Tuesday, September 01, 2009

The question that has yet to be asked about Charles Rangel: how does a guy who has been in Congress since 1971 accumulate that much of a net worth?

There's nothing in his background to suggest he or his wife comes from wealth nor that either of them have held any type of well-paying job that would allow them to amass hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets.

Think about it: even with today's relatively low tax rates, to accumulate a million or so in assets requires him to have saved and/or earned at least 30% more than that... and his House salary, while certainly not low, ain't high enough to allow someone to slice that much off the net check.

Bribes? Kickbacks from staff? Pocketing unearned per diem payments? Gifts from those seeking legislative favors? Sweetheart financial investments, ala Hillary Clinton's commodities investing? (and she had the decency to stop at a mere $100,000 in profits).

As is often said, the cover up is usually worse than the underlying crime. But not always. And even when it is, the cover up takes place because there is something someone doesn't want known.... and I think in this case, Rangel trying to hide that he has so much money makes me think he really doesn't want people asking or looking into just how a poor civil servant could have legally accumulated as much as he has.