Politicians ruling at the people's expense

Opinion

The message of the Occupy movement, while it is couched initially in the bumper sticker symbolism of the 1 per cent and the 99 per cent, is not simply about economic disparity.

The Occupy movement's contention is that the game is rigged to favour a few at the expense of the many and that the few have the most political influence, further benefiting themselves. And nowhere is that economic disparity better illustrated than among the elected members of supposedly representative government.

Both the New York Times and the Washington Post published figures and facts demonstrating the growing affluence of members of Congress and their radical divergence from the economic fortunes of the people they are elected to represent. Based upon census data, the median net worth of the 535 Congressmen and women is $913,000 and climbing. For families in the country at large that figure is $100,000 and has been declining since 2004.

That figure breaks down into more stark contrasts when race is taken into account.

According to the Pew Research Center, from 2005 to 2009, the median net worth of black households fell 53 per cent from already low $12,124 to $5677. Median Hispanic net worth fell even more, 66 per cent, from $18,359 to $6325. White households experienced a more modest but still painful drop of 16 per cent, from $134,992 to $113,149.

In addition to the stark inequality where Congress members have a median net worth that is nine times the overall population's but over 160 times that of the poorer people, members are further insulated by the privileges of office. House members can hire personal staffs of 18 full-time workers and have office budgets of around $1.5 million. Senators, depending on the size of their state, have staff numbers from 26 to 60 and office budgets that run from $2,960,726 for the smallest state to $4,685,279 for each of California's senators.

And then there are the perks of office, including their own police force, private restaurants, free mailing privileges, a private subway, a research service, premium health insurance, free airport parking and lots more.

Americans ceased to support the Iraq and Afghanistan wars by 2006 when 56 per cent became opposed. In the recent debate about the US debt ceiling, a strong majority favoured a tax on income of $1 million annually. Congress, in these instances, and many others did not vote in accord with the wishes of their constituents.

When one questions how is it that Congress so often acts in a manner unrepresentative of the people who elect them, one needs to take into account the divergent outlook that such a significant economic disparity reinforces. Elected representatives simply live in a different world from their constituents, and more and more their political outlook and actions reflect that elite status.

In New Zealand the picture is not quite so sharply etched, but it is an emergent one, heading in the same direction. The IRD statistics for 2008 give the median income for wage earners as $37,908. MPs earn between $131,000 and $243,000 (before their recent pay hike). Our disparity is a mere 3.5 to 6.5 times. The perks, do count for a lot, though. Don't look for your elected representative flying with you in economy or paying for it. Although we pay for their pipers, they dance to their own tunes.

John Key's knee-jerk response to the predictions of a European economic slowdown in 2012 is instructive, if alarming. Contrary to the wishes of most New Zealanders, he posits the sale of the country's assets. He would enhance the business friendliness of the country, now rated as third most friendly in the world, by cutting red tape.

On the ground, where most of us live, it was the failure of regulatory oversight by Bill English's Treasury department that put the rest of the country on the hook for $1.7 billion.

And it was, of course, the weakening of regulations that led to the Pike River Mine tragedy and the loss of 29 lives.