Check this out -- it's a list of the net worth of every US House Representative. Quite interesting indeed!!!
Two things to note as you look at the list:
- There's wiggle room. When members of the House file their financial disclosure, they are only required to report approximately how much they have/owe in each account. For example, in a savings account, they can report that they have between $15k-$50k, or between $50k-100k, etc. Same for their liabilities. As you can imagine, things could become skewed rather quickly. That said, these numbers at least need to be in the ballpark, right?
- The numbers used are MINIMUM net worths. So the actuals are higher -- just how much higher, we don't know.
Anyway, here are some things I found interesting about the 435 Representatives:
- 125 are millionaires (have a net worth of $1 million or more.) This is 29% of the total.
- 29 have negative net worths (less than zero). Another 38 have net worths of $20k to $1k. In all, 15% have net worths less than $20k.
- The median net worth is $380k.
- 222 (over half of the 435 Representatives) have liabilities of "$0". 26 have liabilities of $1 million or more.
- 11 have assets of "$0" and another 15 have assets of $10k or less.
- Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has assets of $25 million, liabilities of $13 million and a net worth of $13 million (numbers off a bit due to rounding).
- Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has assets of $148k, liabilities of $0 and a net worth of $148k.
- Minority Leader John Boehner has assets of $1.7 million, liabilities of $0 and a net worth of $1.7 million.
- The highest net worth goes to Darrell Issa (R-California) with a net worth of almost $165 million.
- The lowest net worth goes to Alcee Hastings (D-Florida) with a net worth of NEGATIVE $2 million.
It's enlightening to see what these folks are doing with their own money since it gives us some insight into how they are managing our (tax) money.
See anything that you found especially interesting?
One of the red flags for Obama was his low net worth based on his total income. You can see the guy doesn't have an idea on how to save- so why do you want this person pushing for policy decisions that effect the fiscal health of the USA?
-Mike
Posted by: Mike Hunt | December 16, 2009 at 09:19 AM
I guess I would worry more if they all (including Obama) were multimillionaires. Running for public office as well as serving in the congress is spendy, and they have to pay for much of it themselves:
- Most of them have to rent/buy a 2nd residence in Washington in addition to maintaining a home where their families live in their home states.
- if their families visit them in Washington, they have to pay for their travel themselves.
- If you're on TV all the time or speaking at events, you need a large wardrobe and one that looks sharp and isn't purchased at Walmart. And those threads don't come cheap! (Remember the Palin wardrobe-gate?)
- I also suspect that at least some of them are clever enough to have transferred much of their assets to various family members, foundations, PACs, or holding companies, in order to avoid taxes and disclosure laws. We're talking about high-powered lawyers and politicians here, not Joe Blow who runs a bakery.
Posted by: MC | December 16, 2009 at 09:40 AM
This is really interesting information - and what an insight;)
What else do we know about Alcee Hastings to explain this particular news?
Posted by: Claire at Saving Money Plan | December 16, 2009 at 09:45 AM
Claire --
Click the link with his name -- it provides some insights.
Posted by: FMF | December 16, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Very interesting indeed. Didn't know they published net worth.
My favorite is when they release tax information. It's always interesting to see how much people have given over their lives. If you're a politician and you know that people have access to your tax records, how cheap do you have to be to not donate to charity?
Posted by: RJWeiss | December 16, 2009 at 11:04 AM
@ Mike... I don't see Obama listed... Where do you see that?
Posted by: billyjobob | December 16, 2009 at 11:45 AM
RJWeiss, it's not exactly "how much people have given", but how much they've itemized. Not everyone itemizes because it doesn't always end up saving you money (though if you make as much as most Congress members and you give even a smallish percentage, you should probably itemize.)
What I found interesting was that, sorting by net worth, there's over a page with negative net worths. Five of them are Republicans, and 24 are Democrats. The rest of the chart has a pretty good mix; the only place where you see one party really overrepresented is in the negatives. I'd be interested to learn the story behind that. Are Democrat politicians really more likely to have really awful finances, or is it just an anomaly due to the way the stats are reported (they don't include the value of one's home)? Do we really trust politicians with negative net worths to set budgets for the entire nation?
Posted by: LotharBot | December 16, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Very interesting and very scary! I don't think I like having representatives that can't run their personal lives responsible, running the government for us! I wonder how this aggregate of representatives compares to past ones, on a net worth basis...
Thanks for the great stats. I really enjoy reading numbers like these.
Posted by: MoneyReasons | December 16, 2009 at 12:06 PM
@ billyjobob
Obama was on the list last year.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php
Posted by: TXCPA | December 16, 2009 at 02:05 PM
It's actually facinating to see that those that make the laws that govern our pension contributions, Social Security and the like have their own plans that exclude the everyday public like you and I. So, while they are making the rules for us, they are unaffected by the outcome. Talk about taking care of their own...
Posted by: Neal A. Deutsch, CFP | December 16, 2009 at 04:01 PM
I'm surprised that so few are millionaires. But I also doubt this is a full picture of their real finances. Maybe its similar to the net worth of doctors who, as a group, don't seem to accumulate wealth as much.
I don't think someones finances are much of an indication at all of whether or not they are going to be a good politician. A lot of the wealthy folks just inherited their money. A number of the less wealthy are likely younger or simply sitting on a couple underwater homes like a large % of Americans.
Posted by: Jim | December 16, 2009 at 07:14 PM
Look at Ron Paul & Barney Frank- their net worth is listed as $1000 USD. Surely this is missing information. And I can't find Chris Dodd on the list.
I'd expect that more than 50% of these guys are millionaires.
Still, it is interesting that these representatives are so beholden to the investment banks of wall street and you have guys like Henry Paulson who made $500 million at Goldman Sachs running the treasury and bullying these guys around. From this disclosure many of these people are not so well off.
However I think the data is incomplete. Not sure why some people declare everything and others do not.
-Mike
Posted by: Mike Hunt | December 16, 2009 at 07:53 PM
Mike --
Chris Dodd is a senator. This info is for Representatives.
Posted by: FMF | December 17, 2009 at 07:56 AM
Mike, the #'s listed are in thousands of $'s. So when it says Barney Frank has $1054 that really means $1,054,000 or about $1M. He's a millionaire.
Posted by: Jim | December 18, 2009 at 06:09 PM
What would be more useful is to identify what they began with, and what they have now.
If the only difference is being elected, one may presume that it is potentially taxpayer money, or conduit money to receive taxpayer money that is the source.
Posted by: Pat | January 06, 2010 at 09:40 AM
I have a request but do not know if you can supply it. If you are not can you tell me where I can get this information.
I want to get a list of every politician in the Senate and House as to what they are worth.
Posted by: James Tompkins | August 02, 2010 at 08:37 PM
James --
Try Google.
Posted by: FMF | August 03, 2010 at 08:01 AM
Anyone got a link for the Senate? I find list of top and bottom 25, but no 100.
If they can print 435 House members, wutz the problem w/ 100 Senators?
Arn Nelson (On the Democrat-occupied west Bank of Lake Michigan (IL 9th CD, repped by Nancy Pelosi's evil twin, Jan Schakowsky))
Posted by: Arnold H Nelson | January 01, 2011 at 01:19 PM
I would like to know how,we the poeple can cut the house members pay and retirement? After all we are all in this together. How much money do the members pay towards their retirement?
Posted by: Robert Whitehead | April 05, 2011 at 12:54 PM
I think it would be nice if the members,would start to work for the people,instead of big companies and themselves
Posted by: Robert Whitehead | April 05, 2011 at 01:00 PM