
This is just a discussion about nonsense statistics.
When they say “a slight majority” are democratic they mean 50.2%, which doesn’t mean anything statistically signifigant, other than, hey, democrat-republican is split about 50-50.
Moreover, seeing which party controls districts where households are making over $48k is not determining the “party of the rich” it’s determining the “party of the not-poor.”
You want to know who the party of the rich is? Who did the top 1% of wealth earners vote for? (I certainly don’t know.) That would answer the question. The paragraphs quoted above do not.
e-pirate on November 23, 2007 at 4:32 PM
the new party of the rich
Mojack420 on November 23, 2007 at 4:42 PM
Allah, the eternal issue with “trend” stories is this: Where do you mark the beginning of the trend, and what counts as evidence of the trend?
It’s like global warming, you see.
Were “the rich” ever as pro-Democrat as they were during the early-’60s heyday of JFK’s “Camelot” administration? Compared to that era, their prestige among the affluent has dropped significantly.
And the GOP’s prestige with “the rich” probably peaked during the Reagan administration.
The reporting on this trend may thus be confusing. This may be a short-term trend than ends soon, or a long-term trend that continues. But each party is free to act to solicit support, and so it’s a moving target.
Ali-Bubba on November 23, 2007 at 5:34 PM
So Mr. Edwards… those “Two Americas” you keep talking about.
This is nothing new.
Inner city welfare culture minorities will still pull the lever for Democrats every time.
BKennedy on November 23, 2007 at 6:28 PM
Seems to me that this entirely explains the economic policies of both parties.
Republicans are the party of the middle class. They want those who are poor to have the opportunities and paths to move up to the middle class, which will grow the Repub party.
Democrats are the party of the rich and poor. They do not want anyone who is poor to move up to middle class and hence become Republicans, so they keep the poor stuck with hand-outs and poverty programs which will keep them poor. They like illegal immigrants, as they appreciate earning anything, even if it is low wages, and the Dems want them to stay poor. The only class change that works for them is poor to rich, skipping the middle class. This is why blue-bloods, actors, musicians and the instant-wealthy are so often Crats – many never learned the value of work that the middle class learned.
TwoCents on November 23, 2007 at 9:43 PM
Great analysis. My main beef with the Dhemocrats is that it’s the party of death.
Mojave Mark on November 23, 2007 at 11:02 PM
And they did it by working for the poor.
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on November 24, 2007 at 2:00 AM
Frankly, I can’t wait to hear this trumpeted and analyzed on Prager, Hewitt, Hannity, Ingraham, (Dennis) Miller, et al by next week. Too bad it snuck in under the radar in a holiday week. It confirms everything I’ve suspected for a long time. Too many Soroses, Sarandons and Streisands for it not to be true.
If any GOP candidate fails to bring this up in the debates, especially the general election debates, thy don’t deserve to be president.
Captain Scarlet on November 24, 2007 at 6:16 AM
Teddy still has to hold on to people with both hands so they can not get away until he has slurred his palaver all over them.
The older he gets the more his nose looks like W.C. Fields.
MSGTAS on November 24, 2007 at 1:00 PM
Comment pages: