The Washington Times looks at some stats and concludes that the Democrats are the 'party of the rich' based on the fact that they represent districts that are financially well off while the GOP tends to get elected in poorer districts. While they correctly note that the Democrats are struggling with reforming the tax rate on hedge fund managers, the basic premise demands a huge leap of logic.
They carefully avoid noting the personal worth of the legislators. There aren't many paupers inside the Beltway. That the Democratic districts are doing better than the median would suggest that Democrats are better at enacting social programs on the local and state level that keep their constituents out of poverty, while the GOP enacts multiple tax cuts for the filthy rich balanced on the backs of the poor in their own districts. In other words Democrats share while the GOP just doesn't care.
I don't really see how that's anything to brag about.