PJ: This caught my eye and I thought you might enjoy learning a bit more about those noble "public servants" (as they love to call themselves) that represent the 99%. It appears that they are actually in the 1%. (Note: these particular one-percenters are not even in the 'job creators' category that Congress often cites.) Kind of reminds me a of the time in history when the Lords of England (probably equating to less than 1%) held power and had privilege while holding power over the masses who struggled to feed their families and pay their taxes that supported...the 1%. It also smacks of the inequality that exists in today's third world countries where the rich and powerful maintain their wealth and power largely due to privileges given them by laws and tax structure.
I must add that I am not against those individuals who provide needed and wanted services and get rich in the process. I admire people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and applaud their success. They will, rightfully, always be in the 1% and will live well as they have earned the right to do. These people, and there are many more, know that they have earned economic privilege and are working to help others do the same. Bill Gates, while at Microsoft, was indeed a 'job creator' and a creative business man. He has also shown that he is a member of the world community and wants to pay his fair share and help others where he can (see the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx).
I am however saddened by unchecked greed that contributed to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, greed that allows for the top executives to skim off the cream of earnings while refusing to expand their work force or in some cases liberally reducing that work force (take a look at the statistics: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/14/executive-pay-increase-america-ceos?CMP=twt_gu). I understand that wealth can create more wealth simply because they have the means that allows them to do so but I continue to be appalled that their economic stature gives them the legal and political ability to be dismissed from contributing to the society that made them wealthy in the first place (see GE's tax contribution for 2010: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=all).
The Washington Post
Growing wealth widens distance between lawmakers and constituents
By Peter Whoriskey
BUTLER, Pa. — One day after his shift at the steel mill, Gary Myers drove home in his 10-year-old Pontiac and told his wife he was going to run for Congress.
The odds were long. At 34, Myers was the shift foreman at the “hot mill” of the Armco plant here. He had no political experience and little or no money, and he was a Republican in a district that tilted Democratic.
But standing in the dining room, still in his work clothes, he said he felt voters deserved a better choice.
Three years later, he won.
When Myers entered Congress, in 1975, it wasn’t nearly so unusual for a person with few assets besides a home to win and serve in Congress. Though lawmakers on Capitol Hill have long been more prosperous than other Americans, others of that time included a barber, a pipe fitter and a house painter. A handful had even organized into what was called the “Blue Collar Caucus.”
But the financial gap between Americans and their representatives in Congress has widened considerably since then, according to an analysis of financial disclosures by The Washington Post.
Between 1984 and 2009, the median net worth of a member of the House more than doubled, according to the analysis of financial disclosures, from $280,000 to $725,000 in inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars, excluding home equity.
Over the same period, the wealth of an American family has declined slightly, with the comparable median figure sliding from $20,600 to $20,500, according to the Panel Study of Income Dynamics from the University of Michigan.
The comparisons exclude home equity because it is not included in congressional reporting, and 1984 was chosen because it is the earliest year for which consistent wealth statistics are available.
The growing disparity between the representatives and the represented means that there is a greater distance between the economic experience of Americans and those of lawmakers.
“My mother and I used to joke we were like the Beverly Hillbillies when we rolled into McLean, and we really were,” said Michele Myers, the congressman’s daughter, now 46. “My dad was driving this awful lime-green Ford Maverick, and I bought my clothes at Kmart.”
Today, this area of Pennsylvania just north of Pittsburgh is represented in Congress by another Republican, Mike Kelly, a wealthy car dealer elected for the first time in 2010. Kelly, as it happens, grew up just a few houses down the street from the Myers family, in a larger brick home.
Kelly’s dad owned the local Chevrolet-Cadillac dealership in Butler, and Kelly, an affable former football recruit to Notre Dame, had worked there since he was a kid. Three years after graduating from college, he married Victoria Phillips, an heir to the Phillips oil fortune. He eventually bought and took control of the family car business, and today, the net worth of Kelly and his wife runs in the millions of dollars, according to financial disclosure forms.
Both men refer to their personal life experiences in explaining their political outlook.
Myers, the son of a bricklayer, had worked his way through college to a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, and he looked at issues of work and security at least partly through the lens of his own experience. For example, he bucked other Republicans to vote to raise the minimum wage and favored expanding a program to aid workers affected by foreign imports. He said he understood the need for what was then called “the safety net.”
For the rest of this article please go to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/growing-wealth-widens-distance-between-lawmakers-and-constituents/2011/12/05/gIQAR7D6IP_story.html?hpid=z1
No comments:
Post a Comment