The Democrats have been the party of the rich for a long time. The rich basically are afraid of the "lower classes" and are willing to bribe them to prevent an uprising. There is nothing unusual about this; the same thing happened in the Roman Empire. The Democrats have embraced what I term European type socialism. They desire to freeze everyone in their current economic status. Regulation and other policies will maintain the position of the current rich, and will prevent anyone else from becoming rich. This means that innovation will be choked off, and economic progress will slow. But, the rich will stay on top, and the lower classes will be mollified with government handouts. During the last Presidential election Mrs Kerry made a revealing speech which can be paraphrased, "Vote for us peasants, and we will take care of you." Here is an article from Ace of Spades that has a similar view to mine:

Vote Democrat, The Party of the Rich

—Ace

It's long been this way, but the Financial Times has finally realized it. At least they've allowed a wonk from a Heritage Foundation to pen an editorial revealing The Awful Truth.

A legislative proposal that was once on the fast track is suddenly dead. The Senate will not consider a plan to extract billions in extra taxes from megamillionaire hedge fund managers.

The decision by Senate majority leader Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat, surprised many Washington insiders, who saw the plan as appealing to the spirit of class warfare that infuses the Democratic party. Liberal disappointment in Mr Reid was palpable at media outlets such as USA Today, where an editorial chastised: "The Democrats, who control Congress and claim to represent the middle and lower classes, ought to be embarrassed."

Far from embarrassing, this episode may reflect a dawning Democratic awareness of whom they really represent. For the 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. This new political demography holds true in the House of Representatives, where the leadership of each party hails from different worlds. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, represents one of America's wealthiest regions. Her San Francisco district has more than 43,700 high-end households. Fewer than 7,000 households in the western Ohio district of House Republican leader John Boehner enjoy this level of affluence.

I find it amusing that Democrats talk about the Bush's being rich. The first George Bush had a new worth of $2 or 3 million when he first ran for President. The second Bush had a net worth of less than $10 million. This much money is nice but is not much when capared to Democrats like Jay Rockefeller. Nancy Pelosi. Diane Feinstein, and Ted Kennedy.