It pays big to be a Congressional democrat:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) saw her net worth rise 62 percent last year, cementing her status as one of the wealthiest members of Congress.
Pelosi was worth at least $35.2 million in the 2010 calendar year, according to a financial disclosure report released Wednesday. She reported a minimum of $43.4 million in assets and about $8.2 milion in liabilities.
For 2009, Pelosi reported a minimum net worth of $21.7 million.
~~~~
Forms disclosing the assets and liabilities of lawmakers for the 2010 calendar year were released Wednesday. The forms give a good estimate of lawmaker wealth, though they show ranges and not precise values for stocks, pension plans, vacation homes and other assets of lawmakers.
Pelosi saw her wealth rise due to some stock gains and real estate investments made by her husband, Paul.
Apple stock owned by Pelosi’s spouse rose from at least $500,000 in 2009 to $1 million in 2010. The minority leader’s husband also took a bigger stake in Matthews International Capital Management — worth at least $5 million last year, compared to $1 million in 2009 — and his investment in some undeveloped residential real estate in Sacramento, Calif., jumped to at least $5 million in value.
George Soros isn’t the only one having a very good crisis.
And did you know that insider trading is legal for members of Congress?
This former SEC Comissioner explained that there is no policy regarding Congressional insider trading for a reason that really surprised me: “there’s no legal definition of ‘insider trading.'”
This is why people fight so hard and spend so much to get into Congress. It’s worth it.
And you never want a good crisis to go to waste, right?
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Why single out Pelosi, drJ? As I pointed out in my post back on May 26th, the Dems have made hands over fist in cash with insider trading and legislative policies over the decades via a recently released study.
Something special about Pelosi and her hubby, and their Chinese connections I’m missing? Are you under the assumption that Pelosi is up for re’election in her district, and can lose? Hint… she won quite handily this past midterms.
Reading your article really makes me sick. I cannot believe that insider trading is legal for them but not for us..This whole washington thing is just so dirty and no matter what they say it just gets worse everyday..These people are worth so much money they have no clu what the average person goes thru everyday……
Here in lies the problem. The foxes have the key to the hen house. Or the Golden Rule, those that have the Gold, makes the Rules.
Indeed, UpChuck… unfortunately, tho the Dems may be ahead in “those that have the gold”, unfortunately, the GOP in the Congress are not far behind. Read the study in my link above, and you’ll see what I mean. It’s a Congress problem. Not necessarily confined to a Dem problem. And definitely not only Pelosi.
Where’s the part that explains how the 62% increase in the Pelosis’ net worth resulted from insider trading? I assume I’m supposed to conclude that their new wealth was somehow ill-gotten. Unless there’s been some big philosophical turn around, and wealth itself is now a reason for suspicion.
There’s probably no point mentioning that most of those having the sort of wealth the Pelosis possess have been doing quite well during the recession. World’s rich got richer amid ’09 recession: report
At least Pelosi advocates higher tax rates for people such as herself.
So why don’t you go back and read the study that I posted about late May, instead of asking johnnie-come-lately questions, Greg. I figure this latest Pelosi “gotcha” headline is nothing more than the specific results of that study, narrowed down to the individual Congress person included in that study.
If you want to get a real clear pick on how widespread the problem is… and most especially in your party… go read.
@MataHarley, #6:
I just did. My compliments on a solid and well-written article.
Has anyone tried to zero in on the precise nature of the insider information? Do members of Congress just have the advantage of a high-ground vantage point, for example, or is it generally worse than that? Insider info being regularly being “let slip” in return for preferential access and treatment?
So while the California real estate market continues to tank, Pelosi’s husband is making a killing in it? How does that work? Did he go to the Harry Reid School of Inside Real Estate Deals?
@Greg:
I, for one, believe that it is much more than just the “advantage of a high-ground vantage point”, as well as believing that it is more than just democrats in congress who benefit greatly from the laws passed.
Close scrutiny of the situation reveals that action relating to a particular market, whether it’s more intrusive and controlling legislation, or the opposite, sets up a situation where those in congress know ahead what is coming, and plan accordingly with their own investments, in order to benefit from it. It isn’t just a product of democrats instituting tighter and tighter controls upon a market. The opposite sends the congress critters running to change-up their investments as well. Only non-action by the government within the marketplace entire could ensure no “insider trading”, or the trading of knowledge of impending legislation for favors, from happening.
@MataHarley: Well, I do have a bit of an interest in Madam Pelosi seeing as, in theory, she’s one of my states representatives. Not to mention that I don’t know how someone that has the appearance of a halfwit can have so much $$$. Of course maybe she married it.
Have the same problem here, UpChuck, with Ron Wyden and David Wu. Can’t seem to get rid of them. ’tisn’t likely you get rid of Pelosi either in your district.
Pelosi and her hubby have considerable wealth. And most politicos that I’ve observed are both half wits and nerds/geeks that would be relatively worthless in most other careers. Not surprising. I read an article about Weiner quite a few days ago that said he really has no place to go… no financial skills, no particular skills of any kind. If this guy weren’t living on the taxpayers’ payroll, he’d be lucky to be employed at all.
That Congerssional members – both parties – bennied from the bailout to financials, over the past years, and by having inside knowledge as to how their legislation may affect their business contracts and futures, isn’t particularly suprising. However the extent of what Congressional members benefit from their Wall Street stock plays, compared to the average non political investor, is enough to seriously raise eyebrows.
@retire05, #8:
They might have done very well investing in commercial real estate, which quickly bounced back from its lows in some areas. I also remember people saying in the midst of the 2009 crash hysteria that the DJIA low point was the buying opportunity of a lifetime. They were right.
@MataHarley:
Sounds like the perfect resume for MSNBC. I’m sure he can get a show, or at least a regular guest spot selling his snake-oil.
This is the same Pelosi who does not allow her employees to enjoy the benefits of being unionised?
@UpChuck.Liberals:
@Greg: What? No lecture about Pelosi being one of those evil rich people??
Who’s the party of the rich again?
In a normal world, the media would be all over this.
@MataHarley:
Did I say that? Can you please show me where I said that?
You really don’t need to keep telling people what they are thinking.
I point out Pelosi because I find her representative of the cancer that Congress has become, and because I detest her.
@ Greg
I don’t want to sound flippant here Greg, but are you serious? Members of congress have all sorts of advisors that tell them exactly what the fall0ut of their legislation will be. For instance, let’s say you know for a certainty that a piece of legislation is going to pass and the president is going to sign it, something like…banning the use of incandescent light bulbs. With the passing of this legislation, the consumer will be forced to buy other types of light bulbs. You invest your money with a corporation that just so happens to be on the cutting edge of alternative lighting long before anyone else even knows that freight train is coming. You come in on the ground floor, watch the stock price go up, sell when you get the profits you want and move on to the next legislative gold mine. And here you thought conservatives were greedy.
@drjohn:
Dr. J…Mata was asking you a question, not telling you what you were thinking.
Not so much related to this article, in particular, but definitely related to her district she represents:
Any bets on which side Pelosi is on?
From the same article;
Is this what we have to look forward to, if Obamacare continues to be allowed to be implemented?
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/18/BA791JUFU5.DTL#ixzz1PpFJ0NBC
@Aye:
Absent past experience I might agree with you, but I respect your opinion.
And don’t forget about the growth in the wealth of many long-term Republican Congress-people. If your readers haven’t guessed by now we’re ruled by an aristocracy–regardless of the side of the aisle in charge. The only chance we have is for the people–both left-leaning and right-leaning–to lay away their ideological mythologies, distil everything down to the truth, and demand such of their rulers.
drj, the whole thing was, indeed, a question. And not necessarily just to you but rhetorical in general. When the headlines started flying on the news, and I had read the news article, I smelled a rat. In light of that study a few weeks ago on the House members… was why did the news hounds decided to zero in on Pelosi? What stands out about her and hubby, since we’ve had many a story on her and her employees, unions, etal before, and it goes in one ear and out the other.
Is this going to affect any upcoming election? Nope. In fact, would this news make her progressive district less enthralled with her for her next election cycle? Nope.
I just consider this type of journalism another form of distraction. Not directing that at you specifically, since you just posted on the news headline of the day. I just think the story is different than the headline. It’s just too convenient that, with a report released (and pretty much ignored) just a couple of weeks ago about the unnatural stock profits of the elected ones, no one points fingers at the members who are facing an election coming up.
On the other hand, if they can keep the focus on Pelosi – who can easily deflect the criticism and remain in power – she acts as a human shield for others doing the same and in jeopardy for the campaign season. So my opinion is that this piece is just an orchestrated political strategy by liberals to protect their more vunerable members.
My apologies if you decided this was a personal snipe at you. Your particular post here was pretty much the capper in a round of hushed headlines about a predictable Pelosi financial position of privilege. Straw man, or straw woman, is what comes to mind in this case. Thus my question… why single out Pelosi? What on earth does this accomplish, when she’s survived far more negative news about her finances, and quite easily?
The answer is, nothing. But it does keep you looking at her, and not at those up for election.
@Liberal1 (objectivity), as the study showed, both sides of the aisle made eyebrow raising higher profits on their stocks that was related to their legislative power and benefit of information not available to the average investor. However the weight of those making that cash was noticably more Democrats and Republicans. This is likely because of the length of time, over decades, that the Dems have held power in the chambers.
But I do agree that holding our elected officials feet to the fire… both sides… in these times of economic vunerability is essential.
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
So when, precisely, do you plan to incorporate this approach into your own political philosophy and commentary?
Seems you’re being more than a bit hypocritical in calling for our politicians to be honest when you’ve demonstrated an consistent inability to do what you yourself are calling for.
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
An entirely agreeable statement there, Liberal1. The only problem is that the “truth”, as seen by conservatives and liberals, can be quite different, and is usually touted in adamant style, even when presented with undeniable evidence to the contrary.
As Mata has stated, this story is simply one that guides people’s awareness away from the real truth of the matter.
@anticsrocks, #15:
I’m sure Pelosi and her husband have benefited enormously from the Bush tax cuts. No doubt they’re in as much need of another high-end cut as any republican multi-millionaire, and every bit as deserving.
@Greg:
You seem to be missing the forest for one small, insignificant shrub, Greg. Sure, Pelosi and her husband benefited from those tax cuts, but it is such a small amount that it isn’t even noteworthy when compared to the increased personal wealth increases they have seen. While a difference of likely tens of thousands to the low hundred thousands range was probably seen as a result of the tax cuts, her personal wealth grew by nearly $14 million in the period from 2009 to 2010. As I stated, insignificant.
The bigger issue, and it doesn’t just involve her, alone, is the fact that those in congress benefit from great foresight on impending legislation, and thus, have “insider” information regarding their investments, compared to the average investor’s knowledge. This is an issue that must be addressed, for the possibility of abuse, that of say, effecting a marketplace for the purpose of helping one’s investments, or for the voting on legislation based on one’s own investments, rather than the concerns of one’s constituents, are definite possibilities. Along with, of course, the trading of this “insider” info for future favors, campaign donations, legislation support, etc. The fact that it isn’t just attributed to one side or the other makes it one that all voters should be concerned with, no matter what their personal ideology or views may be.
I would say ANYONE who had the smarts,the guts and the good luck to buy the S@P 500 in late 2009 would have increased their net worth substantially in ensuing 12-18 months.Smart dart throwing monkey wouldn’t have hurt. Buying late 2008 would have been even more fortuitous.
R.E. values fairly flat 2010 after precipitous decline of 2006-2009. As Greg states possible improved commercial market in S.F. area 2010.
As Mata mentioned going after Pelosi seems a waste of time and energy.
@johngalt, #27:
In Congress we’ve essentially got an assembly of millionaires determining what tax rates should apply to millionaires. That’s not another aspect of the same conflict of interest issue?
@rich wheeler:
I believe you are downplaying the real issue at stake here, Rich. That of congress critters owning “inside” information on the various markets that they pass legislation for, and benefiting by changing their investments to reflect the probable changes in the marketplaces themselves, above and beyond what the average investor knows. Simply attributing Pelosi’s, or any congress member’s, increase in personal wealth that is much, much greater than an average investor’s, over that period of time, to the stock markets themselves, is giving them a pass they do not deserve.
Mata may have stated something to the effect of what you stated in your last sentence, however, it is meant more as being only one small part of a much larger story, than in dismissing it entirely.
@Greg:
It very well could be. The issue is that congress seems to be a gathering place of some of the worst cheats and low-lifes in our society today. Not all, certainly, but a very large number of them. One has to wonder why the desire to spend millions, in order to gain a job paying in the upper hundred thousand dollar range, is enticing, if not for the perks of the job. One of those “perks” is merely hinted at here, with the foreknowledge of certain legislation affecting certain markets.
There will always be conflict of interest within congress on nearly every piece of legislation that comes about. The only solution, at this point, is to vote in, or keep in, those that one believes is honest. Unfortunately, with all of the special interest groups that descend upon them, and the voters being, overall, rather stupid, too many slime-balls are kept in congress well beyond their expiration date.
@rich wheeler, apparently you didn’t read that study from my late May post in my first comment on this thread.
No one is denying that prudent investment, most especially in the financials who were in a win win free money situation, would have gained. That’s not the point of the study.
The real point was that the Congressional members gains were significantly higher than what an investor, not privvy to their power and inside knowledge, did. The most recent study was on House members, but a similar study was done on Senators a few years earlier, who fared even better than their House peers.
As both johngalt and I state, they have an edge in stocks and Wall Street over the common peon in life, and this power is questionable in more ways than just ethics.
Mata I kinda like your suggestion that Dems are smart enough to put up smokescreens like Pelosi.or “act” concerned about viability of Romney or Trump.Opposite on Palin.Kinda reminds of the great scene in “The Princess Bride” or Mad Mag’s “spy vs spy” Good stuff.
BTW IF DrJ suggesting BHO’S golfing buddy Boehner in same bed as Pelosi then no harm no foul.Roast em all or leave em alone.
@rich wheeler:
Nah. She’s detestable.
Our government is a stacked deck. Period. They are the winners we are the losers.
“At least Pelosi advocates higher tax rates for people such as herself”
When you are a multi-millionaire and you vacation with you and your friends on Air Force planes, pretty easy to pay a higher tax. Or how about that super health care plan provided by the government?
Anyone on this board have that luxury?
What a joke….