35 Comments

• 1. Retired Spook  |  November 23rd, 2007 at 8:57 am

  The last few lines of the article really says it all:

  Some Democrats acknowledge that moneyed interests are exerting a strong influence on their party’s agenda and legislation.

  “The fact is that [the Democratic campaign committees] have had large contributions from these hedge-fund folks,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a liberal think tank.

  “As far as the hedge funds and tax breaks go, the Democrats are clearly getting a lot of money from people who are affected by that, and they’re responding,” Mr. Baker said.

  Mr. Franc thinks this turnabout by Democrats, whose campaign mantra has long been to tax the rich more, is only the beginning.

  “Increasingly, we will see Democrats responding to the economic demands of this particular upper-income constituency,” he said.

  “What the data suggests is that there will be a natural limit to how far and how much the Democrats can sock it to the rich, because in doing so, it means they will have to sock it to their own constituents,” Mr. Franc said.

  Poor, hapless Donks. This is what you get when you engage in class warfare and the class that you’re trying to demonize is the group that provides most of your donations.

• 2. neocon  |  November 23rd, 2007 at 9:23 am

  In the 2004 election Bush carried 31 states to Kerrys 19. Almost the entire heartland of the US voted for Bush Pierre, SD and Nashville, TN), while Kerry carried the the two coasts (LA and NY) and the upper midwest (Chicago and Minneapolis).

  Of those two regions, where do you suppose you’d find the average American?

• 3. Casper  |  November 23rd, 2007 at 9:33 am

  Hmmm, since there is a strong link between income and education, does that mean that the democrats are the party of the educated?

• 4. neocon  |  November 23rd, 2007 at 9:40 am

  Not necessarily Casper,

  Listed below are the top 15 highest earning cities with the least educated. All went for Kerry.

  Top 100 Low-Educated but High-Earning Cities (pop. 5000+)

  Union Beach, New Jersey ($59,946, 8.5%)
  Pedley, California ($60,567, 9.7%)
  South Haven, Indiana ($52,583, 6.6%)
  Norco, California ($62,652, 11.9%)
  Alum Rock, California ($54,567, 7.9%)
  Oakley, California ($65,589, 13.7%)
  Oak Grove, Minnesota ($70,169, 16.3%)
  Brentwood, New York ($59,208, 11.2%)
  North Bay Shore, New York ($55,779, 9.5%)
  Islip Terrace, New York ($66,644, 15.0%)
  Citrus, California ($55,110, 9.3%)
  Interlaken, California ($53,875, 8.8%)
  Mastic, New York ($53,657, 8.7%)
  Braidwood, Illinois ($54,375, 9.1%)
  Baywood, New York ($60,294

• 5. Bigfoot  |  November 23rd, 2007 at 9:41 am

  the democrats are the party of the educated?

  I remember a survey of voter education levels taken during the election of 1994. Of the 5 categories, the lowest (high-school dropout) and highest (advanced degree) leaned toward the Democrats, while the others (HS diploma, some college, and bachelor’s degree) leaned Republican. Yes, this is old data, but still food for thought.

• 6. Retired Spook  |  November 23rd, 2007 at 9:54 am

  the lowest (high-school dropout) and highest (advanced degree) leaned toward the Democrats

  Bigfoot, that would make perfect sense. The ivory tower elites at the upper end tend to believe, that, in the perfect, utopian world that exists only in their imaginations, they would be the leaders, while the folks at the lower end of the education spectrum are the ones that are the easiest to fool with feel-good, victimhood, free lunch type rhetoric. And it’s a scenario that the educated elites have perpetuated by sending their kids to private schools while denying that same choice to those at the lower end of the economic scale. The fact that the elites then have the Chutzpah to use class warfare as a political is just beyond the pale.

• 7. Retired Spook  |  November 23rd, 2007 at 10:09 am

  Oops, too much turkey hangover. That should have read “as a political tool”.

• 8. Brian (Boston)  |  November 23rd, 2007 at 10:39 am

  Neocon, you can find average Americans everywhere. Voting for Republicans, Democrats or another group does not make someone more or less an American.

  As for the education, The less educated and highly educated tend to vote Democratic and the States that have higher rates of education tend to vote Democratic. CA is lower on the educational scale, but still votes Democratic.

• 9. KCJ  |  November 23rd, 2007 at 10:48 am

  I love how liberals call the republican party the party of the rich as an insult… But when rich is applied to democrats they spin it as a positive.

• 10. GOP4ME  |  November 23rd, 2007 at 10:55 am

  KCJ,

  You are surprised that the ‘Rats are a complete bunch of hypocrites?

  That fact (which they expose daily) is the most unsurprising thing I’ve ever read hear.

• 11. GOP4ME  |  November 23rd, 2007 at 10:56 am

  hear = here

  See, I’m a GOP’er that is edumacated…

• 12. Ricorun  |  November 23rd, 2007 at 11:37 am

  neocon: Listed below are the top 15 highest earning cities with the least educated. All went for Kerry.

  I highly doubt it. For example, Norco, CA is in the 44th congressional district, which is reliably Republican (current Rep is Ken Calvert). In terms of the state itself, their representative is Todd Spitzer, also a Republican. In 2000, the % registered with each political party was 30.8D/54.3R. 34.3% voted for Gore, 60.9% for Bush. It would surprise me if there was a dramatic turn-around in 2004.

• 13. Mark Noonan  |  November 23rd, 2007 at 11:49 am

  The important thing here is the it is verification of something I’ve been saying for some time - the Democratic party is the party of the rich and the elite…ie, the Establishment party. The only radical change you’ll find in the Democratic party is a continuing insistence on radicalised sexual relations…other than that, they are an ossified party of reactionaries.

  This also ties in with my contention that the Democrats’ “tax the rich” rhetoric is phony - the “rich” they want to tax are really upper middle class, working Americans…while the real rich - the idle rich who live off various financial funds rather than work - are excused from nearly all Democratic tax plans.

  One must keep in mind cynicism and despair which are the so tightly entwined with liberal/left thinking. All too many people high up in liberal/left circles really don’t believe that things can be made better - but they do believe they should be in charge, and that people should live by leftwing policy prescriptions….mostly because to liberal/left leaders, just about anything is better than continuing Judeo-Christian civilization. This comes out, in practical terms, as an intensely corrupted nature which has the very rich funding a party which says it wants to tax the rich but actually taxes the middle class…all in the name of equality and social justice.

• 14. 2008 Presidential Electio&hellip  |  November 23rd, 2007 at 12:06 pm

  [...] Matt Margolis added an interesting post today on The Party of the Rich…Here’s a small reading [...]

• 15. Ricorun  |  November 23rd, 2007 at 2:27 pm

  Mark: The important thing here is the it is verification of something I’ve been saying for some time - the Democratic party is the party of the rich and the elite…ie, the Establishment party.

  Given the nature of the data you’re presenting, your conclusion is rather ridiculous. What you’re trying to say is that because the median income (i.e., the level where 50% of the people fall below and 50% fall above) is higher in blue districts than red districts, you conclude that the Dems are the party of the rich. Well gee, if it was as simple as that, wouldn’t you be (a) inclined to move to one of those blue districts, or (b) try to make your own district blue? From comments you’ve made in the past it’s clear that you hold the “elite” in special regard. So… what’s your beef? Maybe you should switch parties. Lol!

  Fortunately, I don’t buy the WT’s argument. And I don’t buy yours, either. They’re basically both based on the concept of “statistics for the naive”. As the old saying goes, if you have can’t interpret statistics correctly, there are three levels of increasing eggregiousness: (1) lies, (2) damned lies, and (3) statistics.

• 16. ha  |  November 23rd, 2007 at 4:57 pm

  “Democrats are the party of the rich; Republicans are the party of the working folk.”

  Try selling that one to the voters in 2008, wingnuts.

  Didn’t this used to “Blogs for Bush,” by the way?

• 17. Right Winger Thought (sic&hellip  |  November 23rd, 2007 at 5:25 pm

  [...] up in this article in The Washington Times. The study is being touted by Drudge, PowerLineBlog, Blogs For Victory, and [...]

• 18. Mark Noonan  |  November 23rd, 2007 at 5:52 pm

  Ricorun,

  You can’t escape the fact, however, that the richer areas of the country vote and donate reliably Democrat.

• 19. Kahn  |  November 23rd, 2007 at 8:10 pm

  ha, sell it to who?

  The cities vote Democrat. The rural areas vote Republican. You buy many of the votes in the cities and have for years, thats why they’re messed up.

• 20. Kahn  |  November 23rd, 2007 at 8:12 pm

  It’s funny. if the rich wanted to, they could just pay more taxes voluntarily. There’s nothing stopping them. I wonder why they won’t?

  I, as a Republican am sick of the rich elitist Democrats. Power to the people!

• 21. phnx  |  November 23rd, 2007 at 8:40 pm

  There is a very little known but very expensive tax loophole that gives special treatment to a small group of SUPER RICH. Its the tax treatment given to mutual fund managers. They are taxed at the rate of 15% earning interested income, instead of the 35% which should pertain, if there incomes were treated like ordinary income, as if they were earning paycheck for doing their job.

  Attempts at plugging this loophole were recently defeated in a bipartisan show of support for the super rich.

  There are approximately 1000 fund managers who benefit from this loophole. Some make over $1 billion per year. On average they make over $100 million per year, which amounts to a $20 million dollar tax savings for each, for a total of almost $20 billion.

  http://www.cepr.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1246&Itemid=45

  Needless to say these folks have been very generous to politicos on both sides of the fence, so neither party wants to kill the golden goose.

  I have no problem with their incomes, but to give them special tax treatment on top of it seems to be completely absurd.

• 22. Casper  |  November 23rd, 2007 at 9:02 pm

  “I have no problem with their incomes, but to give them special tax treatment on top of it seems to be completely absurd.”

  I agree 100%.

  IMO, both parties are controlled by the rich elite. Think about it. The last election featured a man from a politically well connected New England family, who went to an elite university, and has probably never had to worry about money in his life, against a man from a politically well connected New England family, who went to an elite university, and has probably never had to worry about money in his life. You could have swapped the R and D next to their names and run either one for the other party.

• 23. Ricorun  |  November 23rd, 2007 at 9:09 pm

  Mark: You can’t escape the fact, however, that the richer areas of the country vote and donate reliably Democrat.

  Come on Mark, think! First of all, you’re basing your argument on median income data. Again, median income measures the point at which half the people fall above the value and half below. So if you’re contending that the “richer areas of the country vote and donate reliably Democrat” based on median income data, what you’re really saying is that the Dems are somehow elevating the income levels of the whole community, not just a select few. If that were true, why on earth would you expect people in such communities to vote against that? How stupid would they have to be?

  But of course it’s not true — not in any larger sense. If you track back comment #17 you would find one way it’s not true: the claims in the WT article are exaggerated. But even if they weren’t, any statistician worth his salt could pick enough holes in the argument to make it worthless in and of itself. I won’t bore you with the details. All I will do is to point out two things: (1) you really don’t want to use median income in and of itself to try to make the point they are trying to make. You don’t have to be much of a statistician to realize how stupid that is — all you have to do is understand the definition of median income; (2) if you really want to make the contention that “the Dems are the party of the rich”, the easiest and most direct way to demonstrate that is to compare income vs. party affilitation. This study is perhaps not the best one in that regard (I’m too lazy to spend much time at it), but I would guess it’s findings are fairly typical (the last few lines are the relevant part): the higher your income the more likely it is that you are a registered Republican. There’s nothing wrong with that — as long as you’re honest about it. The trouble is, it’s becoming more and more apparent to me that the Heritage Foundation has some serious lapses in the honesty department. So far it appears it’s their interpretation rather than their data that’s most suspect. Even so, it’s a little discouraging.

  Another related argument is that the Dems are a party of the very rich and the very poor. If that was the case then you would expect to see regions with the greatest income disparity voting reliably Democratic, right? I suspect that the best way to do that would be to compare the GINI index with party affiliation or voting trends in different areas. The hypothesis would be that the higher the GINI index (i.e., the higher the income disparity) the more reliably Dem the area is (measured either by party affiliation or voting trends). I don’t know of any study that has actually done that, though. I did something similar (albeit much less precise), a couple of years ago: I compared the difference in mean and median income on the one hand (the difference between mean and median income is a rough measure of income disparity — the larger the difference the larger the disparity), and the percentage difference in votes for Bush and Kerry on a state-by-state basis. Unfortunately, I didn’t save the data (it was basically a thought experiment), but what I found at the time was that states with the largest income disparity were more likely to have voted Republican (Bush), not Democratic (Kerry). Again, mine was an informal, imprecise study (consider it a pilot study). But in the absence of any other evidence, that’s the trend I would expect to see if someone actually did it up right.

• 24. Right-Wing Talking Points&hellip  |  November 24th, 2007 at 1:31 am

  [...] up in this article in The Washington Times. The study is being touted by Drudge, PowerLineBlog, Blogs For Victory, and [...]

• 25. coulterfan  |  November 24th, 2007 at 12:05 pm

  Yep, Dems are the party of the rich AND the poor! It’s interesting, but the most liberal states (NY, Mass, CA) are the richest- it sort of puts to rest any theory that liberal policies are bad for business, doesn’t it?

  Furthermore, the liberal states are the states which MAKE money, while the conservative states take welfare-like Federal tax handouts!

  “Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed”:

  http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

• 26. Tim O  |  November 24th, 2007 at 1:00 pm

  So just to follow the pretzel logic:

  Dems are the Party of the Wealthy.

  Wealthy Dems vote for Dems because the Dem policies are good for the Wealthy?

  But Reps say that Dem policies are bad for the rich.

  Are rich Dems stupid? How did they get rich? Did they all win the lottery? Why don’t they become Republican? Won’t they get more wealthy?

  How did Blue states become more wealthy than Red states with all those high taxes?

  Why are red States so poor? Aren’t the Rep tax policies making everyone rich? Why can’t Republicans fix the red states? Isn’t Grover Norquist considered a genius? Why hasn’t TABOR worked where it’s been implemented? Why have the Reps who signed on jumped off the bandwagon?

  Why isn’t Mississippi the richest state in the US?

  Just wondering . . .

• 27. Mark Noonan  |  November 24th, 2007 at 1:26 pm

  Tim O,

  Why isn’t MS as rich as CA? Geography - California is on the Pacific rim and has benefited from the massive increase in international trade over the past 60 years. But, also, not all of California is rich…get outside of the enclaves of rich Democrats, and parts of Calfornia are as bad as anything I saw in the rural South. You’ll note that the richest and most Democratic areas of California are along the seaports or immediately adjacent to same.

  As for rich Dems being stupid - not at all. As I said, they never propose taxes which will affect Democratic rich people. You see, “the Rich” don’t exist - no more than “the Jews” or “the Blacks” exist. Not, at least, in the liberal/left sense of a cohesive group one as like as the next. There are rich folks and then there are rich folks, you see?

  When a Dem proposes increasing taxes on income in excess of $250,000.00 per year, it sounds like a reasonable thing…but if the income is what a small business operator makes, then you’ll be causing problems…if, on the other hand, it is the un-earned income of a trust fund, then not such a big deal…take $100,000 of it away and the trust fund baby living in San Francisco still has a tidy income, and his principle isn’t even touched.

  You see, the rich who are Democrats are mostly those who don’t work, or if they do work it is over-represented in higher education, law and other activities which are generally insulated from the operation of the free market and/or are heavily subsidised by the taxpayers.

  Theresa Kerry got her money from her late husband - John and Theresa now use that money to live a very swell, tax-sheltered life…and, also, use it to promote liberal causes which won’t affect their principle, will only modestly affect their un-earned income but will have a deletrious effect on those who are “rich” but who work for a living…not that Theresa or John would ever understand this, neither of them having an understanding of what its like to, say, own a gas station in Boston.

  Make a prosperous coastal area; allow a generation or two to go by, and you’ll still have that prosperity from trade but, meanwhile, you’ll have also built up a generation or two which hasn’t had to work for a living, has obtained degrees from prestige schools due to Daddy’s money, and has wormed its way into law, politics and education - the Ivory Tower from whence liberalism comes to tell the real world how it is to behave.

• 28. fourmorewars  |  November 25th, 2007 at 2:18 pm

  Hi. Liberal here, bursting your bubble (apologies).

  It’s not enough that Greg Sargent has pointed out the absurdity of saying the Dems hold slightly more than 50% of ‘the 167 wealthiest districts’…when their OVERALL % of seats held is HIGHER.

  This should drive the point home even more:

  http://www.techpolitics.org/congress/110fh1.php?sort_field=Party&sort_order=asc

  Go ahead, average out the districts (the mhi figure is for 2000, but the list of congresspeople is the current one).

  Dem districts: on average, $2700 POORER than Republican ones.

  So, nice try.

• 29. ha  |  November 25th, 2007 at 3:05 pm

  Blue states wealthier than redneck hellholes like Mississippi? Blue states financing redneck red states? What’s news about this?

  Oh, and enjoy the massive asskicking your racist, redneck party is about to receive in 2008.

  You have worn out the country’s patience, wingnuts.

• 30. link&hellip  |  December 6th, 2007 at 4:22 pm

  hi

  Agree

• 31. Eric T  |  December 17th, 2007 at 8:11 am

  Corporate media seems to be in democrat hands. Newspapers as well, here in Michigan we have Free Press and Detroit news, Free Press is extremist liberal propaganda, news is a little more politically centered. When you get out into the country the Free Press seems to be the only paper available…? Hollywood is loaded with libs too. Pro sports. Big money there.

• 32. Eminem Ring Tones&hellip  |  January 8th, 2008 at 6:02 pm

  Eminem Ring Tones

  I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.

• 33. Jessie&hellip  |  January 13th, 2008 at 7:06 am

  Jessie

  Good work.

• 34. breckin meyer shirtless&hellip  |  January 15th, 2008 at 12:05 pm

  breckin meyer shirtless

  Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin..

• 35. link&hellip  |  January 29th, 2008 at 10:10 am

  greatings

  nice