When I was young I wondered why the majority of Wall Streeters could be Democrats, and the same for so many rich people. I had no money myself and thought that having a bit more would mean a new car or a bigger place to live. Nice travel, things like that and that meant small government, ruling out the Democrats. (Now that rules out the Republicans too.)

Some years ago you couldn't turn on the television without seeing some Hollywood bubblehead in a soup line--handing it out, not taking it, a photo-op for their compassion. They were very pleased to have their charitable impulses known. These are, in general, also people of impeccable liberal credentials, the sort of people who, when hosting an awards show, say "Bush" to get an easy laugh. Well, no doubt that served during the writers' strike. Which had no effect on me whatsoever.

Warren Buffett has raged at the Bush Administration for its tax policies, claiming that the very rich pay income taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries. He has offered a million-dollar reward to any Forbes 400 member who can prove him wrong. As of November at least no one had collected the money. This is not to say that the rich don't pay huge taxes: the top 1% pay 30% of the income taxes, and that is by any standard very progressive, in the worst sense of the word. (Is there a good sense of the word?) But still, in Buffett's thesis, he pays taxes at a lower rate than his secretary or receptionist. And from some computer work that I did in Dallas in the 80s restructuring real-estate deals, I believe it entirely.

So when the rich call for higher taxes, just who is being hurt? Higher taxes are usually accompanied by loopholes. The meltdown in Texas properties in the early 80s was caused by the lower Reagan tax rates because deals structured for tax benefit were no longer viable, and that was a major factor leading to the destruction of the thrifts.

So calling for higher taxes for high-minded social uses does not really hurt them that much, and even if it did, what does it really hurt? If you make $20 million a year and are taxed at an effective rate of 20%, then an increase in your tax rate is not going to keep you from getting that new Aston Martin. But it might keep your secretary from the vacation that she wanted to take.

The very wealthy can afford the best houses and cars and medical advice; it is foolish to think that they cannot afford the best financial advice. And they get it, and the investment in consulting, often in-house, is worth the money saved, and they can afford the people required to run it, while I find myself irritated by managing a few on-line investments. But then I'm small time and perforce my compassion cannot be bought by the hundredweight but must take the form of actually knowing people and their problems.

If the wealthy can afford the best houses, and politicians, they can also afford the best in conspicuous compassion. "See how virtuous I am? I'm wealthy and you can't believe the taxes that I pay and I'm willing to pay more for good causes." But the pain is not all that much. And the reward in conspicuous compassion is. And the reward in power is just as big.

Who are the people who produce the most expensive high-minded programs? The Democrats. Who are the people whose attempt to get everyone somehow dependent on the government gives them power? The Democrats. Who are the people who get the most charge in ordering people around? The Democrats. Who can afford to work the Byzantine system, usually set up by Democrats to their best advantage? The wealthy.

So it makes sense, in a rather sick way, to consider the Democratic party to be the personal shopper for a certain sort of the wealthy for the best buy in their conspicuous compassion.