Who Really Wins with Ryan’s Budget?

May 31st, 2011 at 12:00 pm David Frum | 50 Comments |

| Print

This is part two in a series. Click here for part 1.


Palin speaks to a radical mood in the country: a mood of victimization and resentment.

Paul Ryan also speaks to a radical mood in the country: a mood to use the present economic crisis as an occasion for the radical overhaul in the American state, in a way that dramatically redistributes costs and benefits.

Paul Ryan’s radicalism is the radicalism felt by many affluent Americans. They look into the future and see ever-accumulating costs and burdens for themselves to support the less affluent. Back in the more prosperous days of 2003-2006, they could contemplate that future more calmly. But now – in an economy only very fitfully recovering from the disasters of 2008-2009, led by a president who clearly envisions large tax increases on them as his primary means to reduce the federal budget deficit – they are gripped by something close to panic. The radicalism of the Ryan plan speaks to that panic.

The Ryan plan says to most Americans under age 55: “get ready to pay for your own damn Medicare.”

Its tax message speaks even more explicitly to the preferences of upper America. Imagine an investor living in Greenwich Connecticut. Earns some millions a year, lives in a house worth $8 million or more.

The Ryan plan offers him a substantially lower income tax rate. More important, the Ryan Roadmap urges the retention of the capital gains rate on longer-term gains at the present very favorable rate of 15%.

What does it ask in return?

He’ll have to pay more for post-65 health coverage. That’s easy.

He may lose some or all of the ability to deduct his Connecticut income taxes and Greenwich property taxes from his federal income tax. Vexatious, but worth it.

The ceiling on the maximum deductible mortgage may be reduced some more, from the present $1 million down to … well who knows where. Again vexatious, but ditto: worth it.

All in all, it’s a very attractive proposition for this person. As he weighs it, his mood becomes less apocalyptic, more cheerful. If a candidate will give him the Ryan plan, then he doesn’t much care what the candidate says about abortion, gay rights, the environment, etc. The GOP on which he soured during the Bush years suddenly looks like his party again. He can vote contentedly for any candidate who’ll endorse this offer: Romney, Huntsman, Pawlenty, Christie, Perry – he may slightly prefer one or another, but they’ll all more or less do. As for Sarah Palin? From this person’s point of view, her 15 minutes are so over!


Click here for part three.


Recent Posts by David Frum



50 Comments so far ↓

  • politicalfan

    Yes Frum, all people will sleep well because the “ceiling on the maximum deductible mortgage may be reduced some more, from the present $1 million.” I also think you’re wrong on the social issues (my conservative relatives send emails all the time) and Palin will ride on that platform (if her past winning strategy has anything to do with it.)

    Minus social issues would be nice but probably unrealistic in this climate.

    • Smargalicious

      Sorry David, but the welfare state will soon be over, either by choice or by collapse.

      Millions and millions of parasitic citizens are soaking up free entitelements from the 49% who pay taxes. And B. Hussein Obama is all for it.

      After all, didn’t listen to his preacher scream “God DAMN White America!” for over 15 years for nothing.

  • ottovbvs

    Paul Ryan’s radicalism is the radicalism felt by many affluent Americans.

    Make that super affluent Americans. For the first time in a presidential election, according to exit polls, Obama the Democrat received a majority of the votes of the college educated and those earning over $100k who could broadly categorised as affluent. I have little doubt he’ll do the same again next year. Not only that but there are plenty of polls out there showing a willingness amongst the upper middle classes to pay modestly higher taxes to preserve programs like Medicare and SS because as your scenario on another thread so vividly demonstrates even the relatively affluent need these programs given the other calls on their purse. Essentially DF seems to be discussing here those with family incomes north of $250k who are the at the apex of the upper middle class heading into the rich and super rich (his example of the Greenwich householder with an income of several million dollars and $8 million home) who collectively represent 2-3% of the electorate. With all due respect of what relevance is this to the impact of the Ryan budget other than they they can buy another Maserati. As Obama famously put it 30 seniors have got to lose their Medicare to give him a $200k tax deduction. And yet that is what Ryan is proposing. I’m bound to say I had a good laugh at the victimization and resentment that is apparently abroad amongst millionaires.

  • foosion

    What your super affluent voter is ignoring is that his income and wealth are tied to the overall health of the economy to some degree, and that the Ryan plan will do great damage to that economy. What profiteth a man to gain 5% lower taxes but lose 40% of his portfolio?

    • think4yourself

      He doesn’t lose 40% of his portfolio if it is invested in those health related companies that get the Medicare dollars, or the now really “too big to fail” banking companies, or oil companies, etc.

  • sparse

    i hope part three pulls this thread out of the deep, deep weeds into which it has wandered.

    my experience has been that the wealthy understand more than just their pocketbook. for many of them, if the nation decides to pursue the ryan plan, the much more important implication is that the nation will be led by folks who have lost their fracking minds. they might be more scared of that than any marginal tax changes.

  • SFTor1

    Anyone remember trickle-down economics? This is trickle-down economics.

    How did that work out for you the first time around?

  • indy

    i hope part three pulls this thread out of the deep, deep weeds into which it has wandered.

    Ditto. I was waiting to pass judgment but it wasn’t looking too good.

  • Frumplestiltskin

    As otto points out, while the super rich might be able to fund organizations that push their issues, in the end they only represent 2 to 3% of the electorate. I am not quite sure why David is pushing their viewpoints, unless it is because these are the type of people he knows and hangs out with and seems to think this world is far bigger than it actually is.

    Foosion: What your super affluent voter is ignoring is that his income and wealth are tied to the overall health of the economy to some degree

    I disagree with this, at least as it applies to the overall health of the US economy. More and more very wealthy peoples lives are dependent on the health of the world economy. The US is just a place that they live, they have zero interest in the well being of their fellow Americans, they are just so much chattel. They have the same kind of mentality as Chinese oligarchs.

    • ottovbvs

      In fact the rich and super rich are less than 0.5% of the electorate. The 2-3% includes everyone with family incomes above 250k and the vast majority are well under $750k a year. Interestingly I know several people who are in the $750k plus category and they are determined liberals. They think Ryan is nuts and the GOP led by irresponsible idiots. BTW I don’t think this is true.

      “They have the same kind of mentality as Chinese oligarchs.”

      It may be true of a many with a net worth over say $100 million but for most of those in the $3-100 million range most of them are heavily dependant on the performance of the US economy.

      • Reflection Ephemeral

        They’re used to getting their way in this country:

        I would like to be wrong about this, but I worry that something has gone very wrong with our society’s elites. Not that I– or anyone else, really– is pining for the Eisenhower days of 90 percent marginal tax rates, but we did have that kind of thing, and we were prosperous nonetheless.

        Today, the GOP says that the deficit is the biggest threat to freedom since Hitler or King George III, while simultaneously opposing any restoration of surplus-era tax levels on the top one to two percent of earners.

        And even though the American economy, and many American businesses, suffer from our massively expensive health care system, the US Chamber of Commerce went all-out opposing the moderate, Heritage Foundation-inspired health insurance reform that passed last year. (Remember, the Chamber supported ClintonCare back in the ’90s, when it raised less of its funds from the biggest handful of companies in the country, because health insurance costs are such an imposition for many small businesses).

        Again, I’d like to be wrong about this. But you read about the growing proportion of income going to the financial sector… and you think about Paul Volker’s comment that the only financial innovation of the past 25 years is the ATM… and you see stagnant wages for the bottom 80% in the past three decades… you think about Slide’s post below about what “panic” really is for most of the country… and then you see the priorities of the Republican Party…

        It all starts to look like the wealthiest few thousand people in the US show a class solidarity that would make Marx blush.

      • kuri3460

        We’ll wait and see what Part 3 has to say. However, I do think it’s fair to point out that the super-wealthy who stand to benefit most from the Ryan Plan are generally the ones who own the media outlets, contribute the most money to campaigns, organize and run the PACs, etc.

        They have an amount of power that is disproportionately large when it comes to controlling and manipulating the message and tone of politics.

        We know from recent history that campaigning is more about style than substance, especially on the conservative side. And since the people pulling the puppet strings have already manipulated their followers into believe that Obama is, at best, a hopelessly naive and in-over-his-head Commander in Chief, and at worst, a freedom-hating socialist who’s hell-bent on controlling our lives through his unconstitutionally-appointed minions/czars, it’s not too difficult to see the Ryan plan being spun into something it’s not, namely a prudent, effective, and wise plan for our country’s future.

  • foosion

    Frumplestiltskin – the US is a rather sizable part of the world economy and a rather sizable part of the world investment market. There’s an old saying to the effect that when the US has a cold, the world sneezes. A severe problem in the US will hurt you no matter where you invest.

    That’s not to say they care at all about their fellow Americans. They plainly don’t.

  • msmilack

    Excellent writing, David; very insightful and right on the money (pardon the pun). I agree with what you wrote and appreciate how well you said it.

  • balconesfault

    my experience has been that the wealthy understand more than just their pocketbook. for many of them, if the nation decides to pursue the ryan plan, the much more important implication is that the nation will be led by folks who have lost their fracking minds. they might be more scared of that than any marginal tax changes.

    But you know what – interacting with a lot of GOP voters in my income/wealth bracket down here in Texas, Frum has captured their sentiments exactly.

    They really don’t appreciate the GOP’s anti-environmental policy. A significant portion are completely disinterested in overturning or even chipping away at Roe’s protection of women’s rights. They have no problem with gays getting married.

    But when faced with a choice of paying, say, $150K/year in taxes instead of $130K (or looked at in another way, of having around $350K/year in after tax income instead of $370K) … social issues and environmental issues and pretty much everything else goes out the window, and they become solidly Republican.

    • ottovbvs

      But you know what – interacting with a lot of GOP voters in my income/wealth bracket down here in Texas, Frum has captured their sentiments exactly.

      I don’t doubt it but since when was Obama going to carry Texas? But isn’t this more of a cultural southern thing than strictly economic. And at the end of the day we are back to the fact these folks are a small share of the electorate. If you have an income above 300k a year health savings accounts make entire sense but below 150k not really. In the middle it depends on circumstances.

      • balconesfault

        But isn’t this more of a cultural southern thing than strictly economic.

        Nope – I think that as Frum is pointing out, this is mirroring the Greenwich investor.

        We’re not talking about the Rick Perry support base – social/fundamentalist conservatives who hate regulations and any government spending.

        Instead, we’re talking the Mitt Romney base – pro-business voters who would like good schools, clean air and water, excellent parks, a reasonable social safety net – who aren’t that excited about being aligned with the fundamentalist social agenda – but just really vote their wallets at the end of the day.

        Or what they perceive their wallet’s interest to be. As I’ve argued previously, and others point out here, there’s a lot of reason to believe that in the long run the economy they support will be detrimental to their own interests. But they’re not worried about that now…

        • ottovbvs

          Except the Greenwich investor with an income of several million and an $8 million house doesn’t belong in anything approaching the same economic class as your upper middle class folk in TX with family income of $350,000. In many states the social class you describe which is basically upper middle class is largely Democratic leaning.

  • PracticalGirl

    Enough about the Ryan plan. What about the GOP’s jobs creation plan, released last week?

    David, you once said (last month) that both parties had abandoned jobs creation as a priority. But you also said:

    “But at least Republicans have a goal in mind.”

    You went on to say that the Democrats had no plan at all, and that “The administration does however have a political plan: Blast the Ryan plan”.

    Fair enough. But you now have a GOP jobs creation plan in front of you. So why not address it, instead of being like the Democrats and focusing on the Ryan plan?

  • Frumplestiltskin

    foosion, otto, you are both right, surely the rich care about growth rates in the US, my point is that they only care if the growth rate is that which is in their own pockets. The problem is that a US businessman might move his factory to China in order to utilize cheap, slavelike labor to produce his products much cheaper and then he will try to sell them in the US. He doesn’t stop to think about what happens when there are not enough Americans making enough money to buy his products. We are at the front wave of this period. The US economy can continue to grow, corporate profits can be at all time highs, but eventually the bills for the poor and middle class will come due and they won’t have the money to pay for it. The Republican plan is to double down on this, pay workers even less, offshore more and somehow it will lead to Ryan fantasy land of negative unemployment.

    Even in the face of the undeniable failure of Bush and the indisputable successes of Clinton these people will never accept reality.

    • ottovbvs

      I can’t join you in a universal condemnation of the rich many of whom are liberal. The elitists remember? If you’re running a business you do what you have to do to make it successful and don’t spend a lot of time navel gazing about the societal impacts. However, you are entirely correct about the central flaw of trickle down. We’re living in a post industrial economy that depends on consumer spending for 70% of its GDP so the progressive impoverishment of 80% of your citizens doesn’t compute.

      • Frumplestiltskin

        otto, let me qualify myself, I am talking about the rich who favor the Ryan plan. I am a Capitalist and free trader. Short term I see no solutions from the Republicans, and long term it will make them far worse. Short term the Democrats at least have a solution of a stimulus, long term we will have equilibrium as developing countries incomes, currencies, and standard of living increases. The Republican solution is to make us a banana republic before this happens…because…beats the hell out of me.

      • indy

        We’re living in a post industrial economy that depends on consumer spending for 70% of its GDP so the progressive impoverishment of 80% of your citizens doesn’t compute.

        Such an obvious conclusion from such elementary facts, yet seems so beyond the grasp of most people.

  • indy

    But when faced with a choice of paying, say, $150K/year in taxes instead of $130K (or looked at in another way, of having around $350K/year in after tax income instead of $370K) … social issues and environmental issues and pretty much everything else goes out the window, and they become solidly Republican.

    I think this is a bit of an oversimplification (though maybe not by a whole lot). For many wealthier people, the economy, in general, is an extremely important issue. They benefit more by a strong economy than they do by paying some more income taxes this year. It outpaces social and environmental issues by a mile at least.

    As long as republicans could a) convince them that the economy was more important to them than it was to democrats, and b) reassure them they they wouldn’t have to pay more than their ‘fair’ share (which is the opposite of what they think the democrats are saying), then a republican vote was in order. And, as a bonus, they could feel good about it because they know it isn’t the size of our military that means world domination. It’s the size of our economy.

  • armstp

    I guess what you are saying Frum is that the wealthy win with the Ryan plan. I think anyone who has taken a look at it knows that. It is a typical Republican economic plan. A continuation of concentrating the wealth in this country. If the Republicans continue down this path and continue to convince people to vote for them against their economic interest and based on social issues and say the wedge issue of the deficit and debt, then at some point there will be social unrest.

  • ottovbvs

    then a republican vote was in order. And, as a bonus, they could feel good about it.

    This was entirely my staunch Republican father’s and grandfathers mantra. What good for General Motors and the top 10% of income earners (which included them although the curve was flatter) was good for the US. The Republicans problem with this class is they also prize effective management and generally disdain delusionary and extremist policies. Obviously they’re still drinking the Kool Aid in TX and GA but Bush did huge damage believe me, I watched it happen.

  • Slide

    “they are gripped by something close to panic.”

    really? They are gripped by something close to panic? They have the lowest tax burden in over 50 years….. but they are in a panic because maybe down the line they may have to pay slightly more in taxes? That would panic someone? Wow.

    No, David, let me tell you what panic is. Panic is losing your job in this economy and having two kids to support. That is panic. Panic is getting ill when you don’t have health insurance. That is panic. Panic is not being able to send your kids to college and knowing what the future holds for them. That is panic. Panic is being in your 50′s and being let go from your job. That is panic. Panic is seeing that the Republican Party wants to end medicare as we know it and wondering how you will take care of your aging parents, or how you will pay for your medical coverage when you become elderly. Panic is knowing that the Republicans want to eviscerate every government program that helps the middle class.

    You know I am not a fan of class warfare but it is articles like this that makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit.

    • Grace

      Well said, Slide. Agree with everything you said (and also threw up a little in my mouth when reading about the ‘panic’ of the uber wealthy).

  • balconesfault

    I still think one of the most important graphs that’s been produced in recent years can be found here:

    http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2008/03/american-politi.html

    Interestingly – under Democratic Presidents all boats truly have lifted – although proportionally the middle and lower classes have been lifted more. Under Republican economics, income growth for the wealthiest Americans has far outpaced that for the rest of the country.

    The wealthy support for the GOP, in light of this data, just proves that (assuming the wealthy are rational actors) the primary interest of America’s economic elite is in expanding the size of the pie that they control … and not in growing the pie itself. Everything that the GOP has been telling you for decades is basically a lie.

    • ottovbvs

      Everything that the GOP has been telling you for decades is basically a lie.

      You’ve shocked me there bf. The graph tells the story but the folks who have really made out under Republican rule have been the top fraction of 1%. IMHO you have to have an income of well north of half a million before you cross the dividing line of being dependant on the safety nets of SS and particularly Medicare given healthcare costs now and healthcare inflation. And even then you may not be safe. I know people with a net worth of several million who lost two thirds of it in either the dot com or real estate busts. Let me tell you I know some wealthy rock solid Republicans who were shitting themselves when that money market fund broke the buck. I’ll even fess up to a bit of nervousness myself.

      • indy

        The wealthy support for the GOP, in light of this data, just proves that (assuming the wealthy are rational actors) the primary interest of America’s economic elite is in expanding the size of the pie that they control … and not in growing the pie itself.

        I’m not sure you can draw this conclusion. Real wages have remained steady, more or less, and have not declined.

        …while the bottom 99 percent of incomes grew at a solid pace of 2.7 percent per year from 1993-2000, these incomes grew only 1.3 percent per year from 2002-2007. As a result, in the economic expansion of 2002-2007, the top 1 percent captured two thirds of income growth.

        http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2008.pdf

        Instead, I think the top 1% have captured the vast majority of all the economic growth in GNP for quite awhile now, which of course as a consequence gives them a much larger share of the pie overall. If this is the case however, then the economic elite have an even greater incentive to grow the economy knowing they will get the lion’s share of the growth.

  • greg_barton

    “Smargalicious // May 31, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    Millions and millions of parasitic citizens…”

    You mean, like, your mother and father? Those parasites? Or, if you’re old enough…you?

    And, ironically enough, the vast majority of the tea party?

    • anniemargret

      Greg. This ‘smarg’ person would be wise to remember the old adage…”there but for the grace of God go I.”

      It is people like him/her that are going to pay the piper for that type of disgusting sentiment. What goes round, comes round. Some day he/she might find him/herself as a ‘parasite.’

  • Hunter01

    DF has finally burst out the closet. On economic issues, he’s with the Democrats. Nothing wrong with that, of course. Lots of Dems are decent, law-abiding, hard-working, patriotic folk. Maybe DF hasn’t changed his voter registration yet, maybe he never will. But we know what lies in his heart-of-hearts: DF’s values align with Obama and Pelosi, and his analytic frame is Keynes and Krugman, and his sympathies are with the struggling classes. Let’s wish him well in his journeys to the other side.

  • baw1064

    This is the vote breakdown by age in the 2008 election. The other group of people who won’t be affected by Ryan’s proposal are those currently at least 55 years of age, meaning they were at least 52 at the time of the 2008 election.

    Conveniently, this is right about the threshold age above which the Republicans won most of the votes.

  • greg_barton

    @baw1064: Yep. But many of those over 55′s 1) have experienced the benefits of Medicare, and 2) have kids and grandkids for whom they want the same. The GOP badly miscalculated this time.

  • nhthinker

    Let’s hope the Greeks time their impending failure to coincide with the 2012 election.
    The last presidential election was decided by the timing of the change of “mark-to-market”.
    Upheaval in Europe might wake up the American voter and create a landslide.

  • Justthefacts

    David states “the Ryan Roadmap urges the retention of the capital gains rate on longer-term gains at the present very favorable rate of 15%.”
    However, Paul Ryan’s Executive Summary states “Promotes saving by eliminating taxes on interest, capital gains, and dividends; also eliminates the death tax.”
    Thus the Ryan would not tax capital gains at all since that is what eliminate means. Many of the largest income americans would have all their income declared nontaxable under the Ryan plan. This would not reduce their taxes but eliminate them.

  • Deep South Populist

    David Frum/FF Editors: I love the approach behind this series. Creating a hypothetical scenario involving a “typical voter” in a particular demographic, and then writing a vignette that addresses the questions “what do I get; what do I give up” makes these fiscal issues concrete and easy to understand.

    • nhthinker

      The series focuses too much on personal gain. It would make sense if this was intended to be a Liberal site focused on entitlement and personal gain and narcissism.

      But Frum continues to try to pretend he is a conservative. The family oriented 45 and older crowd is more interested in leaving a productive country to children and grandchildren.

  • LFC

    As the entire financial sector and all of the late term real estate speculators showed us, a fair chunk of the wealthiest people in this country don’t think about the long-term at all. They are driven by short-term thinking.

    As to elimination of capital gains taxes, that’s been a Republican wet dream since Reagan. They want to push virtually all of the tax burden onto the working class. Sound like “the road to serfdom.” Hmmmm. Now where have I heard that term before?

  • Deep South Populist

    Frumplestiltskin wrote: “surely the rich care about growth rates in the US, my point is that they only care if the growth rate is that which is in their own pockets.”

    Yes. Spot. On.

    Ottovbvs wrote: “I can’t join you in a universal condemnation of the rich many of whom are liberal. The elitists remember? “

    Most of the super-affluent are liberal. Excluding the Koch brothers, most of the top billionaires align with the Democrats. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet come to mind as examples.

    The WASP and Jewish East Coast overclass that Frum is writing about in this article is also almost entirely liberal, as is the super-affluent Hollywood elite on the West coast which also lines up behind the Democrats.

    When Obama dropped his iconic sneer about bitter people clinging to their guns and religion, he dropped it in front of an audience of San Francisco millionaires, not working Joes heading home after their union shift.

    The largest corporations also make donations to both parties in roughly equal amounts — there is plenty of data out there to back that up.

    Finally, the elite in both parties have very close ties to Wall Street. This fact is generally unappreciated by the entire political continuum other than relatively far leftists like Noam Chomsky and Ralph Nadar.

    It is, in other words, a complete myth that the Democrats are the party of the common man and the GOP is the party of the wealthy.

    Ottovbs wrote: “We’re living in a post industrial economy that depends on consumer spending for 70% of its GDP so the progressive impoverishment of 80% of your citizens doesn’t compute.”

    IMO, it does compute, and it computes perfectly. It tracks with Frumple’s point that the super-wealthy no longer need the American middle class to maintain their super-wealth and therefore do not care about them.

  • Deep South Populist

    “We’re living in a post industrial economy that depends on consumer spending for 70% of its GDP so the progressive impoverishment of 80% of your citizens doesn’t compute.”

    http://www.zerohedge.com/

  • Stan

    In 2008 Greenwich went for Obama 54-46. That’s probably another reason why DF’s rich guy is grinding his teeth.

  • Smargalicious

    David, the ones who lose with Ryan’s budget are the fatherless welfare parasites, illegals, and their anchor babies. And guess what? They all comprise of BHO’s solid voter base.

    Go figure.

  • bluestatepastor

    Smarg – do you have a diagnosis of delusional thought patterns, or are you just an evil, lying scum? The stuff you write is pretty absurd – just wondering.

  • The Radicalism of the Rich | Library Grape

    [...] of time would be wildly unpopular and possibly coalition-shattering? David Frum hypothesizes about who benefits from the plan… Paul Ryan’s radicalism is the radicalism felt by many affluent Americans. They look into [...]

  • valkayec

    I admit to agreeing with Frumples’ opinion of the really wealthy. One thing to note about the wealthy. Those that earn a few million, say $8 to 10 million, don’t consider themselves really wealthy, but rather on the upper side of the upper middle class. Comfortable but not really wealthy. For these people, the really wealthy earn hundreds of millions or billions.

    While many of the $8 to 10 millionaire types may care somewhat about the rest of the citizens in this country, numerous recent articles describing the uber wealthy show that this class has no loyalty to the US whatsoever. They’d be just as comfortable living in London, Moscow, New Delhi or Singapore. They don’t need America and believe that non-wealthy people are incompetent and don’t deserve any respect or consideration. As a result of their extreme wealth, they don’t care if the US population succeeds or fails. If the US economy fails, they’ll just move overseas. Nevertheless, living in the US offers them many benefits they’d not receive elsewhere: low tax rates on their capital and incomes; a fairly solid infrastructure; low crime rates; a political system that favors them; and a large beautiful country with a well protected environment.

    Ryan’s plan would benefit both of these groups enormously, but why should the rest of the American population care about them even more than now exists? By and large, they’re not job creators. These wealthy people, according to statistics, derive over 70% of the income in capital gains and dividends not in earned income (salaries). The job creators are new businesses where wealth has not been accumulated by the owners.

  • nickthap

    It’s pretty funny: the people here who hate liberals say that the rich are Democrats and the people that hate conservatives say the rich are all Republicans. Except for the people that say all of Obama’s supporters are welfare queens and bottom feeders. Seems like people’s bugbears are always on the “other side.”