Democrats who say they are trying to lift up the fortunes of the poor and middle class are doing exactly the opposite in their war on climate change, says Stephen Moore, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

"Their agenda is driven by the millionaire and billionaire Democratic donors who make the party possible. But the agenda also involves making energy, home heating, transportation and just about everything else less efficient and more expensive to the middle class and poor," he writes in The Washington Times. 

"The people who lose their jobs when the climate-change Stalinists prevail are the people at the bottom and the middle of the income ladder."

And it's not as if the poor and middle class are screaming for action on global warming, Moore says.

"Nearly every poll of voters over the last several years consistently finds Americans rank jobs, incomes, terrorism, the national debt, schools and other such daily concerns at the top of the list of policy priorities. Global warming almost always ranks last or very near the bottom, which is amazing, given the billions that have been spent on this propaganda campaign."

Meanwhile, Americans might be concerned with the growth of income inequality, but they aren't blaming it on the wealthy.

"You might expect more and more people to conclude that it's time to soak the rich," writes New York Times columnist Neil Irwin.

"Here's a puzzle, though: over the last several decades, close to the opposite has happened. . . . Americans' desire to soak the rich has diminished even as the rich have more wealth available that could, theoretically, be soaked."

So how do you explain the conundrum?

Conservatives may answer, "Americans are seeking less redistribution because they have come to their senses," Irwin says.

"They realized the very high tax rates and generous social spending that prevailed in the middle decades of the 20th century came at a high economic cost, and that low taxes on the rich encouraged greater investment and entrepreneurship, spurring faster economic growth that ultimately made everybody better off."

Then there's the liberal view: "Americans have been hoodwinked by conservative politicians and media outlets, and have come to view redistribution as a dirty word because they don't recognize the ways it benefits them."

Related Stories:

• MarketWatch's Farrell: Income Inequality Might Lead to Revolution
• Krugman: Education Won't Solve Income Inequality Problem