Nearly half of Congress members are millionaires

[galdre]

click here for full story

For Congress, debating the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans is personal.

While the base pay for members of Congress is $174,000, nearly half -- 261, to be exact -- are millionaires, according to an analysis of 2009 data from the Center for Responsive Politics (there are 535 total members of the House and Senate). Just 1 percent of Americans overall can say the same.

While the economy has generally faltered over the past two years, congressional members actually saw their collective personal wealth increase by more than 16 percent between 2008 and 2009, according to the study, which analyzed financial disclosure data released earlier this year.

As many as 55 members had an average calculated wealth of $10 million or more in 2009, according to the Center.

I didn't realize it was that high!

so - is this good? bad? neither?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I didn't realize it was that low.

 

[Aegis]

Good, in that they should be harder to bribe. Bad, in that you almost have to be rich in order to pay for an election campaign.

 

[Bamspeedy]

While the base pay for members of Congress is $174,000, nearly half -- 261, to be exact -- are millionaires

So half of them were able to save 5.75 years worth of salary into personal assets. What's so shocking about that?

 

[CaptainF]

Politicians shouldn't be paid professionals.

 

[downtown]

Politicians shouldn't be paid professionals.

Then it would be 100% millionaires instead of 50%

 

[GhostWriter16]

Then it would be 100% millionaires instead of 50%

More or less true.

They should be paid a standard paycheck, but no more than 100,000 dollars a year (Right now.)

I would love to see their pay amount linked to the success of the economy but not sure if that's workable.

 

[Xanikk999]

Well that might explain why so many republicans would be willing to extend tax cuts to the wealthy. Not to mention that many of their main constituents and donors are usually of higher income brackets as well.

 

[downtown]

At any rate, I don't see why we should be surprised about this. Members of congress make over 100,000 a year, and most of those guys stick around for at least 6 years.

Plus, winning elections requires lots of rich and powerful friends, which usually means that you had to have been fairly successful in your professional endeavors.

I don't necessarily see this as a big problem (it could be)...but I'm more worried about the lack of professional variety in congress. Way too many lawyers.

 

[CaptainF]

Then it would be 100% millionaires instead of 50%

...right. I think you don't get what I'm trying to say...

Politicians should do things for the good of the country, not for the good of their pocketbooks.

 

[BuckyRea]

Good, in that they should be harder to bribe. Bad, in that you almost have to be rich in order to pay for an election campaign.

In the 1780s, when the theory was advanced, it made sense to say rich people are less susceptible to bribery. In today's world, with the more economically mercenary values our current society propagates, I don't think it's accurate to say millionaires are less likely to be bribed. After all, one thing that leads a man to become a millionaire is the love of money. I've not seen any studies on the question, but certainly there are a good number of already-rich folks who still do questionable things for the lucre they get from it.

 

[Leonel]

No wonder they want tax cuts for millionaires!

 

[Ataxerxes]

I didn't realize it was that low.

Same here. Given the math other posters have mentioned, I still think the figure is low. Millionaire isn't that much anymore.

 

[Traitorfish]

Politicians shouldn't be paid professionals.

That's how it used to be over here. We didn't like it.

 

[Camikaze]

I didn't realize it was that low.

Yeah, same. I'm pleasantly surprised that 274 congressmen/women are not millionaires. I wouldn't have thought it would be all that possible to get elected without a fairly high degree of wealth, so it's good that the required level isn't as high as I would've thought.

 

[Arakhor]

I remember reading somewhere that one US senator wasn't a millionaire. What you have there is an elected plutocracy - it seems that you took after the Roman model far more closely than you expected, eh?

 

[Dachs]

I remember reading somewhere that one US senator wasn't a millionaire. What you have there is an elected plutocracy - it seems that you took after the Roman model far more closely than you expected, eh?

Ah, no, less than half of Congress doesn't really compare with physical property-holding requirements.

 

[Arakhor]

This is true, but I would imagine that most fortunes these days are in ephemeral assets, as we're not using the agrarian model of two millennia ago.

 

[Joecoolyo]

The question I have is, were these people millionaires before becoming a part of Congress, or afterwords?

 

[galdre]

The question I have is, were these people millionaires before becoming a part of Congress, or afterwords?

I'm sure the majority were before they held office, but who knows...