Are Members of Congress Too Rich?
6th June 2016
A person can’t open the newspaper these days without encountering a reminder of the plummeting value of the dollar. Sunday’s New York Times was a perfect example. The lead editorial, about money in politics, reports, “As the money torrent rises, it’s no coincidence that for the first time in history, most members of Congress are millionaires (268 of 534 House members), according to the Center for Responsive Politics.”
This is indeed “no coincidence,” but not in the way the Times intends. The rising number of millionaires in Congress is not some indication that the legislature has been overrun by the rich, but further evidence, as if it were needed, that a million dollars isn’t what it used to be. The Center for Responsive Politics count the Times references makes no adjustment for inflation, so there’s no way to tell, as measured by any real yardstick, whether today’s Congress is richer or poorer than it used to be. In fact, the rising number of millionaires in Congress may be a sign that the chamber is more representative than it is plutocratic; CNBC reported recently that there are a “record number of millionaires living in the U.S.,” an estimated 10.4 million of them, if one counts by assets and does not include the value of one’s primary residence.
Find the government’s Consumer Price Index (thank you, Google) and figure out what your annual salary for your first job out of school is in today’s dollars. You will be shocked.
June 7th, 2016 at 13:25
A friend of mine made a serious effort to try to run for Congress. He got the paperwork and put together a team and hired a consultant to lay out what he needed. First thing, according to the consultant, is that you need $1 MM to start a serious campaign. He went on to explain that this would not be enough to win the election, but it was enough for donors to take him seriously.
As someone else pointed out, there aren’t 2 parties; there’s only one and none of us peons are invited.