24% of US Congress had negative net worth in 2013?

[CletusMcGee]

The Washington Post had a link to the site below today. According to their findings, nearly a quarter of the US Congress had a negative net worth in 2013! 

http://media.cq.com/50Richest/

The irony here being that quite a few of those in the red are always harping about 'fiscal responsibility' while simultaneously drowning in debt.  I guess cognitive dissonance only affects some people.

[Chris22]

On one hand, they're stupid.

On the other, they do have the drag of having to maintain two separate households, at least one in a very high cost of living area.


And, the trump card, I believe if you serve one single day in Congress, you're eligible for a gold-plated pension (and healthcare) plan for life.  If you're getting guaranteed cash every 2 weeks forever, why would you bother saving?  I've long thought it would be fun to try to go get elected from some podunk district somewhere for a single term, just to get that pension. 

[Travis]

On one hand, they're stupid.

On the other, they do have the drag of having to maintain two separate households, at least one in a very high cost of living area.


And, the trump card, I believe if you serve one single day in Congress, you're eligible for a gold-plated pension (and healthcare) plan for life.  If you're getting guaranteed cash every 2 weeks forever, why would you bother saving?  I've long thought it would be fun to try to go get elected from some podunk district somewhere for a single term, just to get that pension.

That's an often-touted urban legend.  Congress receives the same retirement package that other Federal employees pay into.  It has a 5-year vesting period.

http://www.opm.gov/retirement-services/fers-information/

[Retired To Win]

Getting elected to public office does not necessarily indicate mental acuity (unfortunately).

[Chris22]

On one hand, they're stupid.

On the other, they do have the drag of having to maintain two separate households, at least one in a very high cost of living area.


And, the trump card, I believe if you serve one single day in Congress, you're eligible for a gold-plated pension (and healthcare) plan for life.  If you're getting guaranteed cash every 2 weeks forever, why would you bother saving?  I've long thought it would be fun to try to go get elected from some podunk district somewhere for a single term, just to get that pension.

That's an often-touted urban legend.  Congress receives the same retirement package that other Federal employees pay into.  It has a 5-year vesting period.

http://www.opm.gov/retirement-services/fers-information/

Yup, you're right, my bad.  But, overall point still stands, they do have a pension plan, which would incentivize not worrying about savings nearly as much.

[Travis]

Except that the system requires employee contributions, so without saving you're not going to see much of it.

Here's another source if you're interested.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30631.pdf

[Eric]

I'd say that net worth while in Congress is wholly irrelevant.  The real money is made after their term, when they can get handed a lucrative job on K Street, either for past actions or future lobbying efforts, or both.

[forummm]

On one hand, they're stupid.

On the other, they do have the drag of having to maintain two separate households, at least one in a very high cost of living area.


And, the trump card, I believe if you serve one single day in Congress, you're eligible for a gold-plated pension (and healthcare) plan for life.  If you're getting guaranteed cash every 2 weeks forever, why would you bother saving?  I've long thought it would be fun to try to go get elected from some podunk district somewhere for a single term, just to get that pension.

That's an often-touted urban legend.  Congress receives the same retirement package that other Federal employees pay into.  It has a 5-year vesting period.

http://www.opm.gov/retirement-services/fers-information/

And after those 5 years, you get a fraction of your salary. Congress gets 2.5% per year of service, whereas other non-congressional federal employees get 1%. And new members have to pay I think 5% of their income into the system to get a pension (a recent update to the law for all federal employees).

They also don't necessarily get healthcare when they quit either. They have to meet criteria to retire in the system to get that.

This report isn't quite right. In actuality, over half of them are millionaires. These numbers are dramatically underestimating the wealth of some of these guys. Some of them are more than double what is reported here as their "minimum assets". Just looking at the top, I know Issa, Rockefeller, and Warner all have double (or more) the number here. And the numbers at the bottom must be off too.

[frugalecon]

I'd say that net worth while in Congress is wholly irrelevant.  The real money is made after their term, when they can get handed a lucrative job on K Street, either for past actions or future lobbying efforts, or both.

This. Our system is repulsive. I live and work in DC, and I have observed this revolving door in action. It permits dimwits to cash in on even very meager accomplishments. Ugh.

[Travis]

I'd say that net worth while in Congress is wholly irrelevant.  The real money is made after their term, when they can get handed a lucrative job on K Street, either for past actions or future lobbying efforts, or both.

60 Minutes tried to pry into this a few years ago, but didn't get very far.  Of the richest 50 members of Congress, most married into it or were business leaders before getting into politics.  For the ones who did not, it's an interesting exercise to figure out how they maintained two households, one of which is in a very high COL city, and walk out with as much as they do.

http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.html

[firewalker]

Hey, give 'em a break. YOU try keeping a positive net worth on their income with three kids, two wives, an ex and a couple of blackmailers. It ain't an easy job!

[KungfuRabbit]

Hey, give 'em a break. YOU try keeping a positive net worth on their income with three kids, two wives, an ex and a couple of blackmailers. It ain't an easy job!

It's also hard to spend illegal cash bribes on useful stuff. So might as well blow it on hookers.

[rocketpj]

Congress people need to be thought of as comparable to students accumulating debt while in school for a better payoff later.

On average, a member of Congress gets a 1452% raise on leaving office and starting to collect on all the bribes "work as a lobbyist".

I wish I was just making that number up, but here is the report.

Unlike some other forms of money in politics, politicians never have to disclose job negotiations while in office, and never have to disclose how much they’re paid after leaving office. In many cases, these types of revolving door arrangements drastically shape the laws we all live under. - See more at: http://www.republicreport.org/2012/make-it-rain-revolving-door/#sthash.NPIjIIfI.dpuf

It would be a lot easier if the miscreants who did this were members of one or the other party, but sadly it's one of those core issues that unite the two parties.

[forummm]

On average, a member of Congress gets a 1452% raise on leaving office and starting to collect on all the bribes "work as a lobbyist".

I wish I was just making that number up, but here is the report.

"Starting to" and your strikethrough? What about all the campaign contributions and independent expenditures? Members are well-seasoned at collecting that cash.

Unlike some other forms of money in politics, politicians never have to disclose job negotiations while in office, and never have to disclose how much they’re paid after leaving office. In many cases, these types of revolving door arrangements drastically shape the laws we all live under. - See more at: http://www.republicreport.org/2012/make-it-rain-revolving-door/#sthash.NPIjIIfI.dpuf

It would be a lot easier if the miscreants who did this were members of one or the other party, but sadly it's one of those core issues that unite the two parties.

You have to get money out of the campaigns. And end the revolving door. It's absurd on it's face.

[wenchsenior]

On one hand, they're stupid.

On the other, they do have the drag of having to maintain two separate households, at least one in a very high cost of living area.


And, the trump card, I believe if you serve one single day in Congress, you're eligible for a gold-plated pension (and healthcare) plan for life.  If you're getting guaranteed cash every 2 weeks forever, why would you bother saving?  I've long thought it would be fun to try to go get elected from some podunk district somewhere for a single term, just to get that pension.

Oh, not this myth again! I swear, sometimes I feel like I need to carry cards with accurate info on them, to hand out to people who love to believe this. I'd like to believe this, too, to further my already intense hatred of congress. But for the last time, IT. IS. NOT. TRUE.

On topic, in general, senators tend to be fairly wealthy, and congresspeople tend to be...not. That's why many congresspeople sleep in their offices or share houses, dorm-style.

After they leave office and can lobby or whatever, is I think when many make their money.

[rocketpj]

After they leave office and can lobby or whatever, is I think when many make their money.

So you could think of Congress as a somewhat poorly paid internship for the big lobbying companies, defense contractors and others who make their money by subverting democracy.

[forummm]

After they leave office and can lobby or whatever, is I think when many make their money.

So you could think of Congress as a somewhat poorly paid internship for the big lobbying companies, defense contractors and others who make their money by subverting democracy.

$174k isn't that poorly paid. I'd love to make that much per year, even if I had to have 2 homes.

[NorCal]

For probably the first time in my life, I'm actually going to defend politicians in general here.  Maybe pigs will fly.

The nature of the job is one that requires some level of conspicuous consumption.  Restaurants with the right people, donations to the right causes, etc.  There's also maintaining homes in two places.  While pay is pretty good compared to national averages, it doesn't buy a lot in DC.

It's not personal finance decisions I would make, but I get it.

I also don't think there needs to be a strong connection between how one spends their personal money and their views on government dollars.  Working in finance, I see this all the time in the private sector.  The most financially conservative CFO I met drove a $150K Porsche.  Two of the most financially aggressive finance VP's I know drive a Leaf and a Mazda (respectively).

[forummm]

The nature of the job is one that requires some level of conspicuous consumption.  Restaurants with the right people, donations to the right causes, etc.  There's also maintaining homes in two places.  While pay is pretty good compared to national averages, it doesn't buy a lot in DC.

They pay for much of the meals and donations with campaign donations--i.e. not their money. They go on vacations, I mean fact finding missions, paid for by interest groups. If they keep 2 homes, they do have to pay for that. However, a lot of them don't keep a residence in their home district (and that becomes a campaign issue sometimes. And others keep their home in their district, but have a small apartment in DC that they share with another member. It's really not that much more expensive. All their flights are paid for by taxpayers as well.

[wenchsenior]

After they leave office and can lobby or whatever, is I think when many make their money.

So you could think of Congress as a somewhat poorly paid internship for the big lobbying companies, defense contractors and others who make their money by subverting democracy.

Heh! +1

[kkbmustang]

I just read through the entire list. And then the assumptions used to make it. Some observations:

Mortgages had to be disclosed, but the corresponding asset (home value) did not.

The assets/liabilities were disclosed in a range. In other words, more than $1 million, less than $5 million, etc.

In other words, not accurate.

[forummm]

I just read through the entire list. And then the assumptions used to make it. Some observations:

Mortgages had to be disclosed, but the corresponding asset (home value) did not.

The assets/liabilities were disclosed in a range. In other words, more than $1 million, less than $5 million, etc.

In other words, not accurate.

Yes. It dramatically underestimates their net worths. No one lends you $5 million without collateral. Unless they are trying to bribe you.

[forummm]

Additional perks

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/25/opinion/to-baku-and-back-with-freebies.html

[Bob W]

Compare that to China where the average equivalent of congress is a billionaire.     No need for subterfuge or revolving doors there --- just straight forward power and money.