Tweet
Wealthiest places backed cliff deal
By CHARLES MAHTESIAN | 1/4/13 4:48 PM EST
According to an analysis by Patchwork Nation’s Dante Chinni, lawmakers representing the congressional districts most likely to get nailed by the fiscal cliff deal’s higher taxes were the ones most likely to vote for the bill.
From Chinni’s piece in the Wall Street Journal:
What makes a House member who serves wealthy constituents more likely to vote for a tax increase for the wealthy? There are a number of possible factors.
It could be that these congress people decided that the increase could have been worse, reached further down in the income scale – “this deal isn’t great, but it’s better than a lot of the alternatives.” Or it could be a different kind of self-interest.
As we have noted over on the Patchwork Nation site, wealthy communities (counties labeled the Monied Burbs) tend to have far more people invested in the stock market. Those places were likely more highly attuned to and concerned about the dive financial markets were projected to take if there was no deal.
I think there’s another explanation as well. The vote is a reflection of the increasingly asymmetrical nature of American politics, where the rules that once seemed to govern voting behavior – namely economic self-interest – no longer apply.
Many of the wealthiest congressional seats and most affluent constituencies are now Democratic, for example, rather than Republican as they once were.
In this case, 12 of the 20 wealthiest congressional districts in the nation are held by Democrats. And of the 8 GOP-held seats, few of them would be considered solidly Republican.
Against that backdrop, former Sen. Russell Long’s time-honored adage about tax politics -- “Don’t tax you, don’t tax me. Tax that fellow behind the tree" – might now be viewed as a vestige of a bygone era.
By CHARLES MAHTESIAN | 1/4/13 4:48 PM EST
According to an analysis by Patchwork Nation’s Dante Chinni, lawmakers representing the congressional districts most likely to get nailed by the fiscal cliff deal’s higher taxes were the ones most likely to vote for the bill.
From Chinni’s piece in the Wall Street Journal:
What makes a House member who serves wealthy constituents more likely to vote for a tax increase for the wealthy? There are a number of possible factors.
It could be that these congress people decided that the increase could have been worse, reached further down in the income scale – “this deal isn’t great, but it’s better than a lot of the alternatives.” Or it could be a different kind of self-interest.
As we have noted over on the Patchwork Nation site, wealthy communities (counties labeled the Monied Burbs) tend to have far more people invested in the stock market. Those places were likely more highly attuned to and concerned about the dive financial markets were projected to take if there was no deal.
I think there’s another explanation as well. The vote is a reflection of the increasingly asymmetrical nature of American politics, where the rules that once seemed to govern voting behavior – namely economic self-interest – no longer apply.
Many of the wealthiest congressional seats and most affluent constituencies are now Democratic, for example, rather than Republican as they once were.
In this case, 12 of the 20 wealthiest congressional districts in the nation are held by Democrats. And of the 8 GOP-held seats, few of them would be considered solidly Republican.
Against that backdrop, former Sen. Russell Long’s time-honored adage about tax politics -- “Don’t tax you, don’t tax me. Tax that fellow behind the tree" – might now be viewed as a vestige of a bygone era.
I must admit that you yanks have some great standup comedians.
Comment