Congress Is Now Mostly A Millionaires’ Club

[Purveyor]

For the first time, more than half of congressional lawmakers are worth at least $1 million

By Andrew Katz @katzJan. 09, 20149 Comments

Congress is loaded, if you weren’t already aware.

The Center for Responsive Politics analyzed the personal financial disclosure data from 2012 of the 534 current members of Congress and found that, for the first time, more than half had an average net worth of $1 million or more: 268 to be exact, up from 257 the year earlier. The median for congressional Democrats was $1.04 million and, for Republicans, $1 million even.

To calculate the net worth of lawmakers, the Center added together members’ significant assets, such as corporate bonds and stocks, then subtracted major liabilities such as loans, credit card debt and property mortgages.

Here’s the breakdown: the median net worth for all House members was $896,000 (Democrats averaged $929,000 to Republicans’ $884,000) and, for Senators, $2.5 million. The median net worth for Senate Democrats was $1.7 million, down from $2.4 million in 2011; for Republicans: $2.9 million, up from $2.5 million in 2011.

Richest and Poorest Members

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Oversight Committee who made his millions in the car alarm business, was the richest lawmaker in Congress with an average net worth of $464 million in 2012.

Read more: For the First Time, the Majority of Congress Are Millionaires | TIME.com http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/09/congress-is-now-mostly-a-millionaires-club/#ixzz2pwYOlCas

[NancyDL]

1. Congressmen need an adequate living allowance...

... A big problem is the cost of running for office is so high that average folk just can't compete, but another, lesser known, problem is that the living allowances received by congressmen don't come near to covering the cost of living in DC. More folk of modest means might be inspired to run if they were able to cover their living expenses.

[onethatcares]

2. it's fairly easy to cover their living expenses.

All they have to do is head on over to K Street and be whores. Viola, problem solved.

Do I think our "representatives" are sell outs? You bet.

Do I wish someone would point out where I'm mistaken? You bet 2x

[Shoulders of Giants]

3. It would cover their costs of living if they were willing to live with the "little people."

http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/search/apa?catAbb=apa&query=&zoomToPosting=&minAsk=500&maxAsk=1000&bedrooms=&housing_type=


Plenty of places where rent is under $1000 a month. Keep in mind, they don't need to move their family to Washington DC, so a 1 room apartment is good enough. I've lived in much worse place than the ones at that link. With utilities, that would be about an extra $20,000 a year at most. That leaves them with about $150,000 a year left over for their main home in their districts.

[Packerowner740]

4. That's why there should be term limits

They are all there to influence laws to line their own pockets.

[Fumesucker]

5. Who else would best know how to properly serve the 1%?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

6. du rec