-
It’s About the Legacy, Not the House
April 16, 2013 | 43 comments
-
Understanding the Left’s Demands on What Others Own
March 13, 2013 | 205 comments
-
Football, Fairness, and Hayek
February 1, 2013 | 18 comments
-
An Elite That Still Reject Him
December 24, 2012 | 76 comments
-
Why Rice?
December 11, 2012 | 31 comments
Another Perspective
Who’re You Calling the ‘Party of the Rich’?
“The rich,” it turns out, elect Democrats.
If Republicans are “the party of the rich,” how come “the rich” elect Democrats? While the first half of the question is conventional wisdom, the second half is congressional fact. At the risk of letting facts get in the way of a good story, here they insist on showing exactly the opposite of what most people think.
According to calculations of states’ average incomes, those states with the highest average overwhelmingly elect Democrats to Congress. This iconoclastic insight was underscored by a recent USA Today ranking of the states by their population’s average income.
The top five states in the ranking were: Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, and New York. Together these five states have 8 Democratic senators (and 1 Independent and 1 Republican) and 48 Democratic House members (and 16 Republicans).
The starkness of the contrast is evidenced by Congress’s current configuration. The Senate has just a 53-47 Democratic majority, while the House has a 241-192 Republican majority.
Not only does the theory that the rich elect Republicans ring false, just the opposite prevails. The bottom five states in the listing were Mississippi, Idaho, Utah, West Virginia, and Arkansas. Together these five states have 7 Republican senators (and 3 Democrats) and 12 Republican House members (and 4 Democrats).
So, the highest per capita income states had an 80% Democratic Senate ratio and 75% Democratic House ratio; while, the states with the lowest per capita income had a 70% Republican Senate ratio and a 75% Republican House ratio.
Facts, it is said, are stubborn things. But they are nothing compared to “conventional wisdom.” In this case it mulishly maintains “conventional” at the expense of “wisdom.” Conventional wisdom is not simply wrong in its oversimplification, it is “loud wrong.”
About the Author
J.T. Young served in the Department of Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004 and as a Congressional staff member from 1987 to 2000.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (45) | Leave a comment
More Articles by J.T. Young
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/04/05/whore-you-calling-the-party-of
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Larry| 4.5.11 @ 6:21AM
Very good column Mr. Young. With all due respect however, who DIDN'T know that the socialist democrats are the party of the rich/elite/progressives and outright socialists?
Socialists believe in two classes- the rich and the poor. No middle class. They vote for those who are most like themselves and most likely to keep as many as possible under the ever-oppresive thumb of the government.
Alan Brooks| 4.5.11 @ 3:58PM
In 1996 and 2008 poor and rich Democrats alike elected a better candidate. Idid not vote for Obama in '08, but I will next year because you will botch it YET AGAIN.
You feel guilt because you screwed it up.
Alan Brooks| 4.5.11 @ 4:02PM
... BTW, perhaps in '88, '92, 2000 and '04 your candidate was better-- maybe. However you had to run whited sepulcres in '96 and '08? to prove what? that you admire aged veterans?
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.5.11 @ 6:26AM
This explains why the Democrats must breed poverty stricken individuals and keep them in a depraved state by encouraging the eating of government cheese and abortion.
Intelligent Design| 4.5.11 @ 6:39AM
How about this: Duke Energy Corp. guaranteeing $10 million line of credit for the Democratic National Committee. http://www.charlotteobserver.c.....ne-of.html
This amounts to a campaign contribution risking stockholders' capital.
Larry| 4.5.11 @ 7:01AM
This country needs a nationalist movement, the likes of which hasn't been seen since the 18th century if there's to be any small hope of saving it.
Sadly, I don't think that it will ever happen.
DA MONK| 4.5.11 @ 10:40AM
NATIONALIST AS IN NATIONALIST SOCIALIST PARTY AKA NAZI?
ARF ARF| 4.5.11 @ 11:00AM
No. That is a stupid assumption on your part. Go back to your cloister and comtemplate your navel some more. And maybe grow up a little.
Larry| 4.5.11 @ 11:23AM
Typical liberal idiot- he labels anything that he doesn't like or anything that is pro U.S. as being "Nazi".
Intelligent Design| 4.5.11 @ 11:34AM
Liberals will even claim that the Soviet Union was not a socialist country. They apparently don't know the USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. And most don't know that "Nazi" is short for National Socialist.
Larry| 4.5.11 @ 11:41AM
Has anyone ever asked any of the liberal scum in Hollywood why a movie has never been made about Joe Stalin or Mao and the atrocities they committed? Or would that be hitting too close to home for two men they really admire?
JP| 4.5.11 @ 7:32AM
The Upper West side of Manhatten, Malibu, Sherman Oaks, San Francisco, San Jose, Marin County, Westchester New York, Austin Texas, Chicago, Boston, Chevy Chase, etc... all are solidly Blue -always will be. Yet, somehow the the GOP is the party of the Rich. Just goes to show you how true Goebbels dictum was, "The bigger the lie the better -repeat it often."
Old Soldier| 4.5.11 @ 7:38AM
Here in NJ, you can be a millionaire and live like a pauper.
The truly rich love the Democrats and the protection they offer from upstarts. Once you made your fortune, the last thing you want is competition.
Larry| 4.5.11 @ 7:38AM
I always wonder what these elist progressive socialist types think is going to happen to them if and when the hard dictatorship takes over. Historically, dictators of every kind have used the rich until they've completely siezed power. Witness what the community organizer, the man of the people has been doing since 2008 if not earlier. When they're no longer needed they're disposed of.
mike daniels| 4.5.11 @ 9:58AM
Read Atlas Shrugged note what happened to Dagny Taggart's brother James. The rich twit was used up by the government moochers!
Larry| 4.5.11 @ 11:25AM
Yeah, James Taggart is the epitome of the stupid, rich, guilt-ridden liberal scum who hate themselves so much and as a result have to hate everyone else as well as any kind of achievement.
Hillel| 4.5.11 @ 8:01AM
If you look at the education of the "rich" you see that they go to grottlesex and Ivy and have guilt trips laid on them. More to the point, they see big government as an opportunity to get monopoly's and subsidies denied to competitors. They learned this in WWI and WWII with the dollar a year men.
Brian J. McKee| 4.5.11 @ 8:21AM
"I gave at the office."
No wonder then, that liberal elitists resort to government compassion as they refuse to give where it counts. By forcing all to be charitable through taxation they can smugly go about their business 'feeling' they've done their share.
Restateboy| 4.5.11 @ 8:57AM
"The top five states in the ranking were: Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, and New York." And all 5 are economic basket cases: people leaving, bloated bureacracies, extortionary taxes with Legions of dependent Welfarites yet solidly dependable Slave Party Storm Troopers.
cyberdog| 4.5.11 @ 9:36AM
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Herbert H. "Herb" Kohl , is the senior DEMOCRAT U.S. Senator from Wisconsin and is the owner of the Milwaukee Bucks National Basketball Association (NBA) team.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
cyberdog| 4.5.11 @ 9:41AM
I should add that as a Democrat, Kohl is a good guy. Which is pretty rare for a Democrat.
PattyMor| 4.5.11 @ 10:25AM
So the Demon party lives on myths. FDR ended the depression with his spending. Truth: the depression ended in Europe long before the U.S. because of the excessive spending and regulation.
The Demon party is the party of the middle class. Truth: a welfare mom makes more in welfare and medical benefits than the average middle class family making $50,000.
The Demon party is the party of the downtrodden. Lincoln a Republican ended slavery over the objection of the southern Demons and at a large cost in lives and treasure.
Welfare has wrecked the Black Family (in particular) and left many kids adrift in poverty and crime. Dick Durban (a Demon) led the way to end the Opportunity Scholarship for D.C. kids.
The Demons fight tooth and nail against scholarships to empower the kids over the teachers unions.
DRed| 4.5.11 @ 10:40AM
Wouldn't it be more instructive to look at the voting habits of wealthy people, rather than looking at states?
Ned| 4.5.11 @ 11:42AM
Yes, but it's identical to the description above...
RCV| 4.5.11 @ 2:10PM
Wouldn't it be more instructive to ask yourself why the most well-educated, financially successful people in the country -- who you conservatives tell us create the jobs, drive the economy and are what everyone else should aspire to be -- vote Democratic?
Dagny Taggert| 4.5.11 @ 2:49PM
Way to show the ignorance that feeds the myths RCV!! Income levels don't necessarily reflect "financially successful" people. Think of all the damn trust-funders skewing the averages. If my state (MA) is "financially successful" why does poor old New Hampshire have 1/2 the unemployment rate? Why does N Dakota have an unemployment rate in the 3's? Jobs aren't created by "the most well-educated." Take a look at your savior in the White House: You cow endlessly about his intelligence, yet where are the jobs? Where is the economy being "driven?"
Larry| 4.5.11 @ 3:33PM
Hey RCV, tell us the last time that a poor person offered you a job.
Sorry to tell you, but it is the wealthy who create jobs, the means to create them and drive the economy. That is, unless you can tell me about some street bum who's recently purchased a yacht, gone on a vacation, spent money in a restaurant, bought a car etc., etc.
EricTheRedVM | 4.5.11 @ 12:05PM
Very interesting and telling article. I would venture to guess that those highly rich states that vote overwhelmingly Democrat also have the largest gap between the rich and the poor, presumably the the result of 50+ years of wrongheaded socialist economic policies and social engineering schemes.
If my assumption is correct, then this is one of many societal problems caused by Democrats, and which Democrats purport to want to correct, but keep going in perpetuity because it benefits them financially and politically. Scoundrels.
http://VocalMinority.typepad.com
The Jewish Republican's Web Sanctuary
DRed| 4.5.11 @ 12:56PM
This data is from the mid-2000s, but it suggests you're wrong. Here were the top 10 states in income inequality:
New York
Alabama
Mississippi
Massachusetts
Tennessee
New Mexico
Connecticut
California
Texas
Kentucky
I got this from
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=255
if you want to check it out.
tonypal| 4.5.11 @ 2:16PM
Income inequality is a bogus statistic that leftists use to demagogue the capitalist system as inherently unfair. Here's a question for you. If you had to choose between the following 2, which would you choose:
1. Live in a state with the highest income inequality, but make $100k per year.
2. Live in a state with the lowest income inequality, but make $50k per year.
It's not a false choice, but an example of the silliness of the income inequality argument. In fact, I'll bet you can't even explain why income inequality is a bad thing. Go ahead, give it a try.
Dagny Taggert| 4.5.11 @ 2:54PM
Amen TP. Lefty income inequity canards always leave out any variable of movement through income levels over time.
Larry| 4.5.11 @ 3:22PM
I love to ask lib scum where ANYTHING on the planet is equal.
Their problem is that they go under the notion that income is "distributed", as if there's someone at a big pot of money giving it out.
For whatever reason, it's beyond their scope of comprehension that income isn't distributed, it's earned. Of course when you ask them how much of their income they've distributed to strangers you get called a Nazi, homophobe, misogynist, racist, mean spirited, nasty or any of their other little buzzwords to deflect the argument.
Wayne | 4.5.11 @ 12:37PM
Of course, because the rich HATES competition from the middle class. They prefer being the cronies of the FleeParty. It became apparent to me when Obama redefined rich as one making 125,000 dollars a year (a married couple making 250,000). Because this class of people is the group who are challenging the rich with new ideas and new businesses.
martin j smith| 4.5.11 @ 3:18PM
Big Business including Big Unions and Wall Street and Banks( same exactly ) interests are not at all necessarily good for America. Crony Capitalism is not good for America in fact it is opposite. Look at Hitler's Germany which had Crony Capitalism at its most disgusting levels.
People should be asking themselves and when possible the question: WHY ? or HOW ?
can a President punt responsibility on the budget
Why would a President drive our Dollar into the ground. Why would a President fail to permit drilling for oil here yet support the same thing in Brazil.? Why would a President support the FED to print more and more money leading to inflation. And, why would a President allow this to happen ? It is time to force a real look at the MOTIVATION FOR THE SOCIALISTS BEHAVIOR--WHAT IS THEIR GOAL, WHY WOULD THEY BE SO DESTRUCTIVE ? KEEP ASKING.
Larry| 4.5.11 @ 3:40PM
The goal is to destroy this country. It's been painfully obvious even before election day in 2008. And of course it was there long before Comrade Golfer was known by anyone outside of the neighborhoods where he used to tack up fliers to phone poles.
Bob K.| 4.5.11 @ 5:37PM
As Brian J. McKee says above, it is all set up so the rich liberals can feel good about themselves.
Clint| 4.5.11 @ 6:59PM
States in The Top Ten For Highest Cost Of Living: Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, and New York.
Massachusetts is in Highest States for Housing Costs & Food Costs
justplainbill| 4.5.11 @ 7:12PM
If you love money, you hate God. Who said that? Jesus. The Deamoncrats hate God. Think not? Just read Romans Chapter one to them. Watch them go crazy.
Tony in Central PA| 4.5.11 @ 9:00PM
Once again, we see it takes a lot of money to be a true liberal.
Dee See| 4.6.11 @ 4:54AM
---It's called 'controlled opposition' and it's
part of 'full spectrum dominance'.
It's the ideology of the Social Darwinist
capstone creeps who've hijacked the country.
"Come out from among them.
Do NOT partake of their sin."
George S. Barkman| 4.6.11 @ 12:30PM
Brian McKee hit the nail right on the head. Who do the liberals think they are kidding. Let others pay for their "liberalism"
George S. Barkman
John H.| 4.12.11 @ 4:12PM
While the average income of voters who vote for Democrats may be higher, the policies of the Republican party often benefit the wealthy (such as their recent efforts to make sure the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans were continued). The Democratic party is typically in favor of more social programs that help the underprivileged poorer members of society. The Republicans tend to pull in poorer voters due to their alignment on social issues such as abortion and religion, meanwhile the fiscal policies they enact do not benefit the people who put them into office. Unfortunately many of those people are more concerned with social issues than fiscal policy. So yes the Republican party is still the party of the rich based on the policies they support once in office. All your article shows is that they are able to dupe poor ignorant voters into supporting them, which has been well known for some time now.
sex toys | 7.4.11 @ 1:17AM
Moyers' phony quote has one thing correct. NPR/PBS is a gift to liberalism. Why would they fight so hard against de-funding?
Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 10:54PM
is good
Viktor| 12.22.11 @ 12:35PM
I agree that the Dem's are now the Party of the Rich; they also own the inner cities (projects anyone?). But then will someone PLEASE explain to me why on earth the Rep's keep defending the Bush tax cuts to the rich? Why defend Soros' tax rates? Why? Why?