Richest lawmakers grew wealthier as economy faltered

[Lightning Count]

Source: Yahoo News

The rest of the country is still struggling with high unemployment amid a sluggish-at-best economic recovery -- but the wealthiest members of Congress are in high cotton. Indeed, the top 50 wealthiest lawmakers saw their combined net worths increase last year, according to the Hill's annual analysis of financial disclosure documents.
Combined, the 50 lawmakers were worth $1.4 billion in 2009 -- an $85.1 million increase over their 2008 total -- the Hill reports. The members' total combined assets depreciated by nearly $36 million last year -- but Congress' well-to-do set also reduced their debts by a combined $120 million.
The list of 50 lawmakers spans both parties (27 Democrats and 23 Republicans) and both chambers of Congress (30 House members, 20 senators), the Hill reports.
Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts topped the list for the second year in a row; Republican Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas made his debut in the top 10.
Here are profiles for the 10 most flush Hill power-and-money brokers:
1. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.): $188.6 million. Kerry's worth, which grew by $20 million in 2009, stems from his wife's assets. Teresa Heinz Kerry, of the Heinz ketchup family, inherited hundreds of millions upon the death of her previous husband, Sen. John Heinz.
2. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.): $160.1 million. Issa actually saw his minimum net worth drop by $4 million, partly due to the poor performance of a single investment fund. Issa's fortune stems from investments he and his wife made in the electronics market. Their company eventually became the largest producer of car anti-theft devices in the country. They sold the business in 2000.
3. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.): $152.3 million. Harman is married to audio-equipment mogul Sidney Harman; stock holdings from his company, Harman International Industries, helped Harman's net worth grow by $40 million last year. Sidney Harman is in the process of purchasing Newsweek; the magazine's massive debts will presumably drag down Harman's 2010 disclosure numbers a bit.
4. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa.): $83.7 million. No surprise here: The Rockefeller family name has for generations been a byword for fabulous riches. (Rockefeller's great-grandfather John Rockefeller was an oil magnate; inflation-adjusted figures still peg the founder of the Rockefeller fortune as the wealthiest man in history.) But the senator's uptick in personal wealth last year came mainly from his wife's investments.
5. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas): $73.8 million. McCaul saw his net worth double last year, mostly owing to stocks held by his wife. McCaul's father-in-law founded the radio empire Clear Channel Communications. (more)

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100901/pl_yblog_upshot/richest-lawmakers-grew-wealthier-last-year-as-economy-faltered

[JDPriestly]

1. What I want to know is how much of their wealth is derived

from investments related to the military and to war. How much of their personal money is invested in companies that employ Americans or that manufacture something other than war materials and equipment.

[liberation]

8. What I want to know is why lawmakers are allowed to invest and have "side" operations...

... while they are being employed as public servants. Seems like a monumental conflict of interests, I am not holding my breath for this situation ever to change... since those in charge of changing it are one with the least amount of incentive to do so: i.e. the lawmakers themselves.

This always seemed like a monumental systemic fault with democratic systems, ours at least.

[Cal Carpenter]

17. The fault lies not with democracy but with capitalism

Without economic democracy, there is no political democracy.

The system that makes things this way is capitalism.

[No Elephants]

25. Citizen apathy and laziness doesn't help, either. We could keep voting

them out until only those who truly want to serve hold office. But, we allow much too much and require much too little.

[CynicalObserver]

36. this is modeled on the roman senate (not today, classical rome).

you might find it rather illuminating to read about it. The song stays the same....

[Thor_MN]

10. EXACTLY. All federal employees should have to divest from war profiteering

[catzies]

21. I'm thinking bigger than that because what they can do is akin to insider trading IMO

They have knowledge on industries and the regulations that affect them and can invest accordingly.

You and I don't have the same access to what could be called insider information.

And IMO insider info leads to insider trading.

It's only illegal if we the people do it.

[karynnj]

12. All of that is available in their Senate (or House) disclosure statements

You can see where their assets are invested - though you see dollar ranges, not exact amounts - and it is a snapshot of what they had on a given day. If you are interested in a particular legislator the information is available - and easy to find. Beware of some articles that "did the analysis" themselves - as they included Pepsi, microsoft, IBM, and Johnson & Johnson because they had contracts with the military.

[No Elephants]

34. Are the statements online? If not, where are they readily available for inspection?

[karynnj]

42. yes they are - there is an official federal source, but there are other sources as well

Here is one way to get them for many years. The 2009 report is the most recent here

Go to opennsecrets.com - then go to personal finances, http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/index.php - this gives you the richest legislators (if the one you are interested in is not here - click on the title "richest ...." and you get a longer list - and at the top a link to download the full list) - assuming the legislator is on the link - click on his/her name.

Ie Kerry - http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/CIDsummary.php?CID=N00000245&year=2008 - notice you can then click on "get full reports".
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/candlook.php?CID=N00000245 - here you can see you can get the "image" of the report submitted or you can simply look at the open secrets profile.

Have Fun!

[wisteria]

2. What is the newsworthiness of posting this here?

It is a loaded piece meant to stir anger and resentment, and is specifically aimed at Democratic lawmakers.
The economy stinks, I am unemployed, but the state of things right now would be no different if these people had not made any money. And, especially on the Democrat side, I doubt there was malice intended in their profit making. You can argue that President Obama took care of Wall Street and not the little guy, but you would be wrong about his intent. Our entire financial structure works from the top down. President Obama and other Democrats have to work within the sytem created by our founders. Frankly, I am glad our economy is still creating wealth. The real danger is when we create nothing at all.

[izquierdista]

4. Hold it right there

The state of things would be VERY different if their fortunes were taxed at pre-Ronnie Raygun tax rates. Even if the just the Bush tax cuts never happened, instead of them having more wealth, the budget would be in balance and the national debt significantly paid down.

There is ALWAYS malice intended in their profit making. They make their profits by exploiting the American worker, and when they have squeezed all the blood they can from that turnip, they toss him aside and start squeezing a Chinese turnip.

An economy that creates wealth for only a few is no better than North Korea's. The real danger is when the wealth that is created all goes to a tiny fraction of the people.

[karynnj]

14. NO, YOU hold it right there

Did the Democrats here vote for the lower tax rate? If not, you have no point here.

[JDPriestly]

9. No malice? What if they are making their money, let's say from

investments in the defense industry and then voting to fund those investments. I suspect that goes on more often than you would like to believe. In my view, it is corrupt for a member of Congress to vote for an appropriation for defense if some of the money could or very likely will end up being paid to a company in which the member of Congress owns stock -- whether the ownership is in a supposedly blind trust or not. It's a conflict of interest. We need to be much more strict about conflicts of interest.

[karynnj]

15. Maybe you could look where there money is invested before attacking

Unless there is an earmark or the company is the only company that provides the product or service, there is no conflict of interest.

[No Elephants]

26. Who said those 2 make up the entire universe of possible conflicts?

[JDPriestly]

35. Technically they may.

But if some of the members of Congress know that when they vote for military appropriations, some of the money is bound to land in their own pocket, that should be a conflict of interest, whether it is now recognized as such or not.

[catzies]

22. That is my my position right there. Corrupt, conflicts of interest, just the start.

Let the sun shine in!!

[superconnected]

13. We ought to know what they're making and from where because collusion is rampant in politics

and they were voted in by us to protect OUR best interest not corporate best interest. Corporate best interest only counts when it is our best interest too, and unlike Republican belief, that is not all the time.

[Dappleganger]

18. Still hoping for your trickle-down dream to come true?

It ain't gonna happen.

[wisteria]

23. I was not referring to a particular theory of wealth distribution.

I was pointing out we live in America and America is a Market financial institution. If you are wishing for a socialistic society where 70+% of your taxes go to the government and it is distributed to people from there, you live in the wrong country.
I will not resent people who make money-lots of it, in America. If I could do it I would too. Many wealthy Americans give great amounts to charities and take part in bettering our country. Not all the rich are greedy bastards like you seem to want to dipict them all.

[No Elephants]

28. Making money in America is not the issue of this thread, or we'd be talking about

Buffet, Jobs and Gates.

[No Elephants]

27. How is aimed at Democratic lawmakers?

"The list of 50 lawmakers spans both parties (27 Democrats and 23 Republicans) and both chambers of Congress (30 House members, 20 senators), the Hill reports."


It's just about an even split, even though Democrats are much more numerous in both houses. So, the percentage of rich Republicans is greater.

And, even if a vast majority of the 50 richest were Democrats, so what? Anything inherently evil about being born Jay Rockefeller or falling in love with Heinz's widow?

In any event, is not knowing legislators' net worth better than knowing?

[bulloney]

3. Anyone believe Congress will let the Bush tax cuts expire, given the wealth they've amassed?

[ProSense]

7. There are only about

three Democratic Senators who support extending Bush's tax cuts for the rich.

It's going to expire.

Anyone with investments, including retirement accounts, saw increases.

The fact is that these lawmakers also lost three times as much during the height of the recession.

Given that Congress is nearing action on Bush's tax cuts, it's easy to see why the media would try to create a distorted picture.

[No Elephants]

29. Do we know for sure whether anyone will fillibuster and how Reid will handle a filibuster?

If not, how can we be sure cuts will expire? Even assuming you're right about how a vote would go, 56 is not enough to invoke cloture. Neither is 59, for that matter.

[inna]

37. "It's going to expire." - From your keyboard, to God's ears.

"Anyone with investments, including retirement accounts, saw increases.

The fact is that these lawmakers also lost three times as much during the height of the recession."


Translation? That was poorly phrased and didn't make sense, want to try again?

[fascisthunter]

5. cut through the ideology and it's just corruption

[bossy22]

6. this is no surprise

there is always someone who makes money during an economic downturn- its just a fact of life

[superconnected]

11. So much for "public servants"

[karynnj]

16. Who are you to judge if they are public servants?

Would John Kerry be more deserving of being called a public servant if he did not marry the woman he loved - a woman who, through her foundation, has done a huge amount on women's health and the impact of toxins and helping fund prescription drug and health care in some inner sities? Without Teresa's money, he would be way down on the list. Yet, he is more effective and better - not to mention happier since he married.

Many of the others did not need to hold office. Rockefeller could have just lived a wealthy life.

[superconnected]

19. Some are going to be rich already but many politicians are bought.

Now, pay BP for the trouble we've put them through for that oil spill.

[wisteria]

24. Exactly. wasn't a Kennedy who said, to whom much is given, much is expected?

I don't think anyone could argue that the Kennedy's despite their wealth, were great public servants. And, even though they were wealthy, they understood and fought for the people who had less.

[No Elephants]

31. Nothing any Kennedy did or said means that all rich legislators are public servants.

[classysassy]

39. Kennedy's quote

was from the Bible.

[No Elephants]

30. Sorry, but that is exactly the kind of thing citizens of a democracy are totally entitled to judge,

even if they judge wrongly.

And everything is not about Kerry. Or even about Democrats. A greater percentage of Republicans are on the list.

[karynnj]

41. Kerry was in the article and a good example of someone who is both a public servant

and is very wealthy - mostly because the Senate requires a spouse's wealth to be included.

[ProSense]

20. Is

Alan Grayson a public servant?

He's number 11 on the list.

Does that make him less of a public servant?

[No Elephants]

32. Please see Reply 31, but subsitute the name "Grayson" for the name "Kennedy."

[No Elephants]

33. The more things change, the more the stay the same. From the 1920's:

Bill collectors gather

'Round and rather

Haunt the cottage next door

Men the grocer and butcher sent

Men who call for the rent

But with in a happy chappy

And his bride of only a year

Seem to be so cheerful

Here's an earful

Of the chatter you hear


Every morning

Every evening

Ain't we got fun

Not much money

Oh but honey

Ain't we got fun

The rent's unpaid dear

We haven't a bus

But smiles were made dear

For people like us

In the winter in the Summer

Don't we have fun

Times are bum and getting bummer

Still we have fun

There's nothing surer

The rich get rich and the poor get children

In the meantime

In the between time

Ain't we got fun.


Just to make their trouble nearly double

Something happen'd last night

To their chimney a gray bird came

Mister Stork is his name

And I'll bet two pins

A pair of twins

Just happen'd in with the bird

Still they're very gay and merry

Just at dawning I heard


Every morning

Every evening

Don't we have fun

Twins and cares dear come in pairs dear

Don't we have fun

We've only started

As mommer and pop

Are we downhearted

I'll say that we're not

Landlords mad and getting madder

Ain't we got fun

Times are so bad and getting badder

Still we have fun

There's nothing surer

The rich get rich and the poor get laid off

In the meantime

In between time

Ain't we got fun.

[FlyByNight]

38. Is it any wonder that many congressional members...

...seem (are) so smug, detached and out of touch?

Congress has relegated itself to middle-management; corporations are the puppet masters now. Quite the "republic" we have here, eh?

:eyes:

[ipaint]

40. Obscene. nt

[Francesca9]

43. no surprise here