NP Rank:
Do Washington Officials Suffer During Recession?
Information from Washington released this week, shows that while many Americans are struggling though difficult economic times, they are being represented by officials that may be completely out of touch with their plight.
With tens of thousands having had homes repossessed, and millions more out of work, both elected and appointed officials seem to be doing quite well.
Median net worth for for members of the US Senate is $1,790,000.00. House members aren't worth as much, but still seem to be holding up well. Median net worth for a Congressman is $622,000.00. The figures released do not include the value of the homes that are owned by the officials.
The figures were compiled by The Center for Responsive Politics. The non-partisan CPR bills itself as the nation's premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics. The list includes millionaires from both parties. It also has a few with a reported net worth of less than 0.
The numbers released are estimates – lawmakers are only required to report their finances in broad ranges of figures, so it’s impossible to pin down their exact net worth with precision. The Center for Responsive Politics said they use the mid-point of the ranges for their figures.
As Washington reels from the news of 10.2 percent unemployment, the Center for Responsive Politics is out with a new report describing the wealth of members of Congress.
Among the highlights: Two-hundred-and-thirty-seven members of Congress are millionaires. That’s 44 percent of the body – compared to about 1 percent of Americans overall.
CRP says California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa is the richest lawmaker on Capitol Hill, with a net worth estimated at about $251 million. Next in line: Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), worth about $244.7 million; Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), worth about $214.5 million; Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), worth about $209.7 million; and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), worth about $208.8 million.
All told, at least seven lawmakers have net worths greater than $100 million, according to the Center’s 2008 figures.
“Many Americans probably have a sense that members of Congress aren’t hurting, even if their government salary alone is in the six figures, much more than most Americans make,” said CRP spokesman Dave Levinthal. “What we see through these figures is that many of them have riches well beyond that salary, supplemented with securities, stock holdings, property and other investments.”
The CRP’s analysis suggests that some lawmakers did well for themselves between 2007 and 2008, even as many Americans lost jobs and saw their savings and their home values plummet.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) gained about $9.2 million. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) gained about $3 million, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) had an estimated $2.6 million gain, and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) gained about $2.8 million.
Some lawmakers have profited from investments in companies that have received federal bailouts; dozens of lawmakers are invested in Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America.
Among executive branch officials, CRP says the richest is Securities and Exchange Commission Chairwoman Mary L. Schapiro, with a net worth estimated at $26 million.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is next, worth an estimated $21 million. President Barack Obama is the sixth-wealthiest, worth about an estimated $4 million. Vice President Joe Biden has often tagged himself as an original blue collar man. The CRP backs him up, putting his net worth at just $27,000.
He’s hardly the worst off.
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), freshman Rep. Harry Teague (D-N.M.), Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.), Rep. John Salazar (D-Colo.) and Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) each a net worth of less than zero, CRP says.
One caveat on those numbers: Federal financial disclosure laws don’t require members to list the value of their personal residences. That information could alter the net worth picture for many lawmakers.
A number of lawmakers are estimated to have suffered double-digit percentage lossed in their net worth from 2007 to 2008. The biggest losers include Kerry, who lost a whopping $127.4 million; Warner lost about $28.1 million; Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) lost about $11.8 million; and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) lost about $10.1 million.
Crowd Power
-
Hugh Askew
Omaha, Nebraska, United States
Recommendations (56)
-
Roy C
Vancouver, Washington, United States -
QueensHart
boston, USA., United States -
Rory Cripps
New Port Richey, Florida, United States -
Blue Crush
Toronto, Canada -
albertacowpoke
Canada
-
smkovalinsky
New York, New York, United States -
Paschen
Narita, Chiba, Japan -
Mritunjay
Mumbai, Maharashtra, India -
Rhonda J Mangus
North Tonawanda, New York, United States -
a211423
Clearlake, California, United States







Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (19)
at 17:43 on November 7th, 2009
Yep, go figure, they're assets could provide some stimulus.
at 19:08 on November 7th, 2009
Yup, go figure, eh?
at 18:36 on November 7th, 2009
interesting
at 19:52 on November 7th, 2009
That Nancy babe is pretty hot looking when the lights are turned down low . . . .
at 20:10 on November 7th, 2009
....and that smile is for you, sweet chips.
at 22:22 on November 7th, 2009
All things aside - nice shot of her
at 06:04 on November 8th, 2009
Hugh: Are you sure you live in cow town and not Redondo beach? Just checking . . . .
at 17:26 on November 8th, 2009
Hey, in cow town we learn about heifers, bulls, steers. ain't no blamed need for none a that sex edumacations stuff.
Still, that leer of Nacy's sure look like it was aimed at you, you dog, you.
at 21:17 on November 7th, 2009
Looking for the actual listing of names and accompanying figures, came across this little tidbit concerning John Kerry (reputedly the richest man in government)
In an April 2008 article, Forbes.com estimated Heinz-Kerry’s net worth at $1 billion. (Kerry’s actual holdings + those of wife Teresa Heinz Kerry)
Kerry’s disclosure forms list the value of more than 180 assets — including Heinz family trusts and investment funds — only as “over $1 million,” rather than the more specific ranges including $1 million to $5 million. Senators are allowed to list assets in the “over $1 million” category only if the items are held independently by a spouse or dependent child.
at 02:37 on November 8th, 2009
I hope you aren't calling for a redistribution of wealth now, are you. That would be like class warfare.
at 04:13 on November 8th, 2009
Not at all, nanute. Unless we were to redistribute the wealth of those officials entering government. I could vote yes on that. Thin the blundering herd, as it were.
In many ways, it makes sense to have successful people attempting to run the country.
It does not make sense to have politicians that have no real concept of poverty, nor the the day-to-day struggle for existence.
at 00:49 on November 8th, 2009
Is this not what a truly capitalistic based society is all about?
Social democratic laws and Social democratic constitution would make such extremes near impossible.
at 04:32 on November 8th, 2009
We have our own Constitution, thank you. Obviously not perfect, but it has worked well up to now. Not likely we are going to go to something different in the near term.
Besides, our Constitution does not directly address economic forms or systems - such as capitalism, rather it deals with the shape and form of our government.
at 17:01 on November 8th, 2009
The constitution of the USA is one that I personally respect greatly and that has some fundamental parts with in it that are most commendable.
As you said it is not perfect and does not address economics, why one may want to perfected it and revise it to adapt it to the times.
Do not all things have to evolve and improve and failing so is that not what makes them self absolute?
at 04:19 on November 8th, 2009
the governing people, and other people in positions of responsibility and in leading roles should have enough income so they do not have to care about day to day struggle but can actually focus on leading and making the right decisions, and enough income that they would not need to consider accepting any kind of bribes.
well... that should be the theory. it's an all different question when it comes to the greedy nature of humanity...
at 05:08 on November 8th, 2009
True nagba, enough so they do not resolve to corruption or bribes.
The problem is where is the limit and what may be enough for one is not so for another.
As you stated in your conclusion "it may come down to the greedy nature of humanity..."
at 13:17 on November 9th, 2009
Who was it that said "Let them eat cake?" Some things never change. Great coverage tho!
I don't think we need to worry about any of of our lawmakers ending up homeless just yet, but damn, Kerry lost a whopping $127.4 million!!!!
at 14:09 on November 9th, 2009
Kerry started off with over a billion, more or less. He has a knack for marrying rich.
The cake thing was from Rousseau's 'Confessions': "...the last resort of a great princess who was told that the peasants had no bread, and who responded: "Let them eat brioche (cake)" Marie Antoinette was allegedly the "great princess"
As far as the lawmakers going homeless, believe it or not, there are a few that live on their salary alone. The list include several with a negative net worth. The one listed from Nebraski rooms with another on the same list to cut down expenses. He has a family back here, comes home weekends when he can, etc. A normal person, in other words. Need more of that kind, and far fewer fat cats.
at 08:26 on November 10th, 2009
I remember the head lines, when National Debt went from a B to a T... (Headline Read
Dollar amount) YES That Is A T.... (I was a mere child of course)
To see the dollar amounts as personal funds lost. They can't manage their own why are we letting them ill-manage ours...