The party of the rich
People often say that the Republicans are the party of the rich. And I’ve said the Democrats are the party of the really rich. Looks like the Republicans aren’t even the party of the sort of rich:
Recently the Bureau of Economic Analysis released two reports which shed a lot of light on what’s really going on in American politics. The reports show beyond question that the states that went for George W. Bush in the last election are considerably poorer than the ones that went for Kerry. The notion that the GOP is the party of the rich simply doesn’t match the economic reality.
There’s some issues with the data, of course, because not everyone in every state voted for the same candidate. I do think the overall trend is noteworthy.
July 12th, 2005 at 10:14 am
Interesting read that one… I like the connotation of the party of the perspiring.
Seems that more and more people may be getting the glimmer that if you have all these social programs (that may be beneficial) you have to pay for them. The only way that the government has to pay for programs it through greater taxes…
July 12th, 2005 at 11:14 am
Well I don’t think that says what you think it does. Keep in mind that blue states contain 65% of the population. Blue states also pay 71% of federal taxes, and from 1991 to 2001, paid $1.4 trillion more in taxes than they got back in goods, services and cash.
Red states, in comparison, possess only 35% of the population, pay 29% of federal taxes, and from 1991 to 2001, receive $800 billion more in goods, services and cash from Washington than they paid in taxes.
It’s the red states that take the most from the federal government, while it’s the blue states that subsidize them. Now, this is exactly the point of the progressive taxation that I, as a [mostly] liberal blue stater, support—the red states that receive so much federal money are also very poor.
However, it’s pretty ironic that the very people who complain the most about raising taxes and favor regressive tax structures benefit the most from progressive taxation.
I also think that when people say that the Republicans are for “the rich,” and the Democrats are for “the poor,” they are talking about the policies that the parties themselves seem to stand for, not necessarily who votes for them. The Republicans tend to favor corporate welfare and slashing social programs for the poor while the Democrats tend to favor social programs for the poor and regulating corporations.
July 12th, 2005 at 11:18 am
Yeah, we red-staters for all our talk about small government sure like us some pork.
What you’re leaving out is that blue states tend to have higher local tax rates in the form of income and other taxes. So tax money is going to fund those states from other sources.
July 12th, 2005 at 11:38 am
Well like you pointed out yourself, trying to claim that either party is the “party of the rich” based on state economics is largly nonsense, since most states are “purple,” roughly half and half red/blue (and of course that applies to everything I pointed out, also).
So I maintain that the best way to ascertain which party favors the rich or the poor is to look at the domestic policies they espose, not the false red state/blue state dichotomy, which is really, for all practical purposes, useless.
July 12th, 2005 at 11:39 am
Or look at how much they get in contributions from single entities, like my one link there did.
July 12th, 2005 at 11:53 am
Are you talking about your first link? I couldn’t look, it appears to be a dead link.
But let’s say that Democratic contributors were all super rich, yet they were giving to a party that favored the poor. They’d be a party OF the rich, but FOR the poor (it’s sometimes argued that the GOP is a party OF the poor, FOR the rich).
It’s the “for” I’m more concerned with, not the “of,” you know what I mean? All I know is that I’m a poor liberal blue stater HAHAHA
July 12th, 2005 at 11:54 am
D’oh! dead link, sorry.
July 12th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
John Cole just posted about the NRO article.
July 12th, 2005 at 1:24 pm
Actually, if you loko at voting records, above a certian amount (I want to say 250,500 but I cnanot find the numbers) the voters are overwhelmingly republican. below a certian amount, they are obverwhelmingly Democratic. In between, race, gender, and education place a heavier role than economis, IIRC.
but the point is that state level data tells you nothing – -only info about actual voters has any meaning.
July 12th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
And, I should add, a lot of the notion of who the party’s are for come form their economic platform. The GOP wants to tax work not wealth, get rid of or reduce the social safety net — which directly helps the poor — and is anti-union and anti-Worker’s rights in the workplace.
The dems want to tax wealth not work, or more supportive of worker’s rights, and more supportive of the social safety net. these are generalizations, of course, subject to wide degree of variation even within the parties and to social factors (minorites tend to favor Dems for non-economic reasons, conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists of all religions tend to favor Republicans for different but still non-economic reasons), but the overall thrust of the two parties is pretty clear.
July 12th, 2005 at 1:30 pm
The GOP is not anti-worker rights, though they are anti-union lots of times.
And i see that the dems to want to tax wealth (not income) but I see no indication that the GOP prefers to tax work.
July 12th, 2005 at 1:37 pm
What’s the weather like in that cave?
July 12th, 2005 at 1:39 pm
You mean other than the fact that every GOP tax cut of the past 30 years has had the effect of shifting a greater percentage of the tax burden onto the working class? And that in the more recent rounds, the cuts for lower- and middle-income earners were thrown in as a way to get the big cuts for the upper end of the spectrum through? Yeah, apart from that, I don’t see where the GOP wants to tax work…
July 12th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
“The GOP is not anti-worker rights, though they are anti-union lots of times”
Nonsense. The GOP is the party pushing things like anti-check card rules, and legislation and judicial opinions making it harder for workers to sue for being fired without cause, etc. Its the GOP that pushes free trade agreements without labor standards of any kind. And how about the fetish for pushing government work – -with strong worker protectiosn — onto priovate companies without those worker protectsions, even when it cost tax players money?
“but I see no indication that the GOP prefers to tax work. ”
What, wanting to get rid of the inheritence tax isn’t evidence enough for you? the push to get rid of taxes on capital gains aren’t enough? If wealth cannot be taxed, then who do you think they are going to tax?
July 12th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
That is not taxing work. Shifting the ‘tax burden’ is irrelevant on an individual tax payer basis. All things being equal, a reduction in tax rates to the upper brackets does not automatically mean the lower folks pay more taxes.
July 12th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
Kev,
There is no right to work (at least in TN). And what about the rights of workers to negotiate their own contract for employment? I like free trade and so do conservatives. There is no ‘right’ to labor standards. No right to your job.
“What, wanting to get rid … taxes on capital gains aren’t enough?”
That’s eliminating a tax not taxing work. If the GOP says ‘let’s up payroll taxes or rates on income’ that’s taxing work.
July 12th, 2005 at 1:55 pm
“What’s the weather like in that cave?”
Kind of ad-hominemy, why do you ask? 🙂
July 12th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
Cave: Sorry, couldn’t resist. 😉
On the issue itself, I suppose you’re going to try and go all semantic on me, but the fact remains that whenever the GOP cuts taxes, it does so in a way that primarily benefits the wealthy, and whenever it raises taxes (contrary to myth, it happens, and Reagan did it something like three times), it does so in a way that primarily burdens the working class.
Kevin’s point stands, even if you would prefer he stated it as “the GOP wants to cut taxes for everything except work.”
Care to take a guess what the GOP’s proposed “fix” for social security will be? It will likely be an increase to the payroll tax (coupled with raising the cap), that is, a tax on work. Why is that necessary? Because the Trust Fund (which you insist doesn’t exist) was blown to help pay for tax cuts which overwhelmingly benefited guess who? Oh yeah, the wealthy.
But these are just side effects, I’m sure. The GOP doesn’t want to tax anyone, but if it has to tax, it’s going to tax someone else.
Umm, where did Kevin say there was one? This isn’t a constitutional issue, or a protected rights issue, it’s an economic policy issue. Kevin simply argued that the GOP is trying very hard to flush hard-won labor improvements, and he’s right (and they’re succeeding). That you support the GOP in this endeavor says a great deal. I actually wish more conservative/libertarian types would be this open about their disregard for the welfare of the working class.
July 12th, 2005 at 3:15 pm
July 12th, 2005 at 3:25 pm
Kevin said:
“legislation and judicial opinions making it harder for workers to sue for being fired without cause,”
You can be fired without cause, period. That’s how it is. The implication is a right to work. And he named some things after saying they were anti-workers rights.
July 12th, 2005 at 3:30 pm
Of course, in all of this, we’ve gotten away from the simple fact (not disputed by anyone I’m aware of) that Republican economic policy primarily benefits the upper class, and Democratic economic policy primarily benefits the lower class. That’s where the whole “party of the rich” thing comes from, and unless you can show me otherwise, I’m going to say it still fits.
July 12th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
“There is no right to work (at least in TN). And what about the rights of workers to negotiate their own contract for employment? I like free trade and so do conservatives. There is no ‘right’ to labor standards. No right to your job.”
First, the right to negotiate a contract must also be protecte for groups of people to negotiate a contract. Forcing companies by law to provide union won benefits to non-union employees tramples on that right by creating a free-rider problem.
Second thanks for proving my point: conservatives hate workers rights. They think the right of a business is more important than the right to participate in civil society. Workers have won the right to be full citizens without having their jobs threaned, and the GOP wants to take those gaisn away. What you are saying is that is should be perfectly fine to have a compnay base hiring decions on race, religion, or political persuasion. And that means you are perfectly fine with the GOP working to weaken the laws that help workers balance the disparate power positions so that they can negotiate fairly with compnaies.
Which means you are perfectly fine with one group of people taking away the right to own a gun, or practice religion as they see it, or speak out on issues as they see them from another. You are advocating for a position that allows employees only two choices: starve, or give up your rights as a free person.
July 12th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
Really? Huh. Then I wonder why anyone ever needs to concern themselves with all these rules…
July 12th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
Kev, that is the weakest most convoluted retort I’ve seen. Your boss can probably (union agreements aside) walk in right now and say ‘kev, we don’t need you.’ or ‘kev, we’re letting you go.’ And you will go.
“Workers have won the right to be full citizens without having their jobs threaned, and the GOP wants to take those gaisn away.”
Huh? WOrkers weren’t citizens before? Where is the GOP working to take away your rights to participate in civilized society or whatever other imaginary rights you think workers have?
“What you are saying is that is should be perfectly fine to have a compnay base hiring decions on race, religion, or political persuasion”
Half and half, actually. I think people should be free to hire whoever they want, for example, a group like Catholic Charities pretty much hires Catholics. Now, that reasoning is not very appropriate in the world today and so I think some protections for recourse via civil suits is appropriate. But mandating quotas, nope.
“Which means you are perfectly fine with one group of people taking away the right to own a gun, or practice religion as they see it, or speak out on issues as they see them from another”
Again, huh?
July 12th, 2005 at 3:42 pm
Well, to be fair, he’s okay with this unless the group doing the taking is the gub’mint.
July 12th, 2005 at 3:43 pm
Tom, try that in Tennessee where we are not a right to work state and most employees agree upfront that the can quit/be fired any time for any reason.
July 12th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
And I think what Kevin is saying is that the GOP isn’t trying to take government action to take away those rights; rather, the GOP is working to change the rules to make those rights unwise to execute. Sure, there’s no criminal charge for speaking out on a particular policy (because there can’t be), but you wouldn’t dare actually do it because you could be fired for it. Taken to an extreme, the government wouldn’t take those rights because it wouldn’t have to.
Sure, my company could fire me for being a Democrat, and they’d be faced with a big, fat lawsuit if they did. If the GOP got its way, my right to resort even to that would be greatly diminished.
July 12th, 2005 at 3:48 pm
IANAL, but my understanding is that there are still significant federal rules that apply, and that such “employment at will” clauses are notoriously difficult to enforce (similar to NDAs in that respect).
July 12th, 2005 at 3:51 pm
Your comment thing ate my last psot — said I was commenting too much 🙂
Shorter version — if you allow eomplyers to fire people for any reason, then the employer can take away your right to speach, religion, etc anytime they want simply by making it clear that you either give money to a Republican, stop owning a gun, etc or you are fired.
No one should have the abality to take away the COnstitution from a person – -not the government, not a company. You seem to agree with the government part, but not the company part. And you seem happy that the GOP is working to weaken laws that protect workers from having compnaies rip away those rights.
And you ignored my comment about collective bargaining 😉
July 12th, 2005 at 3:53 pm
“Sure, my company could fire me for being a Democrat, and they’d be faced with a big, fat lawsuit if they did. If the GOP got its way, my right to resort even to that would be greatly diminished.”
Your company could fire you for being a Democrat right now. Political opinion is not protected under Employment Laws. Ask the gun owners who have been fired from their jobs for asserting their Constitutional rights. You are only protected from being fired if it was for age, sex and race. Even in Massachusetts, you could be fired for your political opinions.
July 12th, 2005 at 4:08 pm
IANAL??
I’m all for unions, however some union activity is questionable. I’m also for companies dissolving their relationships with unions if they choose.
I’m not for anyone taking away rights we’re just not in agreement on what constitutes workers’ rights. Can a company restrict my right to arms? No. Can they restrict my wearing of arms on their property? Yup.
I don’t see the GOP working to erode the rights of workers or their protections, unless you think affirmative action is a protection.
July 12th, 2005 at 5:29 pm
IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer.
Can they fire you just because you’re a gun owner, even if you don’t wear a gun to work? According to you, yup, and according to you, no problem.
July 12th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
Oh, i thought you were just pointing out that you were anal.
And i never said ‘no problem’ for firing me for being a gun owner. I said that, as it stands, i have no right to work and they can fire me now for no reason.
July 12th, 2005 at 5:43 pm
“I said that, as it stands, i have no right to work and they can fire me now for no reason.”
That contradicts this:
“Can a company restrict my right to arms? No.”
How does the governmetn restrict your rights? By fining you or imprisoning you if you exercise those rights. How is that substantially different than taking away your abality to earn money for shelter, clothing and food for you and your family? In both cases, someone with power over you is dictating to you a restriction upon your rights. You may argue that you can just find another job. Tell that the blacks who tried to find work in the pre-Civil rights era. Tell that to a parent with a sick kid who needs to pay doctors bills.
Power is power, whether it comes from the state or from economic relationships. Why should your boss have the right to take away your rights? How is it different if you are a serf to the government or a serf to a company?
“I don’t see the GOP working to erode the rights of workers or their protections, unless you think affirmative action is a protection.”
I gave you examples — pushing government jobs onto to private contractors who dont protect workers rights, despite the fact that such privatization is almost always more expensive than government work. Eroding the unions abality to enforce collective bargaining rights. Forcing workers to complete with employers in other countries who can and do hire mercenaries to keep employees in line and wages down.
“I’m also for companies dissolving their relationships with unions if they choose.”
What kind of libertarian thinks its okay for one side of an agreement to unilaterally void a contract???
July 12th, 2005 at 6:01 pm
Well, I am anal about certain things, but that’s not what I was saying there…
OK, so let’s flush this out. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Why? What, if anything, should be done about it?
Basically what you’ve done is changed the subject (dare I say shifted the goal posts?) from whether or not GOP policies are hostile to workers to whether or not workers have rights worth protecting. The latter is a debate worth having, it’s irrelevant here. What’s relevant is whether the policies promoted by the GOP make life better or worse for the average worker. Kevin and I argue “worse.” You (seem to) argue that it doesn’t matter, because they’ve got no right to have a job anyway.
July 12th, 2005 at 6:02 pm
(And why is this relevant? Because “the average worker” is far more likely to be poor than rich, hence the “party for the rich” moniker).
July 12th, 2005 at 6:48 pm
Properly interpreting rights presupposes a negative definition of rights, rather than a positive one. Hence, the “right to work” is more properly defined as “the right to exchange one’s labor for substance”, rather than the imagined “right” to force someone to employ you.
Except as limited by voluntary contract, tnyone has the right to hire and fire anyone for any reason they please, or no reason at all. Any legislation to the contrary is unlawful.
July 12th, 2005 at 9:03 pm
This started because keving said that the GOP wants to restrict workers’ rights. THen he listed what I presumed were what he thought were worker’s rights. I said there is no right to work. I have not opined about whether this is good or not (could be either depending on who you are). So, as i said: “I’m not for anyone taking away rights we’re just not in agreement on what constitutes workers’ rights. ”
How? Do you not agree that you have a right to speech but that your company can’t fire you for telling everyone the company sucks in the breakroom?
July 12th, 2005 at 9:53 pm
Getting back to the original post…
There are lies, damn lies and statistics and this is an example. The fact that California is a blue state doesn’t necessarily mean that rich Californians voted Democrat or that poor Californians voted Republican. Remember the stats are based on per-capita numbers. If I live in a state with 3 people, me, Dennis Kucinich and Bill Gates, we would be a blue state, but we would be the richest state in the union on a per capita basis.
Kevin..you are derfinitely over the deep-end on this one.
July 13th, 2005 at 4:54 pm
All I’m saying is that a right isn’t worth very much if you don’t dare exercise it. If exercising your rights is likely to cost you your livelihood, you’re not likely to do it, and at that point, they become essentially meaningless.
July 13th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
I concur. However, a company infringing your rights on their premises is not really actionable because rights are protected from the .gov not companies.
July 13th, 2005 at 5:03 pm
“How? Do you not agree that you have a right to speech but that your company can’t fire you for telling everyone the company sucks in the breakroom? ”
But you ar enot syaing that. In the one case, you are saying that a compnay can do whatever its little heart desires with respect to your job. In th other and here, you are saying that a compnay can only do things with your job if they have cause. In the first case, they can use the threat of employment and starvation to keep you form exercising your rights. In the second, they can only do so in those limited situations where their business needs requires such interference. they ar enot the same thing at all.
“Kevin..you are derfinitely over the deep-end on this one.”
How so? How are the business people who denied blacks jobs becasue they where black any less tyrants than the government officials who segregated public restrooms? Why is having my rights taken form me by economic coercion somehow acceptable, but having them taken from me by governmental coercion not?
I am not primarily an economic unit, and the purpose of society is not to protect businesses above all else.
July 13th, 2005 at 5:04 pm
“Except as limited by voluntary contract, tnyone has the right to hire and fire anyone for any reason they please, or no reason at all. Any legislation to the contrary is unlawful. ”
By your lights, then, racial discrimination is perfectly acceptable. If your legal theory leads you to support Jim Crow, then I would humbly suggest that your legal theory needs some more thought.
July 13th, 2005 at 5:17 pm
Bullshit. By that logic, you can come and violate, say, my property rights, and because you’re not the .gov, it’s not actionable by me. (And any action I could take would be civil, not criminal.) I think you know that’s BS.
July 13th, 2005 at 5:19 pm
Hmm, must have munged a tag there. Everything before “bullshit” was supposed to be blockquoted. 🙂
July 13th, 2005 at 6:07 pm
So, kevin, you’re acknowledging we’re talking about different rights then? You still haven’t told me what workers’ rights the gop is against. And what i’m saying is that a company can fire you for any reason. Not saying that I like the idea but it’s that way whether they fire me for blogging on my own time or fire me for telling people the company sucsk.
Tom, depending on the violation of your rights, maybe. Did they steal your property?
July 14th, 2005 at 3:02 pm
How so? How are the business people who denied blacks jobs becasue they where black any less tyrants than the government officials who segregated public restrooms? Why is having my rights taken form me by economic coercion somehow acceptable, but having them taken from me by governmental coercion not?
How does anything in the post have anything to do with racial segregation? I’m waiting for Goodwin’s Law to kick in.