I’m not sure I have a particular political debate in mind for this. It is a bipartisan look at the increase of wealth by members of congress and senators since being elected. I feel like it really highlights a significant problem in politics. While some increase in wealth is expected (politicians get an excellent salary and benefits), the increase in wealth seems to outpace what you might expect from such salary alone. It certainly outpaces the increase in wealth by the middle and lower classes over similar time frames. And while this data is American, I’m not saying this is an uniquely American problem (although Citizens United probably made things worse). I mainly thought the data was interesting and concerning.
Linky no worky.
I think that should work.
Yes, it did, thanks.
Interesting and concerning indeed - thanks. And yet many (not all) of those who now serve in Congress, whether due to patriotism, policy goals, commitment to the public good, ambition, or lust for power, could probably be earning more in the private sector.
I am less concerned about the wealth of individual politicians and more concerned by the expense of campaigns. It’s a lot easier to hide fraud in a billion dollar presidential campaign than in paying kickbacks to the politicians themselves, and politicians crave power (so reelection) more than personal wealth. (You can make more money in private business.)
I don’t think those net worth figures are concerning in of themselves. A millionaire is simply someone who has a net worth of 1 million or 2 million dollars (depending on how exactly you define it). Many people with decent middle class jobs will exceed that figure simply by buying a house and/or prudently investing once they’ve reached late middle age.
They used the median a few times, but the average/mean more often. I don’t think that’s fair. Some politicians did not get that money through politics at all. Mitt Romney got most of his wealth from being a previous business owner. John McCain married into wealth (he was actually wealthier than Romney, if you take both spouses into account). Wealthy Mr. Romney (net worth estimated $100 million to $250 million) made his 47% comments while asking a wealthier multimillionaire for money for their campaign (the host was worth $600 million); their collective wealth could have barely financed Romney’s campaign.
Keep in mind that the page does not show wealth, it shows growth of wealth since being elected.
This isn’t necessarily strictly speaking about explicit bribery. If you have significant investments in certain industries, then how much does your being in elected office help those industries? It would be difficult not to use your office to help such industries, even without any corruption in your heart. For example, but just being familiar with that industry. Although, and perhaps this is the cynic in me, I feel like all too often there is corruption or greed at heart. If I can get that tax cut for the X industry, then my stock will go up.
There is something askew when so many politicians personal wealth does nothing but grow since being elected. Especially when it is growing even when everyone else’s wealth is shrinking. That’s a problem, at least in my mind. It shows a direct relationship (whether correlational or causal is arguable) between being elected to office and a rise in personal wealth. The office shouldn’t be about personal gain, it should be about the good of the country.
I guess I’m just not convinced. In my experience the typical middle class person/family should expect their net worth to increase over time, as long as they didn’t have too many children and didn’t lose their job. The typical elected politician is educated and has good social skills, so finding jobs aren’t as hard for them as most people. The upper middle class and the wealthy don’t see decreases in wealth, whereas the more general middle class sees their wealth falling. Is there evidence that politicians are seeing faster increases to net worth than other people in the same socioeconomic class?
Federal elected politicians are paid pretty well, so bringing in more income than expenditures should not be too difficult. That “excess” money is typically invested. In addition, while elected politicians can suddenly lose their job, so can anyone else. They lose their jobs for a different reason. Their bosses (the voters) can literally fire them, but it’s not like they’re working at a company that goes out of business or has to lay off a quarter of its staff.
I don’t think comparing them to the “average” or “median” voter is helpful, as they’re not “average” or “median”.
What are the rules for investments? I understand blind trusts have to be invoked sometimes. Or maybe they can just invest in index funds (a while market, rather than an industry where they could be indirectly influenced or bribed).