The 50 Richest Members of Congress Might Surprise You

Recently, while taking my boys to Scouts, I indulged in one of my favorite guilty pleasures -- listening to Michael Savage. I admit, I can't handle him in massive doses, but his depth of knowledge is amazing and his candor is off the chart. I often get the next blog idea from listening to his show. Tonight he spent some time discussing the 50 richest members of Congress (source: Roll Call). He focused on how these politicians (whom he referred to as "mobsters") were rich and planning on staying that way through the policies they perpetuate to bail out financial institutions. I will make a few different observations.

• The top ten may come as a surprise to many. Seven of the top ten were Democrats and not Republicans. This included number one, former Democratic nominee for President John Kerry (D-Mass). So much for the "party of the poor" mantra that the Democrats love to rally around. No wonder the American voters had a difficult time buying Kerry's case that he was "for the poor" and worth close to a quarter of a billion dollars ($230.98 million).



• Twenty-one of fifty are in the Senate, although the house out numbers them four to one. The Senate is a millionaires boys club if there ever was one, with one-fifth of them worth at least 7 digits. The list ends at 50, there are probably several more between $999K and $5 million (the bottom of the list) that are among these numbers.



• Some of the richest might surprise you. I would think most Americans had not heard of Jane Harman, Darrell Issa, Robin Hayes, Vern Buchanan, and Gordon Smith. Each are worth $28 million or more.



• Others are household names. John Kerry (mentioned before, the former Democratic nominee), Rockefeller (yes, from that family, a great grandson of the financial giant), and Edward Kennedy (who also enjoys family money).

The bottom line is that both Houses of Congress are homes of enormous affluence and neither party can accurately argue that they are some how "for" the poor because of their personal lives. The Democrats have been postured as the party "for the poor" by both their own communications and by the media for decades. The only true measure is in the policies they promote. And then it isn't money going to the poor or tax breaks for particular groups, it is measured by the impact policies have on poverty.

Ironically the best example of fighting poverty happened when both parties worked together. A Republican Congress and a Democrat President essentially wiped out "poverty as we knew it" by signing bills that put strict limits on how long one could be depended on government, which provided incentive for people to move towards higher incomes and work. As a result of that policy the percentage of poor has declined over the last decade after years of growing in number.

Kevin Price articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Poll Show Obama Wins by a Landslide

It's true that McCain and Palin should probably give up. Obama wins by a landslide. This is the story from BBC of a survey of the 22 countries they provide news service to. That list includes Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Panama, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Turkey, the UAE, Britain and the United States. Unfortunately for Obama, the United States is in the survey, but on its own now leans slightly towards McCain (at the time this was written). Also unfortunate for Obama, it is the only country that matters.

Here are a few results from the survey:

* At the time of the poll, all the countries surveyed wanted Obama over McCain. Again, the results have changed recently where it matters, with US surveys showing a dead heat or a slight lead for McCain.

* 17 of 22 countries expect improvements in US relations with the rest of the world under Obama.

* America's NATO allies and Australia were most optimistic about what an Obama Administration would do for US relations (61 percent).

The reasons for such results outside of the US may be attributed to several different reasons. He is the least American (in the traditional sense of the word) of any candidate in our country's history. Even he has discussed the contrasts between him and other Presidents (a tactic that has backfired). For quite some time the non-US world has often been hostile to Americans. Furthermore, he tends to demonstrate an elitism that is common among European politicians, but doesn't resonate very well in this country. His recent remarks about the inability of most Americans to speak any French may have went over well in Europe, but angered people here who wonder why he is concerned about our French, but not about the huge foreign population here that doesn't know English. It is that some what strange incongruity that has many here less excited than those around the planet.

Than there is the bad news for Obama found in the results. In addition to the fact that his weakest level of support is in the only place where surveys such as this matter, Obama isn't the only candidate to have had similar favor and less than satisfactory results. ABC notes that "a similar BBC/Globescan poll conducted ahead of the 2004 U.S presidential election found that, of 35 countries polled, 30 would have preferred to see Democratic nominee John Kerry, rather than the incumbent George Bush, who was elected." Isn't there a famous statement to the effect of "what does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose the Electoral College?" It is something like that.

Kevin Price accurately predicted that Joe Biden would be the VP candidate of Obama three days before the announcement. He predicted a woman would be McCain's VP days before as well. Get his commentaries in your email box by contacting Info@HoustonBusinessShow.com.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Katie Couric: In the News Again, And She Isn't Happy

I have been writing about the decline and demise of Katie Couric since she began her gig as anchor of CBS Evening News. Couric, who arrived at the network with much fanfare and a salary that is twice as high as her counterpart at ABC News (Charles Gibson) and three times more than Brian Williams of NBC. She has maintained a solid hold on third place virtually through out her short tenure.

Some are crying "sexism" and I actually projected that would play a role back in September when she started. The average viewer of a nightly news program is 60 years old and predominantly male. Such individuals may not be interested in getting their news from a relatively young lady like Couric. I argued back then that the viewer would be interested in hearing from someone more like them or the one who is like that smart older son.

Furthermore, the same demographic (male and 60) tends to be very conservative and Couric has made a career of showing her liberal preferences. I'll never forget her interview with Senator John Kerry (D-MA) when he ran for President in 2004. She was in awe of his "intelligence" and "charisma." I honestly expected her to jump in his lap! Much of the decline of Dan Rather was due to his obvious political agenda, such an approach wouldn't work with Couric either, regardless of how attractive audiences may find her.

In the end, there is little that can be done to save evening news, not even Williams or Gibson. It will likely always attract this shrinking demographic, because younger Accumulators (people in the prime of the career and taking care of children and parents) are getting their news online. Before long, relative "nobodies" will be doing the TV version and the "rock stars" of the industry will be exclusively on the Internet.

US Troops Appear Much Smarter Than Kerry

In vintage (John) Kerry (D-MA) arrogance, the Senator told an audience "You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.” The natural response to that by me was "ouch." Surely the Senator will own the inappropriateness of the remarks and distance himself. After all, we can all think of individuals whom we know who are well educated and successful and decided to risk it all for their country. The most classic example is Pat Tillman, who was a successful safety for the Arizona Cardinals with a multi-year contract worth millions and who graduated with a 3.8 GPA in three and a half years from Arizona State University with a business degree. Hmm, financially successful, very smart, and a volunter who gave it all for his country. I'm sure his family, friends, and former teammates appreciate that. I personally know of college educated individuals who chose to volunteer to fight for their country when they had plenty of other options.

Kerry was immediately taken to task by the media and the Republican party. I'm sure the rest of us who would make such a stupid remark would quickly apologize. Instead, Kerry has decided to defend his behavior and now describes his remarks as a "botched joke." The "uneducated ones" wasn't the soldiers, he now explains, but the Bush administration who got us "in this situation." I remind the Senator that the President, who is the butt of many jokes because of his unique language, did graduate from Yale and went on to get an Harvard MBA. Also, Bush actually made better grades than Kerry during his college years. Furthermore, it is clear by what he said about the troops that all of our collective interpretation is exactly what he meant. This argument that those who serve in wars are not smart is as old as military history itself. This was the mantra of critics during the Vietnam War and he was one of the leaders in that anti-war effort. And wasn't true then and it isn't true now. Furthermore, those who fought now are actual volunteers, which wasn't always the case during the Vietnam war. This makes his remarks all the more hurtful, in my opinion.

Senator Kerry has been caught, red handed, taking a position that he desperately needed to apologize for and distance himself. Instead he moves from a shovel to using heavy equipment in his effort to destroy his political future. I feel confident that any and all of our troops are smarter then that.