Toss.
There are two major problems with this analysis. Firstly, the philosophy behind it is flawed - I don't want a representative elected chamber, having a lot of stupid people doesn't make government better. But the second point is more important. The logic of the numbers are misleading.
How so, well:
- Firstly, they are dollar millionaires, so £650k in net worth. Still a lot, but less than reported
- Secondly, they are paid quite well. The salary of a congressman is $174k p.a.
- And taxes in the US are low, about an average of 33% (somewhere here), which means actually $115k p.a. post tax, so almost immediately on election, they won't be poor
- They have been around a while - average length of term 10 years, rising to 12 years in the senate
- And they are quite old, average age 57
Plus, we're not talking about slackers here. They've been working for say 25 years before then, so an average of $20k per annum payments into property or savings, or $1,500 per month is hardly the stuff of which legends are made, though not poor.
Actually, I am pretty sure that money does have too much of a role in congress; I just don't this stat illuminates it very well. In fact, it illuminates successful people in well paid jobs are pretty wealthy. That's not a story. Quite frankly I'm surprised that more of them aren't millionaires.
The rhetoric ends by saying we don't want poor people who made good. By definition, if they're in congress, they have. Thus, the author is a moron. Anathema.
And we're 0-1. Fucking hell. OK, no 10-1. Still rubbish.