It isn't just because it is bad politics; it is because rich people are the Democratic Party's natural constituency. This July 20, 2009 Wall Street Journal article reminds us which party represents the wealthy:
Friday, two freshmen representatives -- Dina Titus, from suburban Las Vegas, and Colorado's Jared Polis, representing Boulder, Vail and some of the tonier suburbs of Denver -- joined Republicans to vote against Mr. Obama's top-priority health-care overhaul when it faced a vote in their House Education and Labor Committee. One reason was a one-percentage point-surtax on couples earning between $350,000 and $500,000 -- gradually increasing to 5.4 percentage points on earnings more than $1 million -- to pay for it.Republicans would be both financially responsible and engaged in smart politics if they took the position that while increasing marginal tax rates is a bad idea, especially in the current economic crisis, there's really no need to keep focusing on cutting the top marginal tax rates. The absurd maximum marginal tax rates of the 1970s certainly impaired economic growth. It's not clear that telling people who make $500,000 a year that they need a tax cut has that same pragmatic basis today. Cutting spending to cut deficits is the first step towards restoring fiscal sanity in Washington (assuming that can even be done).
...
Election gains in some of these affluent regions have helped give Democrats big majorities in the House and Senate. Of the 25 richest districts, 14 are represented by Democrats, according to Congressional Quarterly. In 1995, Democrats represented just five of those districts.
Recently elected Democrats from higher-income areas also have been cautious about legislation that would make it easier for labor unions to organize, and about legislation imposing tough new rules on banks.
No comments:
Post a Comment