2005: $2,962,015
2015: $26,927,535
Increase: $23,965,520 (+809.1%)
How does a senator earning $193,400 a year increase their net worth by nearly $2.4 million a year, every year for a decade?”
I saw this on Twitter this morning from one of my liberal friends.
I think that this is a valid line of question to ask.
However, there’s one question that isn’t asked, that probably should be.
Why single out Mitch?
You can’t tell me he’s the only person in government who’s managed to amplify his personal wealth significantly.
I’m pretty sure the Clintons went from complaining about having no money to 100 million while Hillary was in government service.
If y’all want to criticize these folx for getting richer, go for it. Just remember that when you’re nakedly partisan it tends to undercut valid questions.
3 comments:
Absolutely. I would also like to know how. But if it was done legitimately, I would hope it should be acknowledged and appreciated as such. It seems that some expect that serving in government means one's private sector dealings must yield nothing during one's time in office. While many hand over control of their businesses to others while serving, so as to avoid appearances of impropriety, I do not believe any law forces them to do so, and certainly no law prohibiting their businesses to thrive.
Unless one is abusing one's position to enrich one's self, this concern is an abuse itself. If there is evidence of such an abuse of position, deal with his good fortune.
I Completely agree that this is a legitimate question. And I also agree that I would be interested in the answer. What I don’t agree with is singling out one legislator because you don’t agree with them while ignoring everyone else in government service.
I just saw one regarding Cummings.
Post a Comment