Just about every time I hear of a new Bush initiative or policy position, I try to guess how Democrats will spin it into an evil plot to benefit the wealthy. From the marriage tax penalty elimination to overtime pay regulations, Democrats only seem able to disagree, complain and pout.

A recent 213—210 vote in the House has approved legislation defining career positions that can receive overtime. The Bush administration backed the legislation, citing an increase in workers eligible for overtime pay. One might ask, “How could Democrats attack Bush for that?” Well, where there’s a Bush, there’s a way, and they’re at it again.

The Labor Department estimates that 1.3 million workers will be newly eligible for overtime. This increase is largely due to the increase in required overtime pay for lower-income earners. Only workers earning less than $8,061 a year currently receive overtime regardless of occupation. The new legislation increased this figure to $22,100, significantly raising the number of workers who are required be paid overtime.

The legislation does adjust the definitions of professional, executive and administrative jobs which are eligible to receive overtime pay. This adjustment may reduce the number of middle and upper-class jobs eligible by about 640,000.

Democrats felt the reduced eligibility of higher-income workers for overtime was unacceptable. In the meantime, Democrats are still pouting about the Bush tax cuts which reduce tax rates for wealthy workers as well as low and middle-income workers. The difference is that Democrats have elected to support labor interests above all else. Even in an economic downturn, when businesses are struggling to stay afloat, Democrats would still seek to save exorbitant wages for many workers. This is not surprising, however, as the Democratic Party fully supported wage demands from West Coast shipping workers, which included further increases in six-digit salaries for manual labor positions.

This isn’t the only opposition that Republicans in the house have encountered. According to CNN, a recent Republican-backed House bill also “provides modest increases over last year for low-income school districts, AIDS treatment, Head Start and job training [programs].” It is interesting that “Democrats said the boosts were inadequate,” as they are far more likely to complain about the deficit for the fiscal year.

The commonality in these cases is what we often refer to as “politics.” As many prominent Democrats asserted after the overwhelming Republican electoral victories in 2002, “Democrats need issues.” And just as we have seen before every Presidential election, the opposing party attacks anyone who is an incumbent.

If Democrats supported the President and a Republican led Congress, for what reasons would voters have to vote Democrat?

This is best demonstrated by the attack on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. As reported by CNN and ABC News, the largest tax rate decrease was given to the lowest-income workers. A new 10 percent rate was created, and the lowest income level required to pay taxes was raised by about 50 percent. The standard deduction for married Americans was increased to $9,500 in an effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. The child tax credit was increased by 100 percent, and after the 2003 acceleration, approximately 24.4 million families will receive a rebate this summer. A $5,000 college tuition deduction will be phased in. Tax-reduced retirement contribution limits will be increased from $12,500 to $20,000. And after the largest drop in tax rates for the poorest Americans, all other tax payers will receive about a three- to five-percent drop in rates.

After all of these benefits for low- and middle-income Americans, Democrats succeeded in convincing many Americans that the Bush tax cuts largely benefited only wealthy Americans. It would be interesting to know how many citizens were aware that the largest rate drop was given to the poorest Americans. Probably very few, as it is easy to convince many people that wealthier people receive more benefits — three percent of $100,000 is indeed more than three percent of $50,000.

Without their constant opposition to Bush-backed proposals, Democrats couldn’t convince so many Americans that Republicans are simply interested in awarding benefits to the wealthy. These past attacks have been predictable, but I’m especially excited to see how the15 billion dollars dedicated to fighting AIDS in Africa benefits Enron CEOs.