« MSNBC vs. Fox | Main | Supply side snake oil »

Democrats: party of the rich

I've been saying this for some time, but now the Financial Times has taken note:

[T]he demographic reality is that, in America, the Democratic party is the new "party of the rich". More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households. Using Internal Revenue Service data, the Heritage Foundation identified two categories of taxpayers - single filers with incomes of more than $100,000 and married filers with incomes of more than $200,000 - and combined them to discern where the wealthiest Americans live and who represents them.

Democrats now control the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats.

Let's face it, folks. It ain't the party of Walter Mondale anymore. The hue and cry to repeal the AMT has come largely from the Democrats, even though the tax primarily affects those in the $200,000 to $500,000 income range. Not too many years ago, Democrats would have derided such a measure as "tax cuts for the rich." Ditto Barack Obama's donut hole, which would absolve those making more than $102,000 per year from paying the same payroll tax that everyone else must pay on every dollar they earn.

So what did you expect? For some years now, the Republican base has been low-income NASCAR fans and Wal-Mart shoppers, while the Democratic base has been Northeastern and West Coast professionals who fret about the AMT and the salaries of hedge fund managers. How long can that reality obtain before the Democrats offically become the "party of wealth and privilege?"

I'm not complaining, by the way. I've been disenchanted with the Republicans' social policies for years now, so I welcome the advent of a nascent, pro-wealth Democratic alternative -- a party that views private wealth as something to be celebrated and encouraged, rather than plundered and redistributed. If current trends continue, I see myself as a registered Democrat before the end of the decade.


" I see myself as a registered Democrat before the end of the decade." (BNJ)

I've remained a registered Democrat, somewhat out of laziness, but more so out of respect for my Dad's side of the family - my cousin Mike is a NYS Assemblyman, a Conservative Democrat and an all around great guy.

With even France & Germany moving away from the Keynesian policies mis-named "Euro-socialism" and toward a more American-styled economy, you'd think that the transition within the Democratic Party would be further along than it currently is.

The Keynesians (high tax, big government, large welfare state folks) have lost.

The ONLY debate now is between social and economic Libertarians and social and economic Conservatives (Supply-Siders who generally favor more regulation than true Libertarians).

Already over 20% of the Dems in Congress are Conservative "New" Democrats.

The Democratic Party should become a more mainstream Libertarian Party, while the Republican Party remains a Supply-Side, pro-law and order (pro-Patriot Act, etc) Party.

There are still a lot of guilt-ridden, well-off, over-fed middle-class "fat cats" enamored of pseudo-Liberals like John Edwards who cries with the Katrina victims that the Investment firm he was a Senior Adviser in helped foreclose on.

A more Libertarian Democratic party would look GREAT by comparison!

Post a comment