Feingold out of place financially in the Senate

In the United States Senate, a body populated by millionaires, Sen. Russ Feingold is out of his league, at least financially:

The Middleton Democrat reported a net worth of $441,737 on his 2009 personal finance statement. On his 2009 federal tax statement, Feingold claimed $158,166 in adjusted gross income, derived primarily from his Senate salary. He paid $25,244 in taxes and received a refund of $1,970.

Ron Johnson, the Republican Oshkosh businessman who wants Feingold’s Senate seat, probably would fit right in with the well-heeled members of the upper chamber. But Wisconsinites won’t get a sense of his net worth until after July 17, a 45-day extension of the deadline by which he was required to file a report.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the average net worth of senators in 2008 was about $15 million, with Sen. Herb Kohl ranked as the richest member by virtue of his ownership of the Milwaukee Bucks. Kohl has a net worth reported as being between $163.5 million and $265.6 million, while Sen. Feingold ranked 95th in 2008 among the 100 senators on the wealth chart.

As mentioned in the article I cited, one of Sen. Feingold’s Republican challengers, businessman Ron Johnson, has yet to file his financial disclosures with the U.S. Senate, but Juston Johnson, Johnson’s campaign manager, was quick to attempt to explain away the Johnson campaign’s request for an extension, saying, “We wanted to make sure everything is as accurate as possible.” Johnson went on to add, “We’re not hiding anything. We’re being completely transparent.” While I’m ordinarily loathe to report on unsubstantiated rumors, I’ve heard from multiple sources that Ron Johnson’s net worth might be such that he won’t be able to dump ten or fifteen million dollars of his own money into the U.S. Senate race, despite what he’s previously indicated.


Related Articles

32 thoughts on “Feingold out of place financially in the Senate

  1. Please ABF (Anybody But Feingold)

    28 years as an elected official and both Wisconsin and U.S. are nearly insolvent. If Feingold is our friend then who is our enemy!
    $13,009,972,600,000.00 is our national DEBT. $43,317.00 per citizen is what Russ Feingold borrowed and promised that each one of us would pay back. Sooner or later Socialist run out of other peoples money!

    If this isn’t the definition of usless what is?

    Please ABF (Anybody But Feingold)

    1. Well if length of service in government and the national debt is the leading measure for not supporting a candidate for federal office, I am sure that you will join me in DUMPING CONGRESSMAN SENSENBRENNER. 30+ years in the house, longer than Senator Feingolds entire public service and worse than useless to boot!

  2. Mr. Heinzelman, if I could legally vote multple times (as Democrats have perfected) for Congressman Sensenbrenner I would. The implied included criterion which distinguishes Feingold’s unworthiness from Sensenbrenner’s worthiness is their voting records. Feingold’s tax and spend record indicts him.
    “Anybody but Feingold” is a byword for this year’s US Senate race in this once great state.

    1. I think you will find that Senator Feingold is pretty fiscally conservative and that Congressman Sensenbrenner is pretty much the poster child for the ‘party of no’ as far as Wisconsin and the 5th District is concerned.

      1. I see you operate on saying something, makes it so.

        James Sensenbrenner voted against the bailout bill (Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008) while Feingold voted for it. Feingold. Fiscally conservative? Ha!

        1. Are we going to rely on one vote to define 31 years of activity in the House? Or 17 years in the Senate? I gave you links to their respective voting records.

          1. Litmus tests have utility. One vote in the wrong way, to do un-Constitutional spending of exorbitant magnitude, to benefit private interests, belies the fact that the US government is owned by private banking interests of which Feingold is a witting or unwitting pawn. Democrat Woodrow Wilson gave the country away to a silent coup in 1913 with his signing of the Federal Reserve Act.

    2. Carlos, refresh my memory….how much of the spending put into place by Republicans who controlled the House, Senate, and White House during GWB’s presidency did Rep. Sensenbrenner vote in favor of?

  3. How many like Zach W., fail to recognize that the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate during thelast two years of the GWB administration?
    The wheels fell off the economy during this time.

    The stock market graph falls with each milestone of the Obama campaign.

    The bi-partisan bailout while signed by GWB occurred after nearly two full years of Democrats messing up the economy. More Democrats voted for the bailouts in each chamber (House/Senate)than did Republicans. You who vote for the likes of Feingold, Obama, Democrats and RINOs are part of the problem, not the solution.

    1. I’m shocked….SHOCKED that you cited the Democratic control of Congress during the last two years of the Bush presidency but ignored the 6 years before that when Republicans controlled Congress.

      As for the stock market, I’ll just note that the Dow Jones Industrial Average is higher now than when President Obama was inaugurated.

      As to your point that the current economic downturn is all the fault of Democrats, I just can’t help but wonder where George W. Bush was with his veto pen to veto all that Democratic legislation that led to the current crisis. After all, that’s what checks and balances are all about!

      1. Your avoidance of my points and raising of other weak one demonstrates the vacuity of your positions.

        George H. W. Bush, saved the country from many bad bills using his veto pen liberally 1989-1993. GWB working in a bi-partisan manner ‘reaching across the aisle’ signed most of what he was sent. The bills were bi-partisan. Teddy “The Swimmer” Kennedy wrote no child left behind for example.

        You Democrats howl for bi-partisanship, then howl when you get it.

        Here is the stock market reaction to Obama(Soetoro).

        Wars are very costly. The Democrats supported the bi-partisan decisions to fight in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

        Here’s a graph that illustrates where tons of money can be saved.

        1. Yes Yes Yes, the wars are very costly…particularly when they are off the budget.

          1. Read Patrick McIlheran “Numbers too Spooky to Record” in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel to see that the Democrat Congress is much less responsible than the one you ridicule.

            He writes,”House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) let on last week that the House won’t be doing a budget this year.”

            1. Well I haven’t seen that anywhere but in Mr. McIlheran’s column so far. I don’t think legally we can operate without a budget…but technically we haven’t had a real budget since the invasion of Afghanistan since that and the Iraq war have been off the budget.

            2. Here, I did a little looking around for you since I don’t accept Mr. McIlheran’s veracity (and I don’t care if I just hurt his feelings):

              1) Majority Leader Steny Hoyer made official Tuesday morning what most insiders have known for months: Congress won’t do a budget this year.

              Instead, Democrats are pushing an alternative route that falls well short of the more rigorous annual budget resolution — a short-term resolution that will call for discretionary spending lower than in President Barack Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget. But he said Congress wouldn’t take longer-term budget action before hearing from Obama’s fiscal commission in December. Republicans have lambasted Democrats for not passing a budget resolution, saying that’s the first time it’s happened since 1976.

              from: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38843.html

              this ones a bit older but the second graph is rather telling!
              2) The Maryland Democrat (Rep Hoyer ~ my insertion) said last week that he and Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D-S.C.) “both believe that it would be important” to pass a budget but they’re unsure if Democrats have the votes to pass it through the lower body.

              Republicans did not pass a budget resolution in 1998, 2002 2004 and 2006 – all election years.


              1. You wrote, “Republicans did not pass a budget resolution in 1998, 2002 2004 and 2006 – all election years.”

                The statement would only be true and not merely misleading, if the Republicans had held 60 seats in the Senate which which they did not. The reality, I believe, is that the Democrats blocked passage in the Senate each time for political, political power play posturing and propaganda. With the MSM being the public relations arm of the DNC it gives ammunition to use to deceive the public about what is and was going on.

                You have unintentionally drawn attention to the divisive and damaging, dirty tricks which is Democrat politics. They have been sabotaging the system for the longest time.

                1. I didn’t write, I quoted. And until you provide actual proof that Democrats blocked passage, I’ll take the word of the source.

                  1. Mr. Heinzelman, I am not responsible for your education. You have made it clear that you are either too young, or too disengaged to have first hand knowledge of what was going on at the time under discussion.

                    Further, you your willingness to believe whatever you read as long as you trust the source, displays a certain lack of critical thinking skills. I have enough work to do without taking on the task of changing you nappies (diapers). I assure you each of the years in question IS DUE to the need in the US Senate for a 60-vote super majority to cut off debate. You prove me wrong!

                    1. “…you your willingness to believe whatever you read as long as you trust the source…”

                      They are a known commodity, you are not.

                    2. Apparently no one wants to point fingers in public. Every site I’ve visited, official and otherwise, simply states that “Congress failed to pass budget resolutions in FY 1999, 2003, 2005 and 2007”

                      The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Titles I-IX of P.L. 93-344, as amended; 2 U.S.C. 601-
                      688) provides for the annual adoption of a concurrent resolution on the budget. The congressional
                      budget resolution is an agreement between the House and Senate on a budget plan for the
                      upcoming fiscal year and at least the following four fiscal years. As a concurrent resolution, it is
                      not presented to the President for his signature and thus does not become law. The budget
                      resolution, however, provides Congress a framework for subsequent legislative action on budget
                      matters during each congressional session.

                      Congress has adopted 39 budget resolutions during the 35 years that the congressional budget
                      process has been in effect. At least one budget resolution has been adopted every year except
                      1998 (for FY1999), 2002 (for FY2003), 2004 (for FY2005), and 2006 (for FY2007). A second
                      budget resolution was adopted in each of the first seven years and a third budget resolution was
                      adopted in one year (for FY1977). Since 1982, Congress has adopted only one budget resolution
                      for each fiscal year. Congress initially was required to cover only the upcoming fiscal year in the
                      budget resolution, but over the years Congress has expanded this time frame. Currently, the
                      budget resolution must include at least five fiscal years.

        2. Yeah, let’s spend trillions of dollars on bullets and cut spending for books. Sounds like a policy that’s sure to reap dividends!

          Also, I have yet to see any specific examples of spending bills enacted by Democrats that you deem to be “too costly” that George W. Bush vetoed as such.

          What’s more, for all your talk about spending by Democrats, let’s remember that it was a Republican president who pushed for wars without end in Iraq and Afghanistan, wars that have cost our nation billions upon billions of dollars that could have been used to pay down the deficit, invest in infrastructure, or any number of other worthwhile domestic uses. I’m willing to bet that all our nation will have to show for all those billions of taxpayer dollars appropriated by “fiscally responsible” conservatives and “tax and spend” liberals for those wars will be two failed states that are negligibly better off than when we invaded them.

          1. The Federal Govt. has a responsibility to deal with defense as the President, Congress and our treatied allies require. The Federal Govt doesn’t have the responsibility to purchase or provide books, pencils or college ruled loose-leaf paper. So far we have spent a tad over a Trillion in 9 years on both wars of the post 9-11 period. We can’t be seen as retreating or cutting out too soon. If we should we will never be able to form a coalition in the future should it be needed. Obama can’t risk looking any weaker on the World political stage, than he already has. The move of Petreaus was a good one.. despite the fact the Obama’s chosen General had to serve up himself thru the press.

            Now if he would just ask Biden to resign..and put a competent person in the VP Role. I would suggest since he’s picking the best and brightest from the Bush years he would be wise to make a pick of tremendous courage and “Gravitas” I would urge the selection of One of the three Cheney’s Dick, Lynne or my new favorite Liz! Then the Prez can get himself the finest golf clubs in the world..and let someone who understands business, the Military and the the US Constitution in charge. No Boss, we’ll take care of it. Imagine the 2012 ticket of Obama and Liz Cheney? a powerful, smart saavy, successful woman. and the great speech-reader. It’d get Hillary out of the way. and appease the center. It’s not entirely crazy??

            1. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the only person in your list of names that should be considered for President in 2012.

  4. I wish Bush had used his Veto pen a few more times myself. But the fact is since the Dems took control of the House and Senate was when the economy tanked. Jan 2007.

    Someone’s Blog the other day showed job losses under Bush vs. Obama.. however the graph showed only the last 2 years of Bush and the nearly 2 years of Obama. Which was unfair, most of the Bush years Unemployment was around 5-6%. Remember it was Dems who caused the Housing mess from it’s micromanagement of Freddie and Fannie in the interest of helping poor folks buy home, beginning during the Carter and Clinton years. It was also the Dems who raised Minimum wage in 2007..which caused the bubble in employment to burst at the same time, as the housing bubble burst. Yes there were other factors….from 9/11 to the 94 Gingrich revolution to the Dot.com Bubble and bust before Bush was ever sworn in. Cycles in free market economy’s always happen and trying to Legislate them away is a fools errand as Obama has demonstrated. Dems in late 2008 also authorized foolish bail-outs without proper oversight. But essentially a blank check. Banks and investment companies should have been permitted to fail..perhaps including AIG. Sure the Dem’s and Bush all paniced in Sept of 2008. But the Dems have continued to panic from GM , Chrysler went BK under the authority of the President??? WTF?? Stimulus plan as a solution.??? Probably should have named: “The Govt. Union Employee Job Protection Act of 2009”. Less than half the money is spent and unemployment is hovering around 10%. And the “Real unemployed number is projected at about 14-16%. I’ll take the Guy with the business degree over the Law School TEACHER/ community Organizer any day.

    One guy at least has had a real job..run several business…and one guy was an editor because Harvard needed a almost but not quite “Black” dude to be it’s editor. (Later they made a similar decision and appointed a well know “wise Latina” as it’s Harvard Law review Editor). I’m not sure if she “authored” anything . But no known “Editorial” signed by the “Half-Black Prince” Has been detected to my knowledge thus far. Those were part of the Affirmative Action attitude. Not always the most “Qualified” as long as they’re the most “Quota-fied”.

    That aside almost NONE of the people surrounding the President have ANY business experience, whatsoever. Almost no Military experience.. it’s Academics… you can’t actually expect to run a war…or challenging economy..with a room full of Academics!

    Even Baracks second favorite lap-dog Paul Krugman thinks we may be in the beginning of the next DEPRESSION. His read today in NYT. Not a big fan of Paul the Nobel Weasel…But when even he’s breaking bad on the Prez..it demonstrates his lack of faith in the socialists Keynesian policies of Obama.

    1. Comparing the last two years of GWB and the first two years of Obama isn’t unfair, simply because we can’t hypothesize on what job numbers will look like for the remainder of President Obama’s time in office.

      As to your other points, I’m just amazed at how everything is all the Democrats’ fault, as if Republicans have been the minority party in this country for the last twenty or so years, and thus powerless to do anything about all of this.

      1. Zach you demonstrate that you have no idea how this country came to where it is today and which party is most responsible for getting us here. You show all the earmarks of a public education victim who has not begun learning.

        Since January 1989 the US has not had one Conservative president, though it has had two Republicans named Bush for 12 total years and two Democrats for nearly 9 and a half years. Conservatism has not been in power one year in the past 20 regardless of you claim to the contrary.

        GHWB and GWB are more Kennedy Democrats than conservatives. Six years of Republican control of Congress under Clinton gave him the success which the media wrongly attributes to him. Just as you wrongly attribute the failed economy to Bush which is rightly owned by Pelosi, Reid and Obama.

        Marxist-Leninist ideology is un-American and is not welcome here.

    2. You didn’t just say the 9/11 happened before President Bush was sworn in, did you?

  5. Ed, you quoted: “Republicans did not pass a budget resolution in 1998, 2002 2004 and 2006 – all election years,” from the article at URL, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36087.html#ixzz0sGEGW0oq.

    In using this as “proof” of fiscal irresponsibility you fail to recognize that the Republicans did not have the ability to pass the budgets those years unilaterally. Therefore, your characterization is without merit. I clearly remember the biennial gamesmanship of the Democrats as budget deadlines loomed.

    I am sure that ample evidence is available. Go find it. I do not feel inclined to do your research. Do your own searches for reliable historical data on each of the budget fights in Congress. But, please stop pretending you have proven anything by the assertion in of the Politico.

    The Left starts all sorts of “objective resources” to palm off your propaganda as truth to the unsuspecting,when the facts are otherwise.

    The statement should read: Congress did not pass a budget resolution in 1998, 2002 2004 and 2006 – all election years. Properly stated what is your issue? Democrats always want to buy votes with other people’s money. Republicans worthy of the name (RINOs are crypto-Democrats)are for limited government which necessitates spending limits.

    In 2006, the political posturing of the Democrats paid off well. The wolves and the goats rewarded them at the polls with large gains in Congress due to the MSM reporting of Republican mismanagement. The MSM never has anything good to say about Republicans.

    1. Let’s make one thing perfectly clear: These are budget resolutions…not the federal budget.

Comments are closed.