EAT THE RICH... CONGRESSMEN

Many political philosophers-- lol; like probably every single one of 'em-- worried that in a "democracy," the "rabble," by sheer weight of numbers, would trample on the rights of the propertied classes. "Safeguards" to prevent anything of the kind from happening, were always discussed and then always put in place in all bourgeois democracies (or republics), our own included; our own especially. The rights of the rich and privileged HAD to be protected from the masses. Right into the 1900s U.S. Senators were appointed, not elected, and their body was thought to be kind of an Americanized version of the House of Lords, at least by some, a check on any populist tendencies of a "too democratic" House of Representatives. Far from being trampled upon, the rights of the propertied classes have become so sacrosanct than even a hint of a discussion of economic "fairness" is met with wild-eyed hysteria marking the hinter as un-American, un-patriotic, anti-God, Communist, gay, etc. And instead of a legislature filled with congressmen and senators coming from the masses of working and middle-class Americans, we have a legislature filled, over-filled, with multi-millionaires, millionaires, with just a smattering of average-income middle class people. Normally about half the senators are millionaires, which ranges from people with assets over $100 million (like John Kerry, Herb Kohl, Jay Rockefeller and probably Bill Frist-- they all lie fudge big time when it comes to reporting) to a few with barely over a million (like Grassley, the Florida Nelson, Landrieu, Hatch, Boxer, Cantwell, Stevens, Carper, Brownback, Reid). Assets are different from annual income. Every member of Congress is paid a salary of $154,700 (and members of the leadership get $171,900 each) and each is the recipient of a truly generous, even royal retirement and health benefits package; all this puts them in a financial situation considerably higher than their constituents. Only 10 U.S. senators reported a net worth of under $100,000.

Jonathan Salant of Common Dreams pointed out after the 2004 elections that about half the incoming members of Congress were millionaires and that "many will face votes that could affect their financial holdings." A large number, for example, held significant interests in banking and credit card companies (as they prepared to vote of a bankruptcy bill they made those holdings worth a lot more-- at the expense of less well-off constituents). Same went for the pharmaceutical and energy industries, each of which benefited mightily from aggressively-generous legislation (written, for the most part, by their own paid lobbyists!), at the expense of average American workers and consumers. Salant pointed out that "watchdog groups often cite the economic inequity between many members of Congress and the people they represent. They say wealth makes lawmakers more apt to think about their financial interests than what's best for their constituents."

The specific conflicts of interest are too numerous to count-- and many wealthy congressmen are either out-and-out liars or seriously delusional about the issue, as we recently witnessed in the case of one of the biggest offenders "Dollar" Bill Frist, the Senate Majority Leader who helped fashion medical legislation that made his already wealthy family into BILLIONAIRES. And although Frist was clumsy, greedy-beyond-reason, outrageous and arrogant enough to think he couldn't get caught-- and will probably wind up in prison-- other members of Congress are more... subtle. Republican Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona owns Liberty Petroleum and claims his business interests don't affect his votes. "There's every desire on my part to do what's best for the country and for the people I represent, regardless of any implication it has upon my business," said Franks, who would need to represent a district of multi-millionaires for that statement to even approach objective truth. Not to mention the fact that the very wealthy and those who aren't, often have divergent opinions on "what's best for the country," usually seen through the sort of economic prism that allows Franks to vote for legislation that enriches him and the 1% of Americans the policies he backs are actually good for, while further impoverishing the lives of the vast majority of Americans.

Another right-wing Republican from the Greed and Selfishness wing of the GOP, New Hampshire's Jeb Bradley obfuscates enough so that the closest one can come to guessing his net worth is to say more than a million but not over $5 million. "I don't believe you can, as a member of Congress, use your influence to benefit yourself," Bradley said. "What you try to do is set the stage for the economy to benefit. That's why you enter into public service, to improve, as you perceive it, the lot of your constituents." Is he naive? Retarded? A bold-faced liar? A little of each? Has he met "Dollar" Bill Frist? (Even if he hasn't, we do know he met Tom DeLay, who funneled many thousands of tainted dollars into Bradley's campaign coffers. After DeLay was indicted for money laundering and conspiracy, Bradley, facing tough re-election prospects, returned $15,000 of corrupt money to DeLay.)

About 50% of the legislators are millionaires, as opposed to about 1% of Americans. The concerns of ordinary Americans are not shared, at least not viscerally, with their legislators. (Examples, according to a Pew poll last December 86% of Americans think the minimum wage law should be raised and 65% think there should be government backed universal health insurance even if taxes have to rise. (Even the CEO of one of the country's worst labor exploiters, WalMart, is asking Congress to raise the minimum wage.) Obviously neither of these overwhelmingly popular ideas is going anywhere in a Congress of the rich and for the rich.

Wealthy congressmen have their rap down pat about how beneficial it is to have "successful, talented business people" serving in Congress. "You want people who have good judgment and have the courage to stand up for what they believe in," said Maryland Representative C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger. "If people have done well, that means they're successful. Maybe that's part of leadership." Or maybe it's part of cronyism or inheritance or shady business practices or lucky breaks... could be a lot of things. And it is a lot of things.

I remember how shocked I was during the run up to the coronation of John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court when a couple of CNN talking heads decided to "analyze" his stock portfolio. They didn't analyze anything; they merely pointed out that it was "a typical American middle class $10,000,000 stock portfolio." There was no sense of irony in anyone's voice; nor was their an ironic smile playing on anyone's lips. This was, in their minds, a straight forward statement of fact: "a typical American middle class $10,000,000 stock portfolio". Do they live in a different America from the one I live in? Actually... the chattering class and the political class do.

One of the biggest yaps on the Far Right, just under Ann Coulter in terms of sheer loathsomeness-- a slick-talking apologist for the rich and powerful-- is Michael Medved. "If we agree that it would be ridiculous to discriminate against candidates because of their educational achievements," he oozes, ever so unctuously, "then why should we discount them because of their financial achievements? Do we honestly believe that earning a university degree provides a more reliable indication of talent and leadership ability than accumulating a personal net worth of more than a million dollars?" Uriah Heep Michael Medved says it would be hard for him "to imagine a middle-aged American who's achieved the sort of conspicuous success in any field that might make him an attractive congressional candidate not coming close to that million dollar net worth – unless he's made the sort of ill-considered investments that might lead to questions about his wisdom and maturity." (Not that I want anyone to think that I'm taking Medved's nonsense seriously, but I would like to point out that wise and mature and rightist Judge Roberts' single biggest investment was in AOLTimeWarner stock, which has been catastrophic, trading right now at between $17 and $18/share after having reached a high of around $100, when it was being touted by Wall Street shills and stuffed into every average American portfolio.)

A classic battle along these lines is brewing in Vermont, where proud independent socialist, Bernie Sanders is looking to jump from his House seat to an open Senate seat, a Senate seat that a Vermont multi-millionaire, Rich Tarrant wants to buy for himself. Campaign fundraising laws, written by wealthy people to favor wealthy people, are, of course, stacked in Rich Tarrant's favor. According to an A.P. article on the race "Campaign finance filings show that Sanders has received donations this year from more than 100 times as many Vermonters as sent money to Tarrant... Sanders (who refuses to take corporate PAC money, also known as BRIBES) gets lots of relatively small, individual donations." Rich Tarrant has gotten far fewer donations, but almost all are for the maximum amount permitted. Sander's average donation is under $55; Rich Tarrant's average-- not counting his own massive donation; he claims he is willing to spend $5 million of his own to get the seat-- is $1,890.