Recess or Recession: A Look at Congressional Wealth
by Jocelyn Rossell on Oct 29, 2014 | Views: 154 | Score: 0
| Senate | House of Representatives | Republican | Democrat | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 1.5 | 0.649504 | 0.9343024 | 0.646003 |
| 2005 | 1.7 | 0.662256 | 0.954868 | 0.668507 |
| 2006 | 1.6 | 0.7175 | 0.967261 | 0.7175 |
| 2007 | 2.2 | 0.710756 | 0.982045 | 0.747273 |
| 2008 | 1.9 | 0.698002 | 0.984693 | 0.767514 |
| 2009 | 2.4 | 0.736006 | 0.845056 | 0.857008 |
| 2010 | 2.6 | 0.746002 | 0.881786 | 0.862508 |
$ (millions)
Sources:
washingtonpost.com
Share:
Clearly, the Senate is doing something right as they have three times the wealth of their House counterparts. Since 2004, the Senate wealth has increased 70%, while the House only 15%. While the recession of 2008 mildly hurt the House and sharply increased the Senate, the parties lessened in economic disparity. Republicans, once making nearly double that of the Democrats, are now nearly equal. The recession hurt the Republicans while growing the Democratic wealth.
This is less about the recession and more about who gets elected. We are becoming more and more of a plutocracy as wealthier and wealthier people win the elections, beating out the poorer candidates, even incumbents.
Well more importantly, is this measure of wealth before they are elected or after?? Also if you are a candidate who is willing to be controlled by EITHER party, you GET the party's money. You certainly do NOT need your own wealth. If you are willing to cooperate the "money will come" as they will tell you.
The answer is who do BOTH parties serve? The LOBBYISTS, sadly that is true for the most part. NOT all, but most.
Learn how to take back all now SIX levels of government! Find out there is NO difference. Take a class from www.CenterForSelfGovernance.c… in one of 18 states near you.This is the MOST important training I have had since Medical School and Residency!