No, I think he just has problems making decisions, or has a tendency to be contrary for the sake of being contrary.
Also, there is no false dichotomy.
You're attempting to argue that the only possible contributions are from the poor or the rich (or by extension, the representatives acting on their behalf).
Not unlike the old "Are you still beating your wife?" example, it is both intellectually dishonest in its intent and ignorant (willful or otherwise) of the existence of other options. That is exactly what a false dichotomy is.
In addition to disregarding the basic rules of logical discourse, you've also chosen to ignore the basic rules of civil discourse. If anyone is being contrary with a purpose, it is you.