Maryland

I link here to a list of those states most adversely impacted by raising taxes on those folks making over $200,000/year.  As one promptly notes, they tend to be very blue states and when one drills down, have few Republicans in the House and Senate. Perhaps voters in these states ought to look at their 1040 and determine whether--notwithstanding their middle class lifestyle in their hometowns--they are part of the "rich"? 

Many of the House seats we've lost over the past decade (CA 11, CT 4, CT 5,  FL 22, IL 8, MI 9, NJ 3, NJ 12, NY 1, NY 19, PA 7, PA 8, VA 11) have a rather high number of such taxpayers. Maybe taxes didn't matter before as an abstraction; tax hikes are a reality now, and in the midst of a nasty recession. (where's Lord Keynes, now?)

In 1993 a Democrat from Philly's Main Line , Marjorie Margolies Mezvinsky ("3M")  cast the deciding vote for the Clinton tax hike, and was serenaded by a song ..."Goodbye, Margie".  And yep, she was goodbye. 

(Now, I'm sure we are going to get pleas for Republican cooperation. Well, why bother, We were already told:  "I won"  OK , you did. Do this yourself.)

We could see more "3M's" in 2010. One particularly vulnerable Democrat is from the state with the highest percentage of "rich" taxpayers---Chris Dodd-- whose record on taxes is already not so favorable to the ordinary affluent-- as opposed to Wall Street titans---and who is floundering in the polls. 

And, why we are at it, what did "Joe the Plumber" not figure out about the Obama agenda, precisely?

I look forward to the Democrats explaining to small businessmen and double income professional couples how "rich" they are.  As "3M" found out, higher taxes do tend to "stick"