The Party of the Rich

According to conventional wisdom, the Republican Party represents the country’s wealthiest citizens. This explains the widespread perception that the GOP – in terms of the current debate – favors Wall Street’s interests over Main Street’s.

It’s open to discussion whether Wall Street’s interests – first and foremost presumably a strong economy – are really opposed to Main Street’s. But the relative wealth of Republicans and Democrats is an interesting question.

Does the GOP really represent the richest Americans?

A recent study came to this conclusion:

…the likelihood of electing a Democrat to the House is very closely correlated with how many wealthy households are in that district.

In November 2007, London’s Financial Times cited the same study about congressional representation and relative wealth:

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.

The Heritage Foundation is a nonpartisan but conservative think-tank. Even so, their analysis of the IRS data showed that Democrats largely represent the richest districts:

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.

The likelihood of Democrats representing the richest districts applies even to so-called red states:

Democratic politicians prosper in areas of concentrated wealth even in staunchly Republican states such as Georgia, Kansas and Utah. Liberal congressman John Lewis represents more than 27,500 high-income households in his Atlanta district. The trend achieves perfect symmetry in Iowa. There, the three wealthiest districts send Democrats to Washington; the two poorest are safe Republican seats.

A related article in The Washington Times gives an overview of the general situation in the House with respect to the country’s richest districts:

…in a broader measurement, the study also showed that of the 167 House districts where the median annual income was higher than the national median of $48,201, a slight majority, 84 districts, were represented by Democrats. Median means that half of all income earners make more than that level and half make less.

Interestingly, the reddest of the red Republicans are not from rich districts:

Mr. Franc's study also showed that contrary to the Democrats' tendency to define Republicans as the party of the rich, "the vast majority of unabashed conservative House members hail from profoundly middle-class districts."