Why do lawmakers pass themselves off as "common folk"?

What makes polticians believe that they are just like the rest of us? Most have nannies, cooks, gardners, secretaries and staffs that resemble a Victorian household that required a staff of at least 8 to take care of the needs of just two residents. Forget budget considerations.

The present flap over her firm and continual request for a jet that, in opulence, would rival Air Force One, the plane that transports the President of the United States. Here is a description of the plane she wants:

"She wants a plane that could carry an entourage just President Bush, who flies on Air Force One, and Vice President Cheney, who walso flies on military planes."

New York Post and LA Times

...a top-of-the-line, Air Force passenger jet - the military version of the Boeing 757 - which features 42 business-class seats and a 16-member crew, plus a fully enclosed stateroom, entertainment center, private bed and state-of-the-art communications center.

The taxpayers would be clipped $300,000 each time she flies, making a mockery of the lady who

This is the same woman who declared last month: "I promise to do everything in my power to achieve energy independence . . . and to stop global warming."

Just two weeks ago, she added, "The science of global warming and its impact is overwhelming and unequivocal." Then she dedicated a select House committee actually to do something about global warming.

Which, if one accepts the current "science of global warming," she certainly is.

[..]

The conventional view is that emissions of carbon dioxide - a greenhouse gas - are a major factor in warming. And the jet Pelosi is demanding produces more than 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per hour - far more than the commuter plane Hastert used.

How did Pelosi and other speakers get the idea that they deserve the equivalent of "Air Force Three?"

In 1792, Congress passed the Presidential Succession Act, which provided that the President Pro Tempore of the Senate would assume the presidency should the president and vice president be unable to discharge their executive duties. President Truman signed an act of the same name in 1947, changing the order to what it is today, therefore placing the Speaker of the House "two heartbeats from the presidency."

This line of succession is one of the arguments Speaker Pelosi and her supporters have floated in defense of the outrages mentioned above. Yet it is symptomatic of the untrammeled arrogance of power and heightened sense of being among our self-sainted representatives that any member of Congress - up to and including the Speaker and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate - does not realize he or she does not qualify for the amenities and security provisions that are afforded the President and the Vice President.

Pelsoi is from a family of politicians: her father served as Baltimore's mayor and a U.S. Congressman from Maryland. Married to Paul Pelsoi, their joint net worth is $25 million, primarily form Paul Pelosi's investments and to their "large portfolio of jointly owned San Francisco Bay Area real estate, and he also has millions of dollars in stock from publicly traded companies...Pelosi continues to be among the richest members of Congress.

(Here's a cute Photoshop at Michelle Malkin)

Former North Carolina Senator and Presidential Candidate John Edwards has a more humble background, but used his career as a trial lawyer to create great wealth. Ironically he is running on an anti-poverty platform:

In December, Edwards chose the modest backyard of a New Orleans woman who had lost her home to Hurricane Katrina as the image that best underscored his campaign theme.

Now voters are seeing another, sharply contrasting image of Edwards: his own home.

Sitting on 102 secluded acres -- surrounded by trees and defended by no-trespassing signs -- the 28,000-square-foot estate that Edwards and his family call home has presidential privacy.

A main home has five bedrooms and six-and-a-half baths. It's connected by a covered walkway to a bright red addition known as "The Barn," that includes its own living facilities along with a handball court, an indoor pool and an indoor basketball court with a stage at one end. Nearby, the family has cleared space for a soccer field.

With a current building value of $4.3 million, the unfinished Edwards estate is already about $1 million more expensive than any other house in the county, according to tax records. It sits on land worth about $1.1 million.

Edwards first purchased the land in 2004, during his failed run as vice president. He recently sold his mansion in Washington's tony Georgetown neighborhood for $5.2 million.

Who could forget John Kerry or Edward Kennedy, both of Massachusetts? Kerry's extended family is "wealthy," but his own parents were "upper middle class. His marriage to Teresa Heinz improved his fortunes considerably.

The Forbes 400 survey estimated in 2004 that Teresa Heinz Kerry had a net worth of $750 million. However, estimates have frequently varied, ranging from around $165 million to as high as $3.2 billion, according to a study in the Los Angeles Times. Regardless of which figure is given, Kerry is the wealthiest U.S. Senator. Kerry is wealthy in his own name, and is the beneficiary of at least four trusts inherited from Forbes family members, including his mother, who died in 2002. Forbes magazine (a major business magazine named for an unrelated Forbes family) estimated that if elected, Kerry would have been the third-richest U.S. President in history when adjusted for inflation [49]. This assessment was based on the couple's combined assets, but Kerry and Heinz signed a pre-nuptial agreement that keeps their assets separate. [50] Kerry's financial disclosure form for 2002 put his personal assets in the range of $409,000 to $1.8 million, with additional assets held jointly by Kerry and his wife in the range of $300,000 to $600,000.

Everyone knows that Edward Kennedy is a member of the famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) Massachusetts Kennedys whose net worth is in the hundreds of millions.

Kennedy, Pelosi, and Edwards have plenty of wealthy cronies in Congress. In 2004, in the 435-member House of Representatives, 123 earned at least a million dollars in the previous year. This is because

Representatives and senators tend to hold lucrative jobs -- attorneys, doctors and company executives.

"Members of Congress are recruited not from (an) ordinary cross section of America occupations," said Thomas Mann, a Congress expert at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

"There has been an increasing tendency for parties to seek out individuals who can self-finance at least part of their campaigns, and that has over time led to more wealthy people serving in Congress," Mann said.

[...]

Representatives and senators tend to hold lucrative jobs -- attorneys, doctors and company executives.

"Members of Congress are recruited not from (an) ordinary cross section of America occupations," said Thomas Mann, a Congress expert at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

"There has been an increasing tendency for parties to seek out individuals who can self-finance at least part of their campaigns, and that has over time led to more wealthy people serving in Congress," Mann said.

The richest person in the House of Representatives [in 2004]is California Democrat Jane Harman, who reported assets worth more than 160 million dollars. Next in line [in 2004] is Amo Houghton, a New York Republican who reported 150 million dollars.

According to the Sunlight Foundation, the richest Congressman in 2006 is Herb Kohl of Wisconsin with a net range of $269.098,030 to $284,549,005.

The Sunlight Foundation has done some watchdogging:

The net worth of Congressmen is "only estimated" because members report their net worth in ranges, not exact dollars. Based on just the minimums reported...the average House member had a net worth of $2.4 million. Senators were worthy an average of $8.9 million.

But those numbers are deceiving, since a few very wealthy members can greatly skew the numbers. A more reliable yardstick is the median income, the amount that's halfway between the richest member of Congress and the poorest. Measured that way, House members had a median net worth of $385,000. Senators had a median net worth of $1.1 million. Again, those are averages of the minimum amounts members reported.

The Center also calculated that at least 35% of members of Congress are millionaires. That's compared with 1% of the population as a whole.

At Open Secrets,Here is some information that might shed light on why Washington's powerful sometimes look the other way:

*At least 35% of members of Congress are millionaires, according to their reports covering 2005. By comparison, only about 1% of all American adults had a net worth greater than $1 million in 2005.1

*The average minimum net worth of members of the House of Representatives is $2.4 million, with a median net worth of $385,000; in the Senate, $8.9 million and a median of $1.1 million. (Assets and liabilities are disclosed in ranges, which are often very wide, making it impossible to determine their exact value.)

*Members of Congress have millions of dollars invested in politically influential industries, which they also regulate, including real estate ($261.2 million); pharmaceuticals and health products (at least $25.5 million in holdings); computers and internet ($21.5 million); the oil and gas industry ($19.5 million); beer, wine and liquor ($8.8 million); and tobacco ($8.2 million).

*The large corporations in which lawmakers have personal investments tend to spend millions of dollars lobbying the federal government, and their political action committees and employees contribute generously to politicians’ campaigns, according to CRP’s widely used databases tracking campaign contributions and lobbying.

It's not that Congress should not be filled with wealthy, successful people, the kind of people that have proved that they can run a corporation or a country. After all, no one would elect a financial deadbeat, would they? The point is that members can't expect to have empathy for the rest of us that have to struggle to make ends meet.

Explaining to lawmakers why it is not in the best interest for most Americans to compete for jobs that are being outsourced or given to illegal aliens that work for minimum wage or less, that don't pay taxes and all the rest is just an intellectual exercise. They can't identify with our problems nor empathize with our needs.

It wouldn't hurt to investigate the Announced 2008 Candidates

Here are two Democrats:

Barak Obama: Net Worth From $1,100,008 to $2,500,000; Ranks 50th among all members
of the Senate; Assets:7 totaling $1,100,008 to $2,500,000; Liabilities: 0; Income: 5 totaling $1,225,406

Hillary Clinton: Net Worth From $10,080,005 to $50,200,000; Ranks 14th among all members
of the Senate; Assets: 5 totaling $10,095,006 to $50,250,000; Liabilities: 1 totaling $15,001 to $50,000

and

Two Republicans:

Sam Brownback:From $2,481,087 to $9,058,001; Ranks 27th among all members
of the Senate;Assets:78 totaling $2,581,088 to $9,308,001;Liabilities: 1 totaling $100,001 to $250,000

Comments

[GM]

Many years ago, I concluded that no human can be entrusted with power over other humans, other than criminal prosecutions. I think this is what the Founders struggled to do. I think one reason they did not succeed in containing people given power over others, namely in government, is because they centralized the making and keeping of money in the federal government, instead of leaving it privatized.

Certainly there are many opportunities for abuse in private hands, but I would risk this any time over the government. We, at least, have a chance to correct the private world.

However, what empowers our republic-democracy is the power of money. Money implements the definition of government as the legal concentration of physical force. Controlling the quantity, quality, velocity, and distribution of money cannot be any longer entrusted to anyone in government. Without their access to easy money, they are windbags, properly beholden to us to fund them. We can do it. They cannot.

[joe]

When Obama made the statement "spread the wealth around" this should be a call to arms, literally. With a Democratic president and Congress will the government become all powerful and I'm sure, spread our wealth but maintain theirs? Wake up, freedom is not free and being successful in life takes effort too. Life itself is natural, liberty is not, but it is right. Along with all of this comes responsibility and acceptance of negatives. If you choose not to work then fail economically. If you choose not to seek liberty and freedom in a pure form then live with what is given.

[epg]

Joe-Thank your for comment which I am using as the headliner formy post at Eleanor Duckwall's Spotlight: Redux: Why do lawmakers pass themselves off as "common folk"?

Eleanor