« | »

GOP Rookies Less Rich Than Incumbents

From those fuzzy thinking class warriors at the Politico:

House rookies a millionaires club

By: Erika Lovley and Jake Sherman
December 1, 2010

They campaigned on bringing Main Street principles to Congress, but a large chunk of the rookie class of House Republicans will be bringing something else to Washington: personal wealth.

Nearly a quarter of the incoming class of 84 House Republicans have assets of at least $1 million, according to a POLITICO analysis of financial disclosure forms, a sign that this anti-Washington, anti-establishment crowd of congressional freshmen has been quite successful in the private sector.

If you have had any kind of a career, have a house, some savings, and some life insurance, aren’t you likely to have a million dollars in assets?

For example, former Rep. Steve Pearce [Republican], who was reelected to a New Mexico House seat after a two-year absence, and his spouse have assets of $8 million to $37 million, including up to $25 million in Trinity Industries, an equipment rental entity in Hobbs, N.M.

Diane Black, a Republican replacing retiring Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), has combined assets with her husband worth upward of $33 million. According to a financial disclosure report filed with the House, Black’s husband has $25 million to $50 million in Aegis Sciences Corp., a “forensic sciences company.”

Richard Berg, who unseated North Dakota Democrat Earl Pomeroy, appears to be the wealthiest newly elected Republican, with assets above $20 million.

Notice that it isn’t until you plow through this litany of rich and evil Republicans that the article mentions some inconvenient details:

The Republican freshmen will have plenty of company in the millionaires club in Congress.

Nearly half the current Congress — 261 lawmakers — already have assets exceeding $1 million, according to a recent report from the Center for Responsive Politics, and that number appears to be growing. Last year, 237 lawmakers made the mint club.

If half the incumbents are millionaires, and only a quarter of the incoming Republicans are millionaires, doesn’t that mean that the incoming class is less wealthy than the current Congress?

So doesn’t the Politico have it exactly backwards? (As is so often the case with them.)

[Republican] Pearce rejects the idea that the freshmen’s assets make them unable to relate to the grass-roots movement that thrust House Republicans into power

Once again, only a quarter of the incoming Republican freshmen are millionaires. Whereas half of the current Congress are millionaires.

So, at least according to the Politico’s class warrior ‘logic,’ these rookies should find it twice as easy to relate to the grass-roots movement that thrust them into power than the rich incumbents.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, December 1st, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

13 Responses to “GOP Rookies Less Rich Than Incumbents”

  1. Rusty Shackleford says:

    yet the blinding light of scrutiny seldom, if ever turns to the likes of people like Reid and Pelosi. Why is that? Do people never question the financial stature of such people, or even better, how they got that way? Do socialists or those aspiring to be such never question the financial well-being of their masters? And if not, why not? This is America and one thing that has always been interesting is that how a person becomes wealthy has never been above examination. That is, until the last decade or so. And of course if they are a known capitalist.

    Yet somehow stealing money has become far more acceptable with the likes of the aforementioned than it is to earn it legally and properly. That is, unless the government somehow twists it to put it in some unfavorable light.

    • mr_bill says:

      Amen Rusty, I would prefer a Congress full of [capitalist] billionaires who have earned their money honestly over a Congress of millionaires who have attained their wealth by stealing it from the coffers of the state (which is to say, stealing it from the citizens).

    • tranquil.night says:

      Didn’t you know Rusty? Dingy Harry was a very successful and very well known private lawyer. And Dingy is actually quite Stingy. He lives on a fixed income in his modest penthouse.

      Besides, he’s a Democrat and clearly cares. Nevadans get it! *sagely nod*

  2. P. Aaron says:

    If you don’t marry into money like John Kerry did twice, the press thinks it ‘abnormal’.

  3. proreason says:

    I want to know why ALL of them increase their wealth in Congress.

    I guess getting elected makes them all investment geniuses.

  4. GetBackJack says:

    Capitalists who earned rather than, say Kerry who married Heinz money.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Marrying into money, in and of itself, isn’t the issue. It’s the tenor of the character. So many people, regardless of wealth seem impoverished of manners, faith, good-standing and general character that it’s impossible to look at them, let alone listen to them. In the first part of the last century, there were people who came up through incredible adversity resulting in impeccable character. Of course, some of the greatest criminals also flourished but inasmuch as “the times made the people” I fear that the relatively easy times post WW II has resulted in some very questionable individuals reaching prominent status in our society. Mostly, I pay them little attention but it’s hard to do that when they meddle in things that affect my life, my income and the nation’s security. How they go their wealth is of major concern when they have gotten it through slimy deal-making and at the expense of the people. If they married into it, I couldn’t care less. However, it’s been my experience that the person who marries into that money is kept on a pretty tight leash in the financial sense. Kerry might have a very nice boat but I wouldn’t be surprised if the purse-holder, the wife, makes sure he never gets to use it. Everything has a balancing point. But I digress.

      How Kerry got money interests me less than how he spends mine. But for the elected representatives who become wealthy while in office, Pro raises a very legitimate point. Yes, why is it that they become richer while in office? I pretty much know the answer and it’s something this government needs to correct. Getting elected as a “path to easy street” was not the founders’ intention, I’m sure. Yes, they were men of means but also knew of the dangers of using rank and position to manipulate things in their favor. And that’s what we have in our government.

    • proreason says:

      Nobody talks about a very key point about wealth.

      According to the marxists, everybody who makes more the $250,000 per year (or whatever the number is today) is wealthy, and of course, should pay more taxes….for the good of the marxists country.

      But they really aren’t talking about wealthy people at all. They are talking about high earners. Most high earners don’t have substantial wealth. They are small businessmen, or older people who have worked decades to achieve high salaries. They are the people who create jobs, btw. Yes, they have good incomes but little accumulated wealth. And they already pay extremely high taxes. 35% for federal, 15.3% for fica and medicare, whatever their state tax is, whatever their property taxes are, whatever their sales taxes are, and tons of hidden taxes in everything they buy. Many of them are paying 2/3 of every incremental dollar in taxes already. And those people have no tax shelters. It is virtually impossible to “hide” salary income and small business people take great risks if they try to do so.

      The truly wealthy are the John Kerry’s and Kennedy’s of the world. They have inherited wealth that allows them to live lavishly without working. They aren’t millionaires, they are hundred millionaires. I maintain that VERY FEW of them contribute to the economy in any substantive way. The exceptions are generally people like Donald Trump, who is a first generations entrepreneur, not a trust fund baby. The reason is that people with inherited wealth are totally oriented to avoiding risk, not taking risks. They don’t start or own businesses….businesses often fail. They don’t own many stocks….stocks can lose all their value. They don’t create jobs….other than their gardeners, housekeepers and lawyers, who are servants, not people engaged in productive activities. What these uber-rich DO do, is to engage in the least risky enterprises to create the income they want usually TAX FREE income. For example, municipal bonds, which were invented by wealthy people to give them tax-free income. Munical bonds are a scam. They will also invest heavily in esoteric tax sheltered income generating devices that are structured with zero risk. They also hide huge amounts of wealth offshore.

      Yet, ALL of the class warfare rhetoric is aimed at the entreprenurial class of “the wealthy” who ALREADY pay onerous taxes. They are the class that fuels the economy.. NONE OF THE RHETORIC is aimed at the John Kerry’s, who never have and never will pay taxes on more than a pittance of their incomes. They are the parasites that consume the wealth of the country with no payback. A few hundred thousand of them control 25%+ of the entire wealth of the country. Again, they don’t contribute to the economy in any substantive way. Their wealth is either idle (unused land) or invested in the least efficient enterprises (i.e., the government, with guaranteed, tax free returns).

      Now, why do you think that is?

    • GetBackJack says:

      Legacy money hates entrepreneur money, and I mean HATE on a level few of us can understand. It helps to remember just how profoundly and deeply embedded in evil America’s scion families are …. my article on the Opium Families of the Northeast is a primer on the subject. In essence what we have running Washington Dc is the creme de la creme of drug smuggling combines in control of the federal establishment. Nay, of the entire world. 99.9999999% of people just can’t face that fact. Refuse to consider the facts, is more like it.

      Now, as to inheriting money or marrying into money, it actually is an issue. Within the bowels of the Russian KGB files that came to light following the breakdown of the old Communist regime surfaced documentation that the KGB and their masters were tight wads on an epic scale, not just because they inherently were but because the ruble was non-convertible. Within the transcripts was a little reported file that instructed useful idiots and agents in the techniques of The Tick Technique … how to identify, isolate, corrupt and take over the largest fortunes in the West so the KGB would have western funds to operate with.

      Pew, Ford, MacArthur, Heinz but to name a few. I can’t PROVE Maria Teresa Thierstein Simões-Ferreira was an agent of the old regime (the ongoing regime) but I’d bet the mortgage on our ranch she is. Her pattern of being a (bad word) for Heinz and his death suspicious in my analysis) her absorption of his near total estate and then targeting one of the loosest, dumbest and most opportunistic wanna-bes in Washington is classic Tick Technique. You can also reference Arianna Stassinopoulos and Michael Huffington for a more recent example. “I’M A CONSERVATIVE!!!” Then divorce, half the estate and now I’M A PROGRESSIVE!!!” Hell, Arianna wasn’t even subtle about gold digging her way to socialist fame.

      And it’s not even illegal, except in the valued and heroic mind of J Edgar Hoover, who despised Communist more than anyone. No wonder they took to calling him a man who dressed as a woman. Character assassination.

      I have a book length comment to make about $$$ and our enemies, but let me cut to the chase to say no nation and no ideology can compete with Capitalism, so these others have to prey on our most successful and make them FEEL the divisive pain and corruption that sometimes accompanies capitalists. As Adam Smith said, Capitalism is suitable only to a moral people. That hasn’t been the main thrust of the majority of America’s main capitalists.

      I do care about inherited money. A book worth reading on this topic is LEGACY AND BETRAYAL, The Great Philanthropists & the Problem of “Donor Intent,” by Martin Morse Wooster. (Capital Research Center, 1998, 198 pages) In its pages you will learn of all the betrayals of the legacies of men who EARNED their money.

      That said, I could care less about earned or inherited.

      Except that Tax Laws are written by an elite to serve an elite contrary to the Constitution and for the benefit of those who HAVE great wealth. We’re founded as a nation WITHOUT TAXATION ON INCOMES. TAKE US BACK TO THAT AND I CARE NOT.

      Except when wealth is corrupted to fight us from within. And I’m looking at you, John Kerry and your Controller, Teresa.

  5. oldpuppydixie says:

    Well why should this surprise anyone. After all, the newcomers haven’t spent 30 years stealing tax dollars!

  6. AcornsRNutz says:

    And yet, if all of them were indigent bums, this too would be the leading story to try and detract from these newly elected Republicans. This is so transparently a class envy jab that it’s starting to get comical.

  7. Liberals Demise says:

    But…but….Mr. Fwanks earned his money the hard way.
    His boy toy grew hoot (marijuana) in his home.

    Does Massachusetts have liberal pot laws? I believe it is still against the law to manufacture it. But what the hey……Chuckles Rangler says he is innocent of the same tax laws you and I must observe.

    Den of thieves calling the pot (pun intended) a pan.

  8. Chuckk says:

    Don’t worry about the “poor” congresssmen. If they follow the usual pattern, they will end up millionaires before leaving office.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »