the DON JONES INDEX… 

 

@get: Ross Galloway eptax x08 – see networth

 

GAINS POSTED in GREEN

LOSSES POSTED in RED

 

 

7/31/26...   14,396.77 standard

                   14,394.17 reconfigured

7/24/26...   14,397.46 standard - 

                   14,287.95 reconfigured

  7/3/26...   15,029.54 reconfigured

6/27/13...   15,000.00 Original

 

 

(THE DOW JONES INDEX: 7/31/26...52,208.06; 7/24/26...51,711.65; 6/27/13… 15,000.00)

 

LESSON for FRIDAY, JULY 31, 2026 – “SHOW US the MONEY!” 

 

Money!

Some have it, more don’t... nearly everybody wants it.

It is the substance and sustenance of the American Dream – and every good American has, or should have, a strategy for obtaining it (or, if they already have it, keeping it).

Some are legal, others not.  Some require hard, life-shortening physical labor – others a modicum of animal cunning, still others merely good fortune as ordained prosperout genetics.

All but the most beaten-down agree and derelict understand that among the requirements for rising in one’s station are information, education and... for the fortunate few... connections.

To acquire education, many... particularly the young of whatever Generative Appellation comes into vogue... are sent off to schools.  The majority attend public schools (whose quality depends largely on ambient circumstances like location), other will opt for private educations (often with an historical, religious or partisan bent)... fewer still are home educated, although that might require hiding from the police.

A general education often ends at or around the age of eighteen – after which the student goes out and finds a job or, perhaps, joins the military.  Higher education... at a public or private university... usually confers a degree that was believed to add a degree of value to their worth, but often requires a huge outlay of funds, often borrowed.  There is a perception that some institutions of higher education are better than others – these usually cost more and often set applicants to compete against one another.

Not only the student’s future, but the parents’ reputation is often at stake.

Most Americans can find some college or university willing to take them – for a price.  The United States has filled millions of professional openings over the years – frequently beneficial, occasionally not.

Sometimes an American will choose to be educated in another country... whether to add cachet to his or her resume, to study under world-renowned educators (or just start over after a disappointing tenure at home) or just for fun.

In our last issue, we noted some of the conditions and sudden problems, of the university system in India – the most populous nation in the world and an ascending economic power which, unfortunately, has many of the problems that have vexed Americans and other nations... decent and dedicated instructors hamstrung by arrogant, greedy and often corrupt “administrators” and, worse, a culture of corruption.

Many of India’s aspirants to the medical professions... a critical industry, both domestic and for the revenues earned by doctors, nurses and specialists from the subcontinent who choose to ply their trade in places where they can be better paid – like the United States... rose up in anger after the educational bureaucracy exceeded even the usual low expectations of the bureaucrats and fouled up their process so bad that millions who had taken and often passed their examinations were told that they labors had been wasted, as had the funds that self-sacrificing parents had invested in the prospects of a doctor or an engineer in the family.

We noted... based on numerous media accounts ranging from the jocular to dead serious (literally)... that instead of apologizing and at least attempting to correct their culture of incompetence, the bureaucratic class (particularly in the person of the country’s Education Minister, Dharmendra Pradhan).

Whereas many American students ease into their labors amidst the distractions of joining fraternities or sororities, following the university sports teams, partying... and that other obsession of young people... the trolled and often bankrupted Indian students did what students worldwide have done for centuries – they protested.

And the Administrators did what their kind usually do – denied the existence of the problem, called in police to beat up and lock up dissenters and maintain that everything was just fine, except for the handful of malcontents.

The response from Indian Chief Justice Surya Kant, calling the cheated and defeated students "parasites" attacking the system broke open the floodgates of resistance. "There are youngsters like cockroaches, who don't get any employment and don't have any place in the profession,” Kant sloughed off the critics, “(s)ome of them become media, some of them become social media, some of them become RTI (opposition political) activists, some of them become other activists, and they start attacking everyone."

Kant’s terminology was seized upon by the mob in the form of the Cockroach Janta Party, a grass-roots movement that the New York Times wrote as founded just two months ago that has come to symbolize the anger among India’s youth. It started in response to Kant’s rant comparing the country’s unemployed youth to cockroaches and parasites and, by June, the party announced a sit-in demanding accountability over the exam leaks.

As we left off last week, war was being waged with words and deeds.  The Times reported that “chaotic scenes” were playing out on the streets of New Delhi as security forces used tear gas and batons to disperse tens of thousands of people marching on the Parliament in one of the largest protests against Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government in years.  “A smiling Mr. Modi, (who’d) arrived to open a session of the Parliament, tried to project an image of calm. He did not address the protesters’ demands directly, even as security forces struggled to hold back the crowds spilling onto the roads leading to the building.”  The exact number of protesters injured was not clear, but Indian medireported that over 100 people had been brought to two hospitals in Delhi; police officials told Indian news outlets that at least 50 of their personnel were also injured and hundreds more arrested.

“The space for protest and dissent in India’s traditionally raucous democracy has shrunk significantly during Mr. Modi’s 12 years in office,” the Times reported. “His government has cracked down on dissent and put activists behind bars, creating a chilling effect on public opposition.”

But in the dog days of summer with ICE in America and mice in the halls of the Indian government squeaking their appeals for the cockroaches to shut up and crawl away, they remained and gained support – finally winning victory over the weekend with Pradhan’s resignation.

To discuss the movement and its future, TIME caught up with Mukul Kesavan, a historian, novelist, and one of India’s best-known writers (ATTACHMENT ONE) who called the movement “interesting” and... asked if the protests posed a threat to Modi’s regime... added that “it’s a movement of the urban salariat... very middle-class people; largely Hindus, very young, and theoretically “are the very basis of (Modi’s) political constituency?”

He speculated that the PM... like more than a few politicians in America, and elsewhere... is “an old, dysfunctional guy” and, asked about the future of the cockroaches, could only say that he was so “bewildered by the scale, intensity, and coming-from-nowhere part of this movement” that it now wasn’t clear to me “how it sustains itself or where it goes.”

As noted above, this Lesson is about money, who has it, who doesn’t... how the have less intend to take more via education or other means; and we can assess these factors by using a number of charts, graphs and listings breaking down the wealth of nations and of the people in those nations.

Visual Capitalist (Feb. 24th, ATTACHMENT TWO) ranked national riches via data from McKinsey, for the world’s major economies (but not, unfortunately, India @get?) by the per capita wealth of their top 1%, adjusted for purchasing power. The results revealed “a startling gap: while American elites lead the pack with $16.4 million in wealth, others (had) a net worth of less than a third of this.”

Their findings placed the United States as Number One for the top one percent average Per Capita Wealth (PPP) with – six months ago – an average of $16.4 M.  Australia was a distant second at $10.6M, followed by Canada, Germany and France.

We also led in the share of the top one percent’s wealth capture at 35% of the entire plunder, second only to Mexico (smaller, poorer countries undoubtedly had higher percentages).  Consequently, the bottom half of the people had only nine thousand in per capita wealth, far behind all others (except, again, Mexico – where the peasants are fleeing across the border to a better life in the USA... they might better consider the French or Australians, an aging Japan or even China).

“In fact,” the Viz Caps concluded, “China’s bottom 50% holds more wealth per person than the bottom half in the U.S., when adjusted for purchasing power.”

An AI Overview (ATTACHMENT THREE) found the global net worth threshold to enter the top 1% worldwide was approximately $870,000 to $1 million, “though requirements var(ied) drastically by country.”  The United States threshold was approximately $13.7 million per household – of $5.8 million per individual.  The top 1% of American households control roughly 31.6% ($49+ trillion) of total U.S. wealth and... until a series of unfortunate events (below) one man... the South African immigrant Elon Musk... held over a trillion or two percent of the total.

The tiny plutocracy of Monaco ranked just behind at $12.88M (USA) followed by the Swiss.

Mister Musk lost his trill (but not his status as the world’s richest) after a further decline in SpaceX shares on Monday cut his net worth by more than $20 billion, “lowering his fortune below the $700 billion threshold for the first time since December.”  (Forbes, Wednesday, ATTACHMENT FOUR)

Forbes reported that SpaceX’s declining stock value comes even after the firm’s successful test launch of its Starship rocket on Friday, as Wall Street appeared to express caution ahead of the test: JPMorgan analyst Seth Seifman wrote in a note earlier in the week there would be “plenty of analyze” (sic) from the latest Starship launch, though the firm expected “progress and setbacks” across dozens of more launches through 2027.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

Whether SpaceX shares fall below $100. Morgan Stanley analysts wrote Friday that threshold would imply investors would see no value in the rocket maker’s AI business. Still, some already see “zero or negative value” as the firm accelerates its spending on space and connectivity and “largely uncertain economics,” the analysts wrote.

 

BIG NUMBER

About $750 billion. That’s how much Musk’s net worth has declined since hitting a peak of $1.45 trillion on June 16. Around $116 billion of the decline is because Forbes removed Tesla options based on new vesting conditions agreed to by Musk and his automaker.

He still ranks well ahead of Google co-founders Larry Page ($268.5 billion) and Sergey Brin ($247.1 billion) as the world’s richest person.

 

KEY BACKGROUND

Musk saw his net worth reach multiple milestones throughout 2025, culminating in his trillionaire status following SpaceX’s initial public offering last month. He first crossed the $700 billion threshold in December, just days after reaching $600 billion, and hit $800 billion in February. A now-monthlong rout in SpaceX shares comes despite optimism from analysts, including former Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives, who argued Musk’s rocket maker is “well-positioned to become a major hyperscaler” across connectivity, rocket launches and AI infrastructure. Other analysts have pointed to the possible value of Starship’s potential: UBS analyst Gavin Parsons wrote the latest launch was important because it was “intended to validate” capabilities required of the rocket’s launch ramp, including booster engine relight ability.

 

An AI Overview (ATTACHMENT FIVE) of the richest indivicuals in the United States, now obsolete, ascribed “over $1 trillion” to Musk, with Page, Brin and Jeff Bezos closely grouped behind at roughly a quarter trill.

 

America’s political leaders (including President Trump, his predecessors and Cabinet; Senators, Congressthings, Governors and the Supremes) fall far behind the techies in personal wealth, but they’re not going to be scrounging for a family meal at McDonald’s anytime soon.

A Wiki database (also obsolete in that it was prepared between 2018 and 2021 with help from Open Secrets – ATTACHMENT SIX) listed the salaries of the House and Senate as a paltry $174,000 for the ordinary Senators and representatives, slightly higher for the majority and minority leaders, reaching a summit of $223,500 for the Speaker of the House (at that time, @)

Outside interests, however, elevated the wealth of a select few to multi-million, even near-billion status.  The Leader of the Pack was Sen. Jim Justice (R-WV) who obtained his $664.2M as a coal miner’s daughter’s coal mineowning father; followed by two more elephants: storage king Jefferson Shreve of Indiana and healthcare administrator Rick Scott of Florida.

The wealthiest Democrat of a decade ago was Nancy Pelosi whose means of plutohood was simply “investments”.

A longer, but also obsolete (2012), list of richest American congresspeople with further data on the volume of reports, average wealth of the House ($6.6M) and Senate ($14M), by state and party, and by tenure.

“Mark Warner (D-VA) was the wealthiest Senator in 2012, with an estimated net worth of $257,481,658.  Mark Pryor (D-AR) was the least wealthy Senator in 2012, with an estimated net worth of $8,500

Darrell Issa (R-CA) was the wealthiest representative in 2012, with an estimated net worth of $464,115,018  David Valadao (R-CA) was the least wealthy representative in 2012, with an estimated net worth of -$12,167,002” @get David Valadao,

 

ARE BILLIONAIRES EVIL?

The Economics (ATTACHMENT EIGHT) replied that they were just “a policy failure” and liberal proposals to impose wealth taxes that “will stymie innovation and raise less revenue than supporters hope” because the majority “seem to have earned their mammon fairly, not from inheritance or political connections.”

Fairness, however, is complicated.  Economists at The Economist consider hedge funds, crypto and other borderline scams to be fair game – even if the game is rigged.

 

THE FIRST and SECOND GILDED AGES

Wealth in America predates the 1776 revolution and was perhaps most visible in the time period after the Civil War to the turn of the 20th century – popularly referred to as the Gilded Age.

History.com (Feb. 13, 2018, updated last May, ATTACHMENT NINE) dates the term to the satirical novel by Mark Twain wherein greedy, corrupt industrialists, bankers and politicians enjoyed extraordinary wealth and opulence at the expense of the working class.

Some of the driving engines of the Gilded Age were, in fact, engines... the Transcontinental Railroad, which facilitated travel and facilitated both the American supply chain and the settlement of the West.

Railroad and shipping tycoons like Cornelius Vanderbilt and Jay Gould were called “robber barons” and used “union busting, fraud, intimidation, violence and their extensive political connections to gain an advantage over any competitors. Robber barons were relentless in their efforts to amass wealth while exploiting workers and ignoring standard business rules—and in many cases, the law itself.”

Millions of domestic and foreign immigrants came to the big cities to work in factories and sweatshops, hastening the “urbanization of America”.  They worked long hours for little pay, lived in filthy tenements and some of their children and grandchildren struggled upwards – others didn’t

Defenders of the capitalists like Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and Henry Frick responded that they made America great and were often generous philanthropists (especially after death) – funding libraries, hospitals and universities while also living lives of luxury in gaudy mansions.  The Economist also assessed the effects of Social Darwinism, media “muckrakers”, the violent birth of unionism and a technological revolution that brought electricity, telephones and a sea-change in the status of women (led by activists from @vote to Prohibitionist Carrie Nation).

The Economist dated the death of the Gilded Age to the Panic of 1893 where mass business failures led to a depression that would last for four years. Angry Americans became Populists or Progressives... honest politicians like Theodore Roosevelt imposed reforms that limited the power of the robber barons (and also forestalled the Communist revolutions springing up elsewhere across the world).

Some of these, like the Socialists (allegedly small “d” democratic) at Liberation News offered an alternative view of the Gilded Age while also mentioning the effects of technology, immigration and labor.  (AI Overview, ATTACHMENT TEN)

Their issue of July 23rd contended that America is now entering a Second Gilded Age with the defining moment being the Trump v. Slaughter decision giving the Executive Presidents the right to fire federal regulators... including workers in the other two pillars of authority, the legislative and judicial.

Coming on the heels of the Citizens United decision, effectively legalizing political corruption through the tidal wave of green and dark money, Slaughter ruled that Congress had violated the Constitution in 1914 when it limited the President’s ability to fire FTC leaders.

 

CAPITALISTS WANTS TO ROLL BACK THE NEW DEAL

Slaughter paves the way for “a whole new level of direct corruption in Washington, the further erosion of safety standards, assaults on union rights, and the deregulation of Wall Street and Corporate America as a whole,” predicted the Socialists – calling in part and parcel of “Project 2025,” the overall vision of the far-right section of the ruling class “to eliminate the liberal reforms of the progressive, New Deal and Civil Rights eras and reinstall a form of governance of unregulated and unrestrained corporate power; a core feature of (which is) unrestrained presidential power.”

Objectivists (probably not of the Rand Paul sort) might argue the takeover moot given Presidential dominion over all three branches of gumment, but Republican fears of losing the house and maybe the Senate in November accelerate the MAGA need to protect their sway over “the main regulators of financial markets, including the Federal Trade Commission, the Security and Exchange Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board,” and the people’s need to protest this consolidation of control and corruption.

The Liberationist predict that the FCC “could eliminate the broadcast licenses of outlets that the president disapproves of,” and warns of implication for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the National Labor Relations Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The Liberationists added that Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent “correctly states that without functional independence from political pressure, regulatory agencies cannot perform the core functions given to them by Congress,” and can only be understood “in the trajectory of U.S. capitalism and the creation of a New Gilded Age.”

Ballroom and all! 

 

The DJI’s putative independent Presidential candidate – Jack (the Catfish) Parnell – opined as much Chapter @ in his episode of “Entropy and Renaissance” (see Generisis.com’s E&R here@  (ATTACHMENT ELEVEN).  A strange concurrence, however, was even promoted by the George W. Bush (Senior) Institute through an AI overview toting up arguments for and against the billionaire boys’ club and Issue 36’s “In Defense of Billionaires” by James Pethokoukis (Fall 2025, ATTACHMENT TWELVE) opined that “banishing” entrepreneurs like Bill Gates (or Musk or Bezos – given warnings that wealth caps or confiscatory taxation would simply invite them to relocate themselves, their companies and their jobs to some more amenable foreign clime) would mean banishing the positive-sum process that is essential to sustained and dispersed economic growth in the United States as opposed to the sclerotic EU plutocracies “where fortunes tend to accrue through inheritance or luxury brands” or dictatorships... ranging from Mexico to Russia... where wealth is amassed (if not necessarily created) by “one-time privatization deals, political protection, or monopolies on certain natural resources.”

Such fortunes, “which stem from appropriation, not innovation, breed cynicism, anger, and disaffection in the countries where they exist”... represent what scholars Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson termed “extractive” systems, in which the elites can enrich themselves by capturing the state or monopolizing its resources, stifling innovation and broad-based prosperity.

The existence of “rent-seekers abroad” is no reason to hobble productive entrepreneurs in the United States,” Pethokoukis contends but, however, with a caveat... his defense of the uberwealthy as enriching America against the riotous roars of the rabble and “negative consequences of demonizing private fortune also contained this important coda of discrimination:

“Rather than condemn all billionaires, we would be far better off broadly distinguishing between two different types: productive billionaires, who build enterprises that generate widespread prosperity; and rent-seeking billionaires, who extract gains through political favoritism, resource monopolies, or financial gimmickry. The former can be paragons of economic dynamism; the latter, parasites on it. Lazily lumping the two together and treating them the same obscures reality and invites policies that would imperil innovation-driven economic growth.”

The old-school billionaires beloved by Old Right Republicans defend inequality in terms of productivity (...(i)t’s true that some of the 0.01% spend some of their cash on elaborate doomsday bunkers in Hawaii or New Zealand, (but) they plow much more money back into their businesses, and a hefty chunk into philanthropy as well). 

What Pethy calls the “Blade Runner fallacy”... offshore (or even, off-planet) escape for the upper classes... is delusional, even considering Musk’s half-serious proposal for colonies on Mars.

“Billionaires, at their best, are not evidence of capitalism gone wrong,” he concludes. “They are evidence that capitalism is working.”

 

But back up a smidgen to that nefarious “0.01” doomsday escape artists or the admittedly larger proportion whose accumulation of wealth by rent-seeking or phynancial parasitism was noted, above, as was the tendancy of the hyperprosperous to give back some of their loot in charitable donations.  How does that jive with reality?

Well...

Influenzers to the Bush Institute on Reddit included one named “Annual Necessary” – a numbers cruncher who cited a constant decrease in capital utilization (which indices reflect how efficiently capitalists allocate capital).  (ATTACHMENT THIRTEEN)

“In 1967, the U.S. economy used 88% of its capital capacity, while in 2022, this number decreased to 78%. This means capitalists are performing their role less effectively.  Currently, 22% of capacity is unused. It would be acceptable if this number at least stagnated, but the slow, constant fall suggests that capitalists are performing worse over time,” while “(w)orkers’ productivity is still growing; however, real wages are slightly lower than productivity.”

@From Taylor and Francis

Jonathan Michie’s online essay on “the degeneration of capitalism from a system of production to a speculative orgy” (reviews Jan. 29, 2020 via booksellers Taylor and Francis: ATTACHMENT FOURTEEN) compares predictions, exhortations and admonitions from as disparate in time and space as Karl Marx, the post-Gilded Age populists and progressives, New Deal regulatory agent John Maynard Keynes and the disregulators... from Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher up to the present.

That fundamental driving force of the system to produce more and more, on an ever-expanding scale, to out-compete your rivals... as dominated the (First) Gilded Age) “lost its primacy long ago,” Michie contends.

Refuting the defenders of pure (productive and degenerate capitalism) Michie now believes that, today, a large part of that energy and action “goes on speculation and deal-making, trying to grab a bigger size of the existing pie – baked by someone else – rather than contribute towards the production or creation of new goods and services.”

After Ron and Maggie’s era of “deregulation, privatisation and free-market globalization,” provoked the recession of 2007-9, the subsequent decade saw the costs of the speculative failures transferred to the mass of the population via the politics of austerity, whilst corporate leaders continued along the trajectory of speculation and deal making, with no serious attempt to realign the economy to focus on what Michie said needed to be a Green New Deal – with the economy further regulated by the ecology.

“Instead, a major focus continues to be the ‘rent seeking’ search for new areas of society where existing activities can be monetised, with the anticipated revenues and profits speculated on through bond and share sales. There is less focus on the intrinsic merits of the new ‘product’, and more on the likely movement of the newly issued shares, with money to be made from the process of speculating on such movements, quite apart from the gains to be made from those who guess right. (The costs of guessing wrong are often passed on to others, through ‘limited liability’, or being ‘too big to fail’.)

Added to their passion for bloated costs of stolen equity, today’s political, economic and media elites have kicked the whole concept of climate change aside in the six years since publication of Michie’s essays, despite current evidence to the contrary... it’s hot!... while those already on the brink of the survival cliff try to struggle by using a variety of means: DINKs (with or without kids as women increasingly join the workforce), the “informal economy” (aka crime), migratory remittances and @.

Through big words, complicated concepts tested in obscure studies by (well-paid) academicians and pipe-dream politics (“the economy needs to be redirected, away from financial speculation, monetisation of as many activities as can be profitably exploited, and deal making, towards a focus on human wellbeing and environmental and social sustainability”) Michie asks for a return to “a focus on actual outcomes, in terms of goods and services, within the context of the climate crisis whereby production needs to be sustainable, so that the focus shifts to the quality of life and human wellbeing, rather than increased economic growth for its own sake.”

As for solutions... well, at maximum effect... E&R (above), past Lessons from the DJI and numerous instances of partisan combat between capital and labor, workers and administrators and believers (in anything from health to Jesus to Trump) versus denialists have all played their part in the politics of the present.

Given the escalating prosecutorial appetites of the current three-tiered (executive, legislative, judicial) regime for prohibiting or even criminalizing speech (as, for example, GUK’s account Minnesota professor Erik Davis, facing six years for allegedly joining antifa protests, and calling ICE SLAPP prosecutions “petty revenge”: ATTACHMENT FIFTEEN), let’s just associate the following AI overview with remarks by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards; controversial – but they can hardly be described as proletarian.  They just play in a rock and roll band...

An AI Overview on That Prospect... (ATTACHMENT SIXTEEN) contends that prospects of a (REDACTED) happening in the U.S. is uncertain, but analysts note growing political polarization, institutional distrust, and executive overreach as key risk factors. While some think tanks warn of systemic political transformation, most experts view a traditional violent uprising as unlikely.

None other than Katie Couric’s Media podcast of July 13th, Bastille Day, took the anniversary to warn that (redacteds) may have consequences not all of their supporters anticipated or desired.  Her operative, attorney Glenn Sonnenberg, recalled that the attack on the Bastille… a prison holding captives by order of the King for their politics, rather than for “traditional” crimes… ended the Bourbon monarchy, “leading to the execution of the King and the Reign of Terror, during which over 40,000 people were executed or died in prison. Eventually, the Terror gave way to the Directory, then the Empire of Napoleon, the Napoleonic Wars, and the eventual restoration of the monarchy. The 19th century did not bring respite to the French people, who suffered through more revolution and successive wars that didn't abate until after the Second World War.”

Sonnenberg added that the bloodthirsty Robespierre never anticipated that the Revolution ultimately would call for his head.

He denounces populism – whether of the radical right or Socialist left – is an abundant evil that may lead to the decay, perhaps even death of democracy in the U.S.A. at the hands of either President Trump and his ICE capades or New York’s Zorro and his rent control radicals.  He compares them to the guillotine Galahads of Paris and concludes with Albert Camus, who wrote that: “The French Revolution gave birth to no great artists…The only poet of the times was the guillotine.” And as Robespierre observed, “Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible…” Hardly words upon which to build a just future.  Instead, Populism in America today “capitalizes upon the desire for visibility among those who feel invisible.  If we take their frustrations seriously, we can choose reform over revolution — and spare ourselves the cost that history so often demands after the latter.”

 

Then again, some of the haves have no interest in giving up even a fraction of their wealth and power and, instead of reform or revolution, choose repression – as is on display in Iran.

Democracy Without Borders (February, ATTACHMENT EIGHTEEN) cited largely liberal sources such as the World Inequality Report, Oxfam, and G-20 whose general concurrence was that extreme wealth inequality would engender despotic, rather than democratic change.

 

BILLIONAIRES INCREASED THEIR WEALTH BY OVER 80% IN FIVE YEARS

The G20 committee confirmed that global income inequality remains extremely high, with a global income Gini coefficient of 0.61. It reports that 83% of countries, accounting for 90% of the world’s population, have high income inequality, defined as a Gini above 0.4.

The World Inequality Report 2026, published shortly after the G20 committee report, reached a similar conclusion about the persistence of extreme disparities. It found that global income inequality remains at very high levels and emphasized that these outcomes were shaped by political and institutional choices rather than economic inevitability. The report warned that such concentration risks undermining democratic accountability and social cohesion.

Oxfam emphasized that the wealth surge at the top coincides with widespread hardship. For instance, one in four people globally faces moderate or severe food insecurity, and 2.6 billion people cannot afford a healthy diet. The G20 committee report also noted that food insecurity is up by 335 million people since 2019.

 

INTERNATIONAL PANEL ON INEQUALITY RECOMMENDED

Further, the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2026 identified inequality as one of the most interconnected global risks, linking it to social fragmentation, political instability, and weakened governance.  All of these, and others asked for an International Panel to be convened.

As for action… well, maybe later.

 

Included as attachments “A” through “F”  are Gini tables on equality by country (South Africa worst, Slovakia best) by states (Puerto Rico and New York worst, Utah best), a list of the richest American corporations, the Forbes 400 richest people, the Quiver Quantitative list of the richest American politicians and the latest polling data from Real Clear Politics.

 

 

 

 

IN the NEWS: JULY 24, 2026 TO JULY 30, 2026

 

Friday, July 24, 2026

 Dow:  51,917.81

Rich white student liberals in trendy Madison, Wisc. hold rallies to support a black career criminal who stabbed a policemen and was... surprise!... shot and killed.  All the usual suspects fly to Madison form Mississippi and Minneapolis – Ben Crump, a thin Al Sharpton sorely in need of hydration.  The Salgando Araujo  shooting in # has raised the issue of whether migrants attempting to escapt can be shot for resisting arrest when the police charges of self defense are ludicrous.  The family says he was afraid that the unmarked police were carjackers.

   On the 13th day of war since the cease fire fails, President Trump and (now officially) WarSec Hegseck move men and material to Iran and/or the newest front, Yemen,  Many threats, little action as oil prices top $100/barrel and gas hits $5.83 average in California, many places over $6.  And now Trump has a new enemy: Canada!  (The voices in his head say they deliberately set wildfires to poison Americans.)

   It’s another hot week here, there and everywhere.  The wildfires in Europe are bigger than those in Canada, even, with a third of a million evacuations and fear that fire will consume the French wine country, forcing sophisticates to drink... beer!   Here, the wildfires are blanketing Colorado and Missouri while flash floods , hail and tornadoes celebrate.  Sharks, too!  Tropical storm Bertha staggers into Houston, then dies.

 

Saturday, July 25, 2026

Dow:  Closed

Pete and Donnie deny that the US is running out of arms – specifically the multi-million dollar interceptor missiles that target $50,000 Iranian drones.  Pentagon leakers say that the USA is letting some of the Iranian drones and missiles crash to earth in adjacent countries so long as there are no troops in harm’s way but it’s the U.S. who shoots at a ship trying to traverse Hormuz.

   With missile exchanges paused, Trump takes the opportunity to go back to the National Correspondents’ Dinner, pushed forward after a failed assassination attempt.  Most of the media denounce him, albeit in a jocular manner and he jokes back.  No violence reported.

   But in Berlin, a deadly driver rams the Gay Pride parade, killing three and wounding 17.  Euroheat escalates and the Tour de France is shortened.  American violence is rhetorical – it’s now 100 days to the midterms, and both parties are scrambling.  In S. Carolina, ‘Pubs favor Lindsey Graham’s sister to succeed him while, in Maine, the asses say liberal lumberjack Troy Johnson is OK. 

 

Sunday, July 26, 2026

 Dow:  Closed

It’s Talkshow Sunday and ABC tabs Sen, Chris Van Hollen (D-Md) and Rep. Mike Turner (R-Oh) to argue the merits of the Iran War.  Van Hollen believes we are running out of materiel and says Trump does not have, and never did have a coherent plan – he was just led around by the nose by Netanyahu who is also throwing boiling water (not cold, no!) on the US/Saudi deal to kick off the Sunni nuclear deal .

   Turner says that Trump is being very methodical while the goal remains no nukes for Iran.  Van Hollen is a fool and a coward because Iran is the snake in the grass and will return to making nukes if America quits.  Next is a plan to make US allies stop buying Iranian oil.

   The roundtablers tackle the midterms with Republican RINO Chris Christie who says that POTUS is just bored.  Liberal Donna Brazile says we should be more supportive of veterans while Mary Bruce says Trump flip flop on Saudi nukes will cause Maine to dump Susan Collins and Chritie says that Republicans are conflicted over whether to go down with their Donald.

   The Bern comes to “Face the Nation” to speak out against the war.  “Let’s negotiate, stop the killing and lower gas prices.”  Supports Jackson while Collins supports the billionaire class and says that  people are sick and tired of Rahm Emanuel calling Democrats “Communists”.  UN Ambassador Mike Waltz says Trump is a “President of Peace” and the lack of military gear is a nonsensical lie. 

   The Hill roundtablers say that  the problem with the Iran war is that... “there are many problems.”  Wall Street Journal’s Kyle Peterson waxes historic, raising the war on the Barbary pirates “on the shores of Tripoli.”

 

Monday, July 27, 2026

 Dow:  52,210.08

It’s a happy first Birthday for Punch the Monkey.

   Stocks rise amd oil prices fall on Iran war pause but gougers raise prices at the pump 12˘.  Trump tribute to the four dead American soldiers but he renames “death toll” to “Overseas Operations” casualties.

   The war comes to Seattle where, after two daredevils jump off the Space Needle, a 15 year old and unknown accomplice kill three and injure five, including a two year old at the Space Needle food fest.

   But Americans, bless their congested li’l hearts, are occupied with sports and movies.  Lebron James will go to Philly while Caitlin Clark and Jonquel Jones star in Team Spoon’s 127-122 WNBA all star game win over Team Coop.  MLB nominates Andruw Jones, Carlos Beltran and Jeff Kent to the Hall of Fame; NFL, college and high school football teams start training for fall.

   “Odyssey” wins second B.O. with $87M as “Toy Story Five” passes a billion.  On the way is Black Panther Three with David Johnson starring, Ryan Godling in Ghost Rider sequel and the “Avengers Endgame” encore returns in September.

 

Tuesday, July 28, 2026

 Dow:  52,747.32

It’s allegedly Milk Chocolate Day” but the wet stuff is making what weatherpeople call of the United States “a state of disaster”.  Flash floods in the Northeast toss cars “like toys”, 540K lose power.  “It’s like some dinosaur stomped on everything!”  BosWash is under water from training rains of five inches perhour in NYC, 1700 flights are cancelled and 9000 delayed as far west as Chicago – not to mention all American Airlines flights due to “tech issues”.

   It’s no better overseas.  Fires in Europe prompt millions of evacuations, destroy expensive vineyards in France (cheaper ones in Spain) and a 6.8 EQ strikes Japan 500 mi. SW of Tokyo as malls collapse.

   Despite the weather, a solemn but spectacular funeral is held for Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) as bipartisan colleagues hear Trump’s oratory and President Zelenskyy and PM Netanyahu attent (and hold strategy conferences with POTUS after.  High on the agenda is an American proposal to supply nuclear power to the Saudis, but not weapons (yet).  Iran, who hated Graham like all Western infidels, denies the reports of “friendly talks” and the bombings and droning soon resume.

 

Wednesday, July 29, 2026

Dow:  51,594.14

It’s National Chicken Wing Day under a bright Buck Moon (except where it’s raining) but the chickens are eaten and the hawks fly out as President Trump officially cancels the two day cease fire with Iran with the backing of visiting Bibi and Zelenskyy – who says that Russia and Iran are drawing closer and closer was the jihadists in Tehran say Americans are the chickens, and will be eaten (but there is no word on whether Russia is supplying them with nukes – yet.”

   Economic issues arise, mixed with global politics, as Trump imposes a ban on Chinese humanoid robots (that some rich, lonely perverts are using as sex toys) while Rand Paul’s investigation of old, retired Dr. Fauci reiterates his failure to recognize that the plague was not transmitted by animals but manufactured in Chinese labs as an act of war. 

   Team Trump lashes out at sick old people, cutting Medicare drug subsidies whom Dr. Oz says will have to pay more for their pills; against migrants... even sock puppet Gov. Mike deWine (R-Oh) complaining that mass deportations of Haitians is hurting the right wing businesses that depend on their cheap labor... as many flee to Canada; but is backstabbed by his own new Feddie Warsh who  refuses to lower the interest rates and douses the Dow.

   Swimming against the downward tide. Apple’s profits are soaring and they introduce a plan to rent phones to Americans who can’t afford to buy them.  Critics ask who will own and what will happen to the data when they are turned in or repossessed, fearing merching to telemarketers and identity thieves.

 

Thursday, July 30, 2026

 Dow:  52,208.06

The week ends as it began – fires, floods, tornadoes here and overseas where there is also war. Diseases. Toxic smoke, a bouncing but inflationary economy; plattnering politicians, sex robots. mass shooters and the sun.

       The corpse of Lindsey Graham moves on from Washington to South Carolina for a family service while Israeli PM Bibi and Uke President Zelenskyy stay behind and lobby President Trump for more support.  Iran attacks the Egyptians while angry Russia bombs Poland, potentially setting off World War Three, but Trump is relaxed; saying that peace is just around the corner in both Lebanon and Kyev while the Distracticons sweep in and order the sheep to gask and gawp and gape as former QB Tony Romo is arrested for... oooh!... possession of an Open Container in his vehicle, the Children of America are menaced by... aaaah!... exploding squishy toys that afflict some with disfiguring burns, and Spider Man casts his web around... surprise!... the producer of the “Joker” movies – arrested for masterminding a Ponzi scheme – while a failed Hollywood development is turning into a coyote condo, endangering the celebrities and their little dogs too!  AAAAH-OOOH!...

   Even Vegas and Photnix endure/enjoy record 116° temperatures; floods sweep away children in New Jersey and a rogue giant water bottle rolls away with Katy Perry.  ICE promotes its 287G initiative to cooperate with local police – all of whom insist that they are are not hunting down and rounding up brown-skinned people but focusing on “the worst of the worst” to fill their four new giant prison.  (Except, of course, the Haitians – Presidential darkseider Stephen Miller declaring that “America’s doors are now closed to asylum seekers – permanaently!”)

   And, on Monday, America goes Back To School!

 

 

 

 

ECONOMIC INDICES           (60%)

 

 

 

 

CATEGORY

VALUE

BASE

RESULTS by PERCENTAGE

 

OUR SOURCES and COMMENTS

INCOME

(24%)

6/17/13 revised 1/1/22

LAST

CHANGE

NEXT

LAST WEEK in June (6/26)

Original  Reconfig.

   JULY 10th

Original  Reconfig.

   JULY 17th

Original Reconfig.

 LAST WEEK

Original  Reconfig.

 THIS WEEK

 Original     Reconfig.

THE WEEK’S CLOSING STATS...

 

Wages (hrly. Per cap)

9%

1350

7/24/26

+0.29%

8/26

1,904.26

1,909.78

1,909.78

  1,353.92

1,909.78

  1,353.92

1,909.78

  1,353.92

1,909.78

  1,353.92

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/average-hourly-earnings  37.64

Median Inc. (yearly)

4%

600

7/24/26

+0.063%

8/6/26

1,472.81

1,473.51

1,474.31

600.80

1,475.24

601.18

1,475.93

601.46

1,476.86

601.84

http://www.usdebtclock.org/   67,937 974 8.017 8,049 092

Unempl. (BLS – in mi)

4%

600

7/24/26

 +2.38%

8/26

542.60

555.52

555.52

614.28

555.52

614.28

555.52

614.28

555.52

614.28

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000   4.2

Official (DC – in mi)

2%

300

7/24/26

  -0.014%

8/6/26

216.79

216.76

216.73

299.92

223.51

309.31

223.48

309.27

223.45

309.23

http://www.usdebtclock.org/    7,317 318 096 097 098

Unofficl. (DC – in mi)

2%

300

7/24/26

  -0.007%

8/6/26

260.14

259.98

259.80

299.62

246.50

284.28

246.48

284.26

246.44

284.24

http://www.usdebtclock.org/    13,180 189 891 892 894

Workforce Participation

   Number

   Percent

2%

300

7/24/26

 -0.0005%

 -0.0281%

8/6/26

295.83

295.82

295.81

299.98

294.60

298.75

294.60

298.74

294.52

298.66

http://www.usdebtclock.org/    In 162,727 718 212 195 2172 Out 105,169 209 5,984 5,977 6034 Total: 267,869 927 8,196 172 8,206

60.748 .732 .483 .482 465

WP %  (ycharts)*

1%

150

7/24/26

 -0.485%

8/26

149.98

149.25

149.25

149.27

149.25

149.27

149.25

149.27

149.25

149.27

https://ycharts.com/indicators/labor_force_participation_rate  61.50

OUTGO

(15%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Inflation

7%

1050

7/24/26

 -0.4%

8/26

901.77

901.77

901.77

1050

905.38

1052.10

905.38

1052.10

905.38

1052.10

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm     +0.5 -0.4 nc

Food

2%

300

7/24/26

+0.2%

8/26

257.37

257.37

257.37

300

256.86

299.40

256.86

299.40

256.86

299.40

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm     +0.2 .2

Gasoline

2%

300

7/24/26

 -9.7%

8/26

181.96

181.96

181.96

300

199.61

320.10

199.61

320.10

199.61

320.10

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm     +7.0 -9.7

Medical Costs

2%

300

7/24/26

 -0.1%

8/26

267.14

267.14

267.14

300

267.41

300.30

267.41

300.30

267.41

300.30

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm     +0.5 -0.1

Shelter

2%

300

7/24/26

+0.1%

8/26

238.38

238.38

238.38

300

238.14

299.70

238.14

299.70

238.14

299.70

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm     +0.3  .1

WEALTH

(6%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dow Jones Index

2%

300

7/24/26

+0.96%

8/6/26

400.43

410.82

400.18

299.80

400.68

300.17

394.27

295.37

398.06

298.21

https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/index/   52,900.07   52,487.41  52,552.97  51,711.65  52,208.06

Home (Sales)

(Valuation)

1%

1%

150

150

7/24/26

 -1.92%

+2.63%

8/6/26

137.08

137.08

137.08

155.60

154.17

  134.49

140.69

152.61

158.23

134.49

140.69

152.61

158.23

134.49

140.69

152.61

158.23

https://www.nar.realtor/research-and-statistics 

Sales (M):  4.17  4.09 Valuations (K):  429.3  440.6

Millionaires  (New Cat,)

1%

150

7/24/26

+0.066%

8/6/26

137.58

137.65

137.72

150.15

137.81

150.25

137.88

150.32

137.97

150.42

http://www.usdebtclock.org/    24,315 328 344 356 372

Paupers (New Category)

1%

150

7/24/26

+0.039%

8/6/26

134.77

134.73

134.69

149.92

134.64

149.86

134.61

149.82

134.56

149.76

http://www.usdebtclock.org/    36,955 966 980 989 003

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GOVERNMENT

(10%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Revenue (trilns.)

2%

300

7/24/26

 -0.083%

8/6/26

484.29

484.99

485.69

300.85

486.56

301.39

487.17

301.77

485.91

301.61

http://www.usdebtclock.org/    5,572 580 590 587 565

Expenditures (tr.)

2%

300

7/24/26

+0.083%

8/6/26

287.56

287.40

287.16

299.59

286.92

299.34

286.44

298.86

286.20

298.61

http://www.usdebtclock.org/    7,225 231 237 242 248

National Debt (tr.)

3%

450

7/24/26

+0.244%

8/6/26

345.28

345.05

344.44

448.90

344.15

488.49

343.17

486.23

342.33

485.04

http://www.usdebtclock.org/    39,357 427 460 616 713

Aggregate Debt (tr.)

3%

450

7/24/26

+0.240%

8/6/26

354.13

353.42

352.67

448.15

351.82

447.07

350.33

445.20

349.49

444.13

http://www.usdebtclock.org/    112,648 887 3,159 3,365 3,638

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TRADE

(5%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Foreign Debt (tr.)

2%

300

 7/24/26

+0.084%

8/6/26

253.65

253.52

  252.18

295.57

251.07

294.27

248.81

293.90

248.60

293.65

http://www.usdebtclock.org/    9,497 502 544 550 558

Exports (in billions)

1%

150

7/24/26

 -2.87%

 8/26

203.57

150

    197.73

145.70

197.73

145.70

197.73

145.70

197.73

145.70

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/current/index.html  327.1  317.7

Imports (in billions))

1%

150

7/24/26

+3.12%

 8/26

134.69

150

    130.49

145.32

130.49

145.32

130.49

145.32

130.49

145.32

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/current/index.html  383.0  395.3

Trade Surplus/Deficit (blns.)

1%

150

7/24/26

+27.96%

 8/26

253.48

150

    182.61

108.06

182.61

108.06

182.61

108.06

182.61

108.06

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/current/index.html    55.9 77.6

 

-69

-329

SOCIAL INDICES              

                (40%)

ACTS of MAN

 

(12%)

World Affairs

3%

450

7/24/26

   -0.2%

8/6/26

468.20

468.20

466.24

448.20

466.24

 

 

448.20

466.71

 

 

448.65

 

 

465.88

 

 

447.76

 

 

Eurofires cause 130K evacuations in France where the Tour de France is shortened and expensive vineyards destroyed, 70K in Spain.  Pride Festival in Berlin rammed, a Polish woman killed, 31 injured – suspect...

War and terrorism

2%

300

7/24/26

  -0.2%

8/6/26

281.19

280.63

280.07

 

298.80

280.07

 

 

 

298.80

 

 

279.45

 

 

 

298.22

 

 

278.89

 

 

 

297.62

 

 

... described as Islamic militant who hates the queers and is killed by the police.  Seattle Space Needle shootings called a gang dispute with collateral damage, but Upper West Side NYC stabbings called “hate crimes”.  Resumption of Iran war raises oil prices to $85.47 per barrel (WTI) or $90.12 (Brent), gas to $4.11/gal.

Politics

3%

450

7/24/26

    -0.1%

8/6/26

451.95

451.95

450.15

 

 

448.20

 

450.15

 

 

 

 

448.20

 

 

 

449.70

 

 

 

 

447.75

 

 

 

449.25

 

 

 

 

447.30

 

 

 

  Crime, war and the kitchen table in play as the midterms are now less than 100 days off; rich students in Madison protest killing of black police stabber and SC chooses Lindsey Graham’s sister as successor while OK Maine lumberJackson replaces oyster farmer Platner.  Senate confirms Jay Clayton as Intel Chief on 51-47 party line vote but defiant ‘Pubs stall Blanche bid to stop “Acting”.  While Dems destroy themselves with infighting, ‘Pubs fear a blue wave due to unpopular actions like...

Economics

3%

450

7/24/26

 -0.2%

8/6/26

426.64

427.49

426.64

 

 

450.00

 

426.64

 

 

 

 

450.00

 

 

 

426.21

 

 

 

 

449.55

 

 

 

425.36

 

 

 

 

448.65

 

 

 

...President Trump starting tariff war with Canada that imposes stiff penalities on hockey sticks, canceling green grants to blue states, but not red, declaring Museum War on the Smithsonian for not being “inspiring enough”,  “untrue” and “insane”.  “Cracker Barrel” replaces the  CEO who tried to purge Uncle Herschel, BuzzFeed cuts 35% of worksorce and VISA fires 2,600. 

Crime

1%

150

7/24/26

 +0.1%

8/6/26

201.94

201.74

201.34

149.55

201.34

 

 

149.55

 

 

201.14

 

 

149.40

 

 

200.94

 

 

149.25

 

 

Son of KC Chiefs’ offensive coach Eric Bienemy shoots mom to death.  Nasty nurse molests two teen boys in Boston who complain to parents and police.  NC Dirty Devils stab man (women) and woman (man) in different locations with (different) pitchforks. 

ACTS of GOD

(6%)

 

 

 

Environment/Weather

3%

450

7/24/26

  -0.1%

8/6/26

277.49

276.96

275.85

447.30

275.57

446.85

275.57

 

446.85

275.29

 

446.40

Worldwide heat dome broils USA, Europe and more.   Tornadoes batter Wisconsin and Illinois, heat records broken from Denver to Memphis; 108° in Minneapolis, and flashflooding in NYC metro.  Apiaries denounce popular pesticides that are exterminating honeybees. 

Disasters

3%

450

7/24/26

  +0.1%

8/6/26

463.09

462.16

463.08

 

450.00

462.62

 

 

449.55

462.62

 

 

449.55

 

463.06

 

 

450.00

 

Two more strong hurricanes in Pacific as Atlantic remains quiet.  Death toll from Japanese EQ passes two dozen.   Hero 16 year old lifeguard rescues 10 year old from rough surf in Santa Cruz, CA.   Diddy in jailhouse brawl; sent to solitary as his chances of a Trump pardon wither. 

LIFESTYLE/JUSTICE INDEX

 

 

Science, Tech, Education

4%

600

7/24/26

     nc

8/6/26

617.97

617.35

617.35

599.40

617.97

600.00

617.97

600.00

617.97

600.00

Space X breaks losing streak with successful test launch and return to prepare for 2028 moonshot but telescopic robot flies out of order.  Schools begin Monday; administrators removing AI tech robots made by sex toy manufacturers.

Equality (econ/social)

     4%

600

7/24/26

   -0.1%

8/6/26

671.70

672.37

673.71

 

 

601.80

 

675.06

 

 

 

603.00

 

 

675.06

 

 

 

603.00

 

 

674.40

 

 

 

602.40

 

 

Record in-person and media turnout for WNBA all star game and Barack Obama meets and greets the playets.  ICE to open four more superprisons which critics say means more racial profiling, hunting, locking up and killing just as protected status sends America on a Haitian hunt.

Health

4%

600

7/24/26

     -0.1%

8/6/26

412.58

411.75

440.90

 

 

595.69

440.46

 

 

595.06

 

 

 

440.46

 

 

595.06

 

 

440.02

 

 

594.46

 

 

 

Climate change increasing mosquitoes, hence West Nile Virus that joins Cyclo, Bird Flu, monkeypox, Legionnaire’s and Lyme disease, @, @ and @ as Sen. Rand Paul and Dr. Fauci debate past plague.  Cancer survivors Bill & Melanie Shat start podcast as TV docs say losing weight raises chances of sex & pregnancy and doctors and police unite to merch “Habit Control” safes that lock up unhealthy and/or sinful fatty foods, videogames and other instruments of decadence.  FDA approves single pain relief combining naproxen and tylenol.  Add to Cyclo lettuce recall (12K cases, 98 hospitalized) 19M salmonellic eggs and 318M BMWs with fiery starters. 

Freedom and Justice

3%

450

7/24/26

     -0.1%

8/6/26

478.24

478.24

478.24

   450

477.76

449.55

477.76

449.55

477.28

449.10

In the courts, old cases (Nancy Guthrie, Salman Rushdie, Kohberger, Nolan Wells ) and new (pedo manfluencer Tate Bros., child strangler Lindsay Clancy in Mass., trunk musician D4VD) while killer (but acquitted murder) Karen Read, merches her biobook.  Father son killer/gunbuyers Colt (life without for four in Apalachee school and Colin (15 years) Gray sentences 

CULTURAL and MISCELLANEOUS INCIDENTS

 

 

Cultural incidents

      3%

450

7/24/26

     +0.1%

8/6/26

595.25

595.85

595.85

450.45

595.85

450.45

595.85

450.45

596.45

450.90

Ariana Grande releases new album but it’s already been hacked and stolen; the Olding Stones “Foreign Tongues” with Sir Paul McCartney who also sings on SNL.  On Broadway, get ready for Prince impersonators in “Purple Rain” while, at the movies, B.O. champ “Odyssey” will be challenged by the latest Spider Man; more sequels like “Black Panther Jr.” will pounce in 2027. 

   Box office receipts up; still lower than pre-plague but merchers are rolling in dough (or, rather, kernels) selling themed popcorn buckets that collectors paying $70 for as origian Batman, Iron Man and Travolta costumes go up to auction.  MLB HoFame inducts Andrus Jones, Carlos Beltran and Jeff Kent while ICE deports Colts’ linebacker Daniel Ogama Adongo back to Kenya and 42 year old Lebron James signs to play for Philly. 

   RIP: Irish songwriter Glen Hansard, NFL Chargers’ Billy Ray Smith.

Miscellaneous incidents

   4%/3%

450

7/24/26

     +0.1%

8/6/26

553.95

554.50

554.50

450.45

555.05

450.90

555.05

450.90

555.61

451.35

“Chatfishing” is latest dating app – promising talk, but no action.  Deer overpopulation in Massachusetts engenders an obvious solution – venison stew (with baked beans).  Dog missing in time and space returns after five years and 600 miles.  And lucky lotto winner in Florida cashes in on $800M jackpot. 

 

 

The Don Jones Index for the week of July 24th through July 30th, 2026 was DOWN .69 points (standard configuration); 3.29 by the reconfigured.

The Don Jones Index is sponsored by the Coalition for a New Consensus: retired Congressman and Independent Presidential candidate Jack “Catfish” Parnell, Chairman; Brian Doohan, Administrator.  The CNC denies, emphatically, allegations that the organization, as well as any of its officers (including former Congressman Parnell, environmentalist/America-Firster Austin Tillerman and cosmetics CEO Rayna Finch) and references to Parnell’s works, “Entropy and Renaissance” and “The Coming Kill-Off” are fictitious or, at best, mere pawns in the web-serial “Black Helicopters” – and promise swift, effective legal action againth parties promulgating this and/or other such slanders.

Comments, complaints, donations (especially SUPERPAC donations) always welcome at feedme@generisis.com or: speak@donjonesindex.com.

 

ATTACHMENT ONE – FROM TIME   

WHERE DOES INDIA’S COCKROACH MOVEMENT GO FROM HERE?

India’s burgeoning youth-led protest movement won a key victory over the weekend with the resignation of the country’s Education Minister, Dharmendra Pradhan.

The Cockroach Movement, which took its name from a derogatory remark made by India’s Chief Justice comparing young unemployed people to “cockroaches” and “parasites,” has quickly established itself as a formidable political force.

To discuss the movement and its future, TIME caught up with Mukul Kesavan, a historian, novelist, and one of India’s best-known writers.

Q: What is your view of the Cockroach Movement, and what do you think is unique about it?

MK: I’ve spent my life in Delhi. I’ve been to hundreds of demos because Jantar Mantar is the place where you go off and shout your slogans from the time I was an undergraduate, and I have to say, I’d never seen anything like this—not necessarily in terms of its size, though it was very large—but because it was so young.

I don’t mean to sound condescending, but it just seemed that these people had turned up because they felt there was a kind of existential crisis in their young lives.

Q: How much of a threat do these protests pose to Narendra Modi? 

MK: This movement is interesting. It’s a movement of the urban salariat. These are very middle-class people. They are largely Hindus, very young, and so they pose a peculiar kind of challenge […] What do you do with a group of young people who theoretically are the very basis of your political constituency?

The Modi juggernaut is generally seen as sinister but efficient at what it does, and the entire tenor of the taunting, the calling out, is that you’re an old, dysfunctional guy, that’s unusual because it seems to open the possibilities of this movement. Not because there’s a constructive program that’s been put forward, but simply because it seems to be open season on a man who, up to now, has seemed sort of inevitable.

Q: Where does the movement go from here? 

MK: I’m so bewildered by the scale, intensity, and coming-from-nowhere part of this movement that it’s not clear to me how it sustains itself or where it goes. I’m not saying it won’t, but it surprised everybody, including its organizers.

To read the full interview, click here.

READ 8/1 update here…

 

 

REPRINTED from DJI.260724, including attachments from 1440, “X” and the NEW YORK TIMES

ATTACHMENT FIFTEEN – FROM 1440

THE COCKROACH UPRISING

 

Tens of thousands of protesters marched toward India's Parliament in New Delhi yesterday before police fired tear gas to disperse the crowd. The self-described Cockroach Janta Party is demanding the education minister's resignation following repeated leaks of a medical entrance exam that millions of students see as determining their futures. See clashes unfold (w/photos). 

The movement emerged in May after India's chief justice compared unemployed young people to "parasites" and "cockroaches" during a Supreme Court hearing. The party has since focused on India's medical entrance exam, where more than 2 million students compete annually for roughly 130,000 medical school spots. Families borrow money or even sell land to pay for years of private tutoring, while the competitive exam culture has also raised concerns about students' mental health. Go inside India's high-stakes exam system here

India is home to the world's largest youth population, with about half its 1.5 billion people under age 30. Explore India's population pyramid.

ATTACHMENT FIFTEEN.A – FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES

POLICE IN INDIA USE TEAR GAS AND BATONS ON CROWDS PROTESTING EXAM SCANDAL

Young people angry about frequent leaks of college entrance tests present one of the biggest challenges in years to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

By Mujib Mashal and Pragati K.B.   Reporting from New Delhi   July 20, 2026

Chaotic scenes played out on the streets of New Delhi on Monday, as security forces used tear gas and batons to disperse tens of thousands of people marching on the Parliament in one of the largest protests against Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government in years.

The protest in the Indian capital, largely fueled by young people, was called to demand the resignation of the country’s education minister after botched college entrance exams that have disrupted the lives of millions of students.

A smiling Mr. Modi, who arrived to open a session of the Parliament, tried to project an image of calm. He did not address the protesters’ demands directly, even as security forces struggled to hold back the crowds spilling onto the roads leading to the building.

By day’s end, the police crackdown, in which protesters were beaten up, appeared to have dispersed much of the crowd. The exact number of protesters injured was not clear, but Indian medireported that over 100 people had been brought to two hospitals in Delhi.

Police officials told Indian news outlets that at least 50 of their personnel were also injured.

Over 60 protesters were arrested, according to lawyers who were rallying legal help for them.

Mr. Modi’s response has so far remained consistent with his decade-old position that his ministers are not answerable to public pressure.

But the size and force of the protests may indicate that his ruling party has underestimated the raw anger among young people in India, particularly after recent student movements in neighboring Bangladesh and Nepal toppled governments.

His image as a strongman may also be showing cracks.

Television channels friendly to Mr. Modi, which had largely ignored the buildup to Monday’s protest, broadcast footage of panic around the Parliament as security guards ran around holding the line with water cannons and tear gas. On social media, a space where Mr. Modi’s ruling party has enjoyed outsize influence, the Gen-Z protesters appeared to be breaking through, with memes and livestreams of the protests and the police crackdown.

“The apathy the government is showing us is shameful,” said Anshul Yadav, 20, who attended the protests on Monday with two friends. “The government should come talk,” he said. “Education is important.”

Public anger over the exam scandal has been simmering since May, when more than two million students who took India’s biggest entrance exam for medical school found out that the results would be scrapped because the questions had been leaked and that they would have to retake the test.

Such leaks have become a frequent problem in recent years, and news reports in India that some students have died by suicide because of the stress have intensified the outrage. The movement has since grown into broader discontent over the failings of the Indian education system and the lack of accountability in governance.

The movement gained momentum over the weekend after the police forcibly removed Sonam Wangchuk, a prominent activist who had been on hunger strike at the protest site for more than 20 days. The police said that they had moved him to a hospital for court-ordered essential medical care, despite opposition from his family and fellow protesters.

Running the Barricades

On Monday morning, crowds chanting slogans against Mr. Modi poured into the Jantar Mantar area, a protest site not far from the Parliament. The streets were jammed with mostly young people, many saying that they had come from other parts of India. They tried to push their way to the site through heavy barricades. In some areas, the police welded tall barricades to stop the protesters from moving toward the Parliament.

By Monday afternoon, a senior member of Mr. Modi’s cabinet, J.P. Nadda, met with representatives of the movement, the first such outreach since the protests began. The movement’s leaders have issued three specific demands: the immediate resignation of the education minister, Dharmendra Pradhan; the discharge from the hospital of Mr. Wangchuk; and compensation for the families those students who died by suicide.

Mr. Pradhan is seen as close to Mr. Modi, having played an important role in recent victories by his Bharatiya Janata Party, or B.J.P., in key state elections. The education minister has previously brushed the protesters aside, calling them “the B-team of terrorists.”

Mr. Nadda, in a statement, confirmed having met “in a cordial atmosphere,” but offered no sign of what the government response to the demand would be. “I have requested all the protesters to end their sit-in and assist the administration in restoring normalcy,” he said.

On the streets, the police continued to chase away protesters.

“Seeing the brutality with which peacefully protesting youth are being dealt with, I have decided to continue my fast,” Mr. Wangchuk, who has been held at a hospital against his will, said in a statement.

Protest leaders said that the police had destroyed the stage where Mr. Wangchuk lay during his fast and which had become their gathering point, but that they were regrouping again late in the evening. “We won’t leave Jantar Mantar until education minister Dharmendra Pradhan resigns,” said one of the leaders, Ashutosh Ranka.

Angry Students

The protesters accuse Mr. Pradhan of doing little to fix an education system that can be corrupt, lax and inefficient. The latest example — the cancellation of the entrance exams to medical school because the question papers were leaked and sold — affected millions of students.

Such tests can be a ticket to a better life, whether for higher education or for a coveted government job. Many families sell land or borrow money to pay for private tutoring to give students a chance of success.

One doctoral student, Priyam Dubey, 26, said he had been in schoolin 2024 when exam questions were leaked. After taking an entrance exam for a fellowship that could fund his graduate degree, he was told that it had been scrapped and that he had to sit for it again.

“I gave in the paper, it went really well and next morning when I woke up, the paper got leaked and they canceled the examination,” he said. “I didn’t want to prepare again.”

He said no one was being held accountable for what young people like him often go through.

As the crowds built up, the internet became inaccessible in the protest area.

Sreelakshmi Sreevalsam, 37, traveled to Delhi from Bengaluru to “make things audible to the government,” she said. Ms. Sreevalsam, a project manager at a financial technology company, met up with two friends on Monday morning for the protests.

“I want to be on the right side of history,” she said.

Bharati Ghosh, a B.J.P. spokeswoman, said on Sunday night that the police had arrested those responsible for the leaks and that the law would take its course. “The B.J.P. government senses, understands and responds to its people,” she said. “We are not sensing that the entire country is angry or frustrated.”

Amit Malviya, who is in charge of the ruling party’s social media wing, tried to downplay the scale of the protest.

“This hardly looks like a protest that enjoys support beyond professional agitators and ideological groups,” he said on X.

Rare Dissent

The space for protest and dissent in India’s traditionally raucous democracy has shrunk significantly during Mr. Modi’s 12 years in office. His government has cracked down on dissent and put activists behind bars, creating a chilling effect on public opposition.

The current protest was started by the Cockroach Janta Party, a grass-roots movement founded just two months ago that has come to symbolize the anger among India’s youth. It started in response to a rant by India’s chief justice comparing the country’s unemployed youth with cockroaches and parasites. In June, the party announced a sit-in demanding accountability over the exam leaks.

When the crowds filled the area around the protest site on Monday morning, the movement’s social media handles posted: “A flood of hundreds of thousands of cockroaches.”

Mujib Mashal is the South Asia bureau chief for The Times, helping to lead coverage of India and the diverse region around it, including Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan.

Pragati K.B. is a reporter for The Times based in New Delhi, covering news from across India.

A version of this article appears in print on July 21, 2026, Section A, Page 10 of the New York edition with the headline: After Exam Scandal In India, Protests Draw Tear Gas and Batons

 

ATTACHMENT FIFTEEN.B – FROM X

Indian Chief Justice Surya Kant says there are "parasites" attacking the system. "There are youngsters like cockroaches, who don't get any employment and don't have any place in the profession. Some of them become media, some of them become social media, some of them become RTI activists, some of them become other activists, and they start attacking everyone." - CJI.

 

A2X03  FROM VISUAL CAPITALIST

Ranked: How Wealthy the Top 1% Are in Each Major Economy

by Dorothy Neufeld February 24, 2026

See visuals like this from many other data creators on our Voronoi app. Download it for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.

 

Key Takeaways

·         The U.S. has the wealthiest top 1%, with average per capita wealth of $16.4 million, far ahead of other major economies.

·         In America, the top 1% control 35% of all wealth, while the bottom 50% hold just $9,000 per person.

·         Mexico has the highest wealth concentration in this group, with the top 1% holding 37% of national wealth.

In the United States, the average member of the top 1% holds $16.4 million in wealth.

In Japan, that figure is less than half. In Mexico, it’s $2.7 million.

The “top 1%” may sound like a global tier of wealth, but how rich that group actually is depends heavily on where they live.

Using the latest data from McKinsey, we rank the world’s major economies by the per capita wealth of their top 1%, adjusted for purchasing power. The results reveal a startling gap: while American elites lead the pack with $16.4 million in wealth, others see a net worth of less than a third of this.

Top 1% Net Worth Per Capita in Major Economies

Below, we show how the top 1% compares by country, adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP). This shows the true buying power across economies relative to the U.S. dollar:

Country

Top 1% Average Per Capita Wealth (PPP)

Bottom 50% Average Per Capita Wealth

Top 1% Share of Wealth

U.S.

$16.4M

$9K

35%

Australia

$10.6M

$36K

24%

Canada

$9.1M

$30K

24%

Germany

$9.1M

$23K

28%

France

$8.5M

$31K

27%

Italy

$7.2M

$17K

22%

South Korea

$7.2M

$10K

26%

Japan

$6.9M

$22K

25%

UK

$5.0M

$22K

21%

China

$3.2M

$13K

30%

Mexico

$2.7M

$3K

37%

The U.S. has the highest average per capita wealth for their top 1%, surpassing second-ranked Australia by $5.8 million.

In stark contrast, U.S. national per capita wealth sits at $470,000, while the bottom 50% holds a net worth of just $9,000, on average. Overall, the American top 1% controls 35% of the nation’s total wealth, a share that is steadily rising.

When adjusted for purchasing power, this share accounts for 5% of global wealth, rising to 9% when measured in absolute U.S. dollar terms.

While Australia holds the second-highest average at $10.6 million, its internal wealth gap is notably less extreme. Australia’s per capita wealth is comparable at $450,000, yet its bottom 50% holds a significantly higher average net worth of $36,000.

Similarly, this distribution pattern is broadly mirrored across Canada and major European economies.

In China, average per capita wealth of the top 1% stands at $3.2 million, against a national per capita wealth of $110,000. In fact, China’s bottom 50% holds more wealth per person than the bottom half in the U.S., when adjusted for purchasing power.

 

 

A3X04  FROM AI OVERVIEW

TOP ONE PERCENT


AI Overview

The global net worth threshold to enter the top 1% worldwide is approximately $870,000 to $1 million, though requirements vary drastically by country. 

Global vs. Country Thresholds

Wealth Control and Holdings

 

 

         

THE RICHEST AMERICAN PEOPLE

 

A4X55  FROM FORBES
Elon Musk’s Wealth Sinks Below $700 Billion As SpaceX Rout Extends

By Ty Roush    Jul 27, 2026, 11:04am EDTJul 27, 2026, 12:17pm EDT

A further decline in SpaceX shares on Monday cut Elon Musk’s net worth by more than $20 billion, lowering his fortune below the $700 billion threshold for the first time since December, as Musk falls further from his trillionaire status.

Shares of SpaceX dropped 4.8% to around $109.50 as of 10:50 a.m. EDT Monday, extending a 50% plunge for the stock since hitting an all-time high on June 16.

Musk, whose SpaceX holdings include 4.8 billion shares and another 350 million stock options, saw his net worth cut by $29.5 billion to $695.7 billion, yet he still ranks well ahead of Google co-founders Larry Page ($268.5 billion) and Sergey Brin ($247.1 billion) as the world’s richest person.

Musk’s fortune last ended a trading session below $700 billion on Dec. 18, 2025 ($680.6 billion).

SpaceX’s declining stock value comes even after the firm’s successful test launch of its Starship rocket on Friday, as Wall Street appeared to express caution ahead of the test: JPMorgan analyst Seth Seifman wrote in a note earlier in the week there would be “plenty of analyze” from the latest Starship launch, though the firm expected “progress and setbacks” across dozens of more launches through 2027.

An aborted Starship launch on July 16 also pushed SpaceX shares lower and reduced Musk’s fortune by more than $45 billion to below $800 billion.

CRUCIAL QUOTE

“(Former) trillionaire,” Musk wrote on X last week in an apparent nod to his declining fortune in recent weeks.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

Whether SpaceX shares fall below $100. Morgan Stanley analysts wrote Friday that threshold would imply investors would see no value in the rocket maker’s AI business. Still, some already see “zero or negative value” as the firm accelerates its spending on space and connectivity and “largely uncertain economics,” the analysts wrote.

BIG NUMBER

About $750 billion. That’s how much Musk’s net worth has declined since hitting a peak of $1.45 trillion on June 16. Around $116 billion of the decline is because Forbes removed Tesla options based on new vesting conditions agreed to by Musk and his automaker.

KEY BACKGROUND

Musk saw his net worth reach multiple milestones throughout 2025, culminating in his trillionaire status following SpaceX’s initial public offering last month. He first crossed the $700 billion threshold in December, just days after reaching $600 billion, and hit $800 billion in February. A now-monthlong rout in SpaceX shares comes despite optimism from analysts, including former Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives, who argued Musk’s rocket maker is “well-positioned to become a major hyperscaler” across connectivity, rocket launches and AI infrastructure. Other analysts have pointed to the possible value of Starship’s potential: UBS analyst Gavin Parsons wrote the latest launch was important because it was “intended to validate” capabilities required of the rocket’s launch ramp, including booster engine relight ability.

 

 

A5X05 FROM AI OVERVIEW  (obsolete)

USA RICHEST

 

AI Overview

The richest person in the United States is Elon Musk, leading top American billionaires like Larry Page and Sergey Brin. 

Richest Individuals in the U.S.

·         Elon Musk: Estimated over $1 trillion* (Tesla, SpaceX)  (No longer: See Attachment Four above – DJI)

·         Larry Page: Estimated at roughly $257 billion to $291 billion (Google)

·         Sergey Brin: Estimated at roughly $237 billion to $269 billion (Google)

·         Jeff Bezos: Estimated at roughly $224 billion to $249 billion (Amazon) 

 

A6 X54 From wiki

List of current members of the United States Congress by wealth

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  (Obsolete)

This article needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (January 2021)

This list of members of the United States Congress by wealth includes the fifty richest members of Congress as of 2018. It displays the net worth (the difference between assets and liabilities) for the member and their immediate family, such as a spouse or dependent children. These figures offer only an estimation of wealth, as the Congressional financial disclosure rules use value ranges instead of exact amounts.[1] As an upper range is not specified for values over $50 million (or over $1 million for a spouse), large assets are not represented accurately. Additionally, government salaries and personal residences are not typically included in disclosures.[2] Furthermore, several members of Congress do not use a standardized electronic format, but instead file reports that range from vague to indecipherable.[3] As of 2020, over half of the members of Congress were millionaires and the median net worth of members was approximately $1 million.[4]

 

The original documents for each member's disclosure are publicly available on a database website, maintained by OpenSecrets.[5]

 

Since 2009, the salaries per annum of members of the United States Congress have been as follows:[6]

 

Position     Salary

Speaker of the House of Representatives        $223,500

Majority leader and minority leader of the House of Representatives         $193,400

President pro tempore of the Senate      $193,400

Senators and representatives         $174,000

Non-voting members of the United States House of Representatives         $174,000

The wealthiest members of the United States Congress are as follows:

 

Source: OpenSecrets (2018 and 2019)

Name                   Party          State                    Chamber                       Net worth                     Source of wealth

 

 

Jim Justice Republican         West Virginia     Senate (since 2025)    $664.2 million          Owner of The Greenbrier, owner of several coal mines

Jefferson Shreve Republican         Indiana      House (since 2025)     $599.8 million          Founder of Storage Express

Rick Scott Republican         Florida       Senate (since 2019)    $503.2 million[9]          Co-founder of HCA Healthcare, attorney

Darrell Issa         Republican         California  House (2001–2019, since 2021)   Up to $460 million[10]     Former CEO of Directed Electronics

Kevin Hern         Republican         Oklahoma  House (since 2018)     $361.0 million          Owner of several McDonald's franchises, founder of KTAK Corporation, hog farm owner

Tim Sheehy        Republican         Montana    Senate (since 2025)    $297.06 million       Founder of Bridger Aerospace

Michael McCaul          Republican         Texas         House (since 2005)     $294 million[11]         His father-in-law founded iHeartMedia

Nancy Pelosi      Democratic         California  House (since 1987)     $287 million[5]  Investments

Dan Goldman     Democratic         New York House (since 2023)     $64 to 253 million[12]         Heir to Levi's

Mark Warner      Democratic         Virginia     Senate (since 2009)    $214.1 million[5]  Early investor in Nextel, founder of Columbia Capital

Pete Ricketts       Republican         Nebraska   Senate (since 2023)    $206.39 million[13]         Family owns TD Ameritrade, stake in the Chicago Cubs

Dave McCormick        Republican         Pennsylvania      Senate (since 2025)          $165.3 million    Former Co-CEO of Bridgewater

Vernon Buchanan        Republican         Florida       House (since 2007)     $157.2 million       Co-founder of American Speedy Printing, Honda distributor

April McClain Delaney        Democratic         Maryland   House (since 2025)          $152.7 million[14]      Real estate investments, hedge fund holdings

Don Beyer Democratic         Virginia     House (since 2015)     $124.9 million[5]          Auto dealer

Jay Obernolte     Republican         California  House (since 2021)     $97.76 million[15]         Former owner and director of FarSight Studios

Sara Jacobs         Democratic         California  House (since 2021)     $87.29 million[16]         Her grandfather founded Qualcomm

Richard Blumenthal    Democratic         Connecticut        Senate (since 2011)          $85.2 million[17]        Son-in-law of Peter L. Malkin

Suzan DelBene   Democratic         Washington        House (since 2012)     $79.4 million[5]  Microsoft executive

Ron Johnson      Republican         Wisconsin Senate (since 2011)    $78.5 million          Former CEO of Bemis Company

Markwayne Mullin     Republican         Oklahoma  Senate (since 2023)

House (2013–2023)

 

$31.6 million to $75.6 million[18]        Owner of Mullin Properties, Mullin Farms, and Mullin Services

Doris Matsui      Democratic         California  House (since 2005)     $73.8 million[19]         Her husband founded AES Corporation

Roger Williams  Republican         Texas         House (since 2013)     $66.9 million[20]         His father's auto dealerships

Buddy Carter      Republican         Georgia      House (since 2015)     $66.5 million          Pharmacist, investments

Scott Peters         Democratic         California  House (since 2013)     $60.5 million          Attorney, economist, investments

Bernie Moreno   Republican         Ohio Senate (since 2025)    $55.6 million          Auto dealer, investor in Ownum

Marlin Stutzman          Republican         Indiana      House (2010–2017, since 2025)          $54.3 million[21]        Stake in a farm, owner of Stutzman Farms Trucking, his wife owns a tourist attraction

Bill Hagerty        Republican         Tennessee  Senate (since 2021)    $52.8 million[22]         Investment firm director

Rick W. Allen    Republican         Georgia      House (since 2015)     $52.1 million          Founder of R.W. Allen and Associates

Robert Bresnahan        Republican         Pennsylvania      House (since 2025)     $48 million[23]         Former CEO of Kuharchik Construction, owner of RPB Ventures

John Hoeven      Republican         North Dakota      Senate (since 2011)    $46.6 million[24]         Shareholder in First Western Bank & Trust

Ro Khanna          Democratic         California  House (since 2017)     $45.7 million[25]         Attorney, energy services executive

Jim Risch  Republican         Idaho         Senate (since 2009)    $41.8 million          Attorney, investments

Shri Thanedar     Democratic         Michigan   House (since 2023)     $40.9 million[26]         Former owner of Chemir, founder of Avomeen

Maria Cantwell  Democratic         Washington        Senate (since 2001)

House (1993–1995)

 

$40 million (peak, pre-2003)[27] Former Vice-President and shareholder in RealNetworks

Mitch McConnell        Republican         Kentucky   Senate (since 1985)    $34.1 million       Attorney, investments

Steve Daines       Republican         Montana    Senate (since 2015)    $32.9 million          Procter & Gamble executive

Dan Meuser        Republican         Pennsylvania      House (since 2019)     $31.7 million[28]         Former President of Pride Corporation

Lloyd Doggett    Democratic         Texas         House (since 1995)     $29.7 million          Attorney, investments

Chellie Pingree   Democratic         Maine        House (since 2009)     $28.58 million[29]         Ex-wife of financier Donald Sussman

Brad Schneider  Democratic         Illinois       House (2013–2015, since 2017)          $27.2 million      Management consultant, industrial engineer

French Hill         Republican         Arkansas    House (since 2015)     Up to $25.7 million[30]         Financial services executive

John Rose  Republican         Tennessee  House (since 2019)     $23.3 million[31]          Co-founder of Transcender Corporation

Dan Newhouse   Republican         Washington        House (since 2015)     $21.2 million       Farmer

Ralph Norman    Republican         South Carolina   House (since 2017)     $20.6 million[32]         Construction executive

Cynthia Lummis          Republican         Wyoming  Senate (since 2021)

House (2009–2017)

 

$20 to 75 million (peak in 2007)[33]    Real estate holdings, cryptocurrency, co-owner of Hammond Hardware Company

See also

List of richest American politicians

Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act

References

 "Wealth of Congress". Roll Call. Retrieved May 17, 2020.

 "About the Personal Finances Data & CRP's Methodology". OpenSecrets. OpenSecrets. Retrieved January 12, 2021.

 Marquette, Chris (October 1, 2020). "Several lawmakers disclose opaque financial records". Roll Call.

 Evers-Hillstrom, Karl (April 23, 2020). "Majority of lawmakers in 116th Congress are millionaires". OpenSecrets.

 "Nancy Pelosi- financial holdings". Quiver Quantitative. QuiverQuantitative. May 19, 2026. Retrieved May 19, 2026.

 Brudnick, Ida A. (April 11, 2018). "Congressional Salaries and Allowances: In Brief" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 10, 2016. Retrieved November 10, 2016.

 Hankins, Taylor (September 2, 2025). "Jim Justice is the richest U.S. Senator, data shows". WHSV.

 "Jefferson Shreve Net Worth | Quiver Quantitative". www.quiverquant.com. Retrieved September 27, 2025.

 "Rick Scott Net Worth | Quiver Quantitative". www.quiverquant.com. Retrieved September 27, 2025.

 "Mitt Romney, Rick Scott and 3 More of the Richest Members of Congress". Yahoo Finance.

 "The 50 Richest Members of Congress — 112th : Roll Call". www.rollcall.com. Archived from the original on September 17, 2011. Retrieved September 27, 2025.

 "Levi Strauss Heir Would Join Congress's Richest With NYC Win". Bloomberg.com. Archived from the original on June 18, 2025. Retrieved September 27, 2025.

 "Pete Ricketts Net Worth | Quiver Quantitative". www.quiverquant.com. Retrieved September 27, 2025.

 "April McClain Delaney Net Worth | Quiver Quantitative". www.quiverquant.com. Retrieved September 27, 2025.

 "Jay Obernolte Net Worth | Quiver Quantitative". www.quiverquant.com. Retrieved September 27, 2025.

 "Sara Jacobs Net Worth | Quiver Quantitative". www.quiverquant.com. Retrieved September 27, 2025.

 Middleton, Chris. "The 25 wealthiest members of the US Congress". Moneywise. Retrieved September 27, 2025.

 Krehbiel, Randy (November 13, 2023) [October 8, 2022]. "Mullin's and Hern's net worth jump with sale of businesses". Tulsa World. Updated. Archived from the original on December 17, 2024.

 Middleton, Chris. "The 25 wealthiest members of the US Congress". Moneywise. Retrieved September 27, 2025.

 "Roger Williams- Net Worth - Personal Finances". OpenSecrets. Retrieved September 27, 2025.

 "Marlin A. Stutzman Net Worth | Quiver Quantitative". www.quiverquant.com. Retrieved September 28, 2025.

 "Bill Hagerty Net Worth | Quiver Quantitative". www.quiverquant.com. Retrieved September 28, 2025.

 Terruso, Makenzie Kerneckel | Julia (August 10, 2025). "Rob Bresnahan's stock trades fuel doubts about GOP hold on key Pa. swing seat". Inquirer.com. Retrieved September 27, 2025.

 "John Hoeven- Net Worth - Personal Finances". OpenSecrets. Retrieved September 30, 2025.

 "Ro Khanna- Net Worth - Personal Finances". OpenSecrets. Retrieved September 27, 2025.

 "Shri Thanedar Net Worth | Quiver Quantitative". www.quiverquant.com. Retrieved September 27, 2025.

 Keller, Amy (September 4, 2003). "The Roll Call 50 Richest: Gainers and Losers". Roll Call. Retrieved September 30, 2025.

 "Dan Meuser- Net Worth - Personal Finances". OpenSecrets. Retrieved September 27, 2025.

"The 15 Richest Members of Congress 2012". CNBC. October 23, 2012. Retrieved September 30, 2025.

 "How slaveholding families reasserted themselves after the Civil War". Reuters. December 13, 2023. Retrieved September 27, 2025.

 Middleton, Chris. "The 25 wealthiest members of the US Congress". Moneywise. Retrieved September 27, 2025.

 Middleton, Chris. "The 25 wealthiest members of the US Congress". Moneywise. Retrieved September 27, 2025.

Nickerson, Gregory (December 13, 2011). "Wyoming Delegation: Rep. Cynthia Lummis among Richest Members of Congress". WyoFile. Retrieved September 27, 2025.

 

 

THE RICHEST AMERICAN CONGRESSPEOPLE

 

A7 X52 FROM BALLOTPEDIA (2012) (OBSOLETE)

Net worth of United States Senators and Representatives

 

Definitions

Classes of United States Senators • President Pro Tempore of the Senate • United States Speaker of the House • Filibuster • Reconciliation • Vote-a-ramas • Parliamentarian • Christmas tree bill


 

Notable events

Key votes • Presidential addresses


Elections

Election dates • Filing requirements for congressional candidates • Filling vacancies in Senate • Filling vacancies in House


Campaign finance

Federal Election Commission • Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee • National Republican Congressional Committee • Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee • National Republican Senatorial Committee


Sessions

119th Congress
118th • 117th • 116th • 115th • 114th • 113th • 112th • 111th • 110th


This page was last updated in its entirety in 2012. The figures below reflect net worth information for members of Congress based on data OpenSecrets.org calculated. As of June 2025, Ballotpedia did not identify any other organizations that tracked congressional net worth across the years. One resource, investment research platform Quiver Quantitative, estimated real time congressional net worth as of June 2025. Click here to view its dataset.

In 2018, 229 of 535 (43%) members of Congress had an average net worth of at least $1 million.[1] According to analysis conducted by Politifact, 5% to 12% of U.S. citizens had a net worth of at least $1 million.[2] In 2012, a majority (50%) of Congress had an average net worth of at least $1 million, an historic first.[3]

Congressional net worth differs depending on how it is calculated. For example, OpenSecrets said of its methodology, "It is difficult to gauge what a lawmaker is worth because disclosure forms do not require exact values. Instead, lawmakers report the value of assets and liabilities within a range. ... To calculate net worth, therefore, we added a lawmaker's ranges of assets and subtracted their range of liabilities. Next, we calculated the midpoint of the resulting range and used this figure for [our rankings]."[1] News outlet Roll Call, on the other hand, looked at minimum net worth, finding only 39% of Congress had a net worth of at least $1 million.[2] Quiver Quantitative's live estimates, unlike OpenSecrets, did not include outstanding liabilities.[4]

Analysis provided on this page includes:

·         A complete list of the average net worth of Congress from 2004 to 2011/12

·         The ten wealthiest (and poorest) members of both the House and Senate from 2010 to 2012

·         The net worth of new members of Congress from 2005 to 2015

·         How much the congressional delegations of each state were worth from 2004 to 2011

·         A complete list of the net worth averages for individual congressional members from 2004 to 2011

For information on which members saw the highest change during their tenure, please see Ballotpedia's page on the Changes in Net Worth of U.S. Senators and Representatives (Personal Gain Index).

Average worth

Year

# of Reports

Total Net Worth

Average

2011

627

$4,946,090,771

$7,888,502

2010

641

$4,680,278,853

$7,301,527

2009

652

$4,271,710,652

$6,551,703

2008

600

$3,834,468,090

$6,390,780

2007

603

$4,633,904,377

$7,684,750

2006

594

$3,979,189,252

$6,698,972

2005

542

$3,459,576,717

$6,382,983

2004

580

$3,533,674,470

$6,092,542

Note: Report numbers may reflect incoming and outgoing members of congress.

Year

# of Senate Reports

Senate Average

2011

112

$14,013,596

2010

116

$13,224,333

2009

116

$13,229,651

2008

110

$13,835,333

2007

106

$17,170,451

2006

107

$14,106,027

2005

101

$14,553,612

2004

105

$14,455,289

Year

# of House Reports

House Average

2011

512

$6,594,859

2010

525

$5,992,869

2009

536

$5,106,476

2008

490

$4,719,554

2007

497

$5,661,643

2006

487

$5,071,549

2005

441

$4,511,705

2004

475

$4,243,935

Note: Report numbers may reflect incoming and outgoing members of congress.

Democrats

Year

# of Senate Reports

Senate Average

2012

53

$13,566,333

2011

59

$20,795,450

2010

59

$19,383,524

2009

62

$18,937,920

2008

58

$19,758,117

2007

53

$26,454,480

2006

50

$22,523,538

2005

44

$24,796,538

2004

50

$21,624,612

Year

# of House Reports

House Average

2012

202

$5,700,168

2011

241

$5,107,874

2010

266

$4,465,875

2009

273

$4,399,028

2008

271

$3,754,728

2007

275

$4,666,911

2006

244

$3,639,139

2005

206

$2,938,156

2004

225

$2,583,214

Note: Report numbers may reflect incoming and outgoing members of congress.

Republicans

Year

# of Senate Reports

Senate Average

2012

45

$6,956,438

2011

51

$6,358,668

2010

55

$7,054,258

2009

53

$6,799,690

2008

50

$7,472,817

2007

51

$8,155,252

2006

56

$6,834,723

2005

55

$6,858,820

2004

54

$8,080,791

Year

# of House Reports

House Average

2012

230

$7,614,097

2011

273

$7,859,232

2010

259

$7,561,133

2009

263

$5,840,823

2008

219

$5,913,470

2007

222

$6,893,857

2006

242

$6,535,975

2005

234

$5,915,700

2004

249

$5,761,167

Note: Report numbers may reflect incoming and outgoing members of congress.

 

Independents

Year

# of Senate Reports

Senate Average

2012

2

$8,096,792

2011

3

$6,099,707

2010

2

$1,205,273

2009

1

$105,003

2008

2

$1,137,522

2007

2

$1,031,270

2006

1

$423,504

2005

2

$816,019

2004

1

$212,006

Year

# of House Reports

House Average

2012

0

N/A

2011

0

N/A

2010

0

N/A

2009

0

N/A

2008

0

N/A

2007

0

N/A

2006

1

$188,504

2005

1

$128,001

2004

1

$115,501

Note: Report numbers may reflect incoming and outgoing members of congress.

Top and bottom

Senators

 

Mark Warner (D-VA) was the wealthiest senator in 2012, with an estimated net worth of $257,481,658.

 

Mark Pryor (D-AR) was the least wealthy senator in 2012, with an estimated net worth of $8,500

Senator

Average Net Worth

Mark Warner

$257,481,658

Richard Blumenthal

$103,803,192

Jay Rockefeller

$101,290,514

Dianne Feinstein

$68,446,578

James Risch

$53,517,527

Bob Corker

$49,114,509

John Hoeven

$37,115,538

Ron Johnson

$24,442,007

Kay Hagan

$24,069,791

Mitch McConnell

$22,841,026

Senator

Average Net Worth

Kirsten Gillibrand

$291,002

Deb Fischer

$248,001

Saxby Chambliss

$243,504

Martin Heinrich

$171,007

Patrick Leahy

$129,503

Mike Lee

$111,002

Jeff Flake

$83,001

Christopher Murphy

$82,502

Debbie Stabenow

$32,500

Mark Pryor

$8,500

 

Senator

Average Net Worth

John Kerry

$235,976,804

Mark Warner

$228,129,609

Herb Kohl

$171,257,008

Jay Rockefeller

$102,706,012

Richard Blumenthal

$100,190,174

Frank R. Lautenberg

$87,557,109

Dianne Feinstein

$70,725,124

Ron Wyden

$38,370,525

Claire McCaskill

$21,837,606

Kay R. Hagan

$17,833,270

Senator

Average Net Worth

Saxby Chambliss

$402,006

John Thune

$345,008

Deb Fischer

$323,501

Roger Wicker

$299,508

Susan Collins

$205,002

Mike Lee

$111,002

Jeff Flake

$32,500

Mark Kirk

$17,501

Jim DeMint

$16,001

Marco Rubio

-$45,494

 

REPRESENTATIVES

 

Darrell Issa (R-CA) was the wealthiest representative in 2012, with an estimated net worth of $464,115,018

 

David Valadao (R-CA) was the least wealthy representative in 2012, with an estimated net worth of -$12,167,002

Representative

Average Net Worth

Darrell Issa

$464,115,018

Jared Polis

$197,945,705

John K. Delaney

$154,601,580

Michael McCaul

$143,153,910

Scott Peters

$112,467,040

Vernon Buchanan

$88,802,066

Nancy Pelosi

$87,997,030

Diane Black

$69,569,042

Tom Rooney

$64,314,955

Chris Collins

$59,104,518

Representative

Average Net Worth

Sean Duffy

-$99,999

Renee Ellmers

-$101,498

Bobby Scott

-$129,973

Louie Gohmert

-$162,501

Rick Crawford

-$175,001

Steve Fincher

-$472,502

Nydia Velazquez

-$510,000

Ruben Hinojosa Sr.

-$2,303,473

Alcee Hastings

-$4,732,002

David Valadao

-$12,167,002

 

Representative

top Average Net Worth

Michael McCaul

$500,624,461

Darrell Issa

$480,325,019

Jared Polis

$214,946,679

John K. Delaney

$139,025,569

Vernon Buchanan

$95,327,629

Nancy Pelosi

$94,162,532

Scott Peters

$90,349,050

Chellie Pingree

$85,844,032

Diane Black

$64,744,035

Chris Collins

$60,351,517

Representative

bottom Average Net Worth

Louis Gohmert

-$87,500

Debbie Wasserman Schultz

-$118,494

Douglas L. Lamborn

-$118,997

John Conyers, Jr.

-$129,001

Nydia Velazquez

-$146,999

Renee Ellmers

-$168,498

Steve Fincher

-$472,502

Ruben Hinojosa Sr.

-$2,190,476

Alcee Hastings

-$4,732,002

David Valadao

-$19,000,002

PREVIOUS YEARS

Senator

Average Net Worth

John Kerry (D-Mass)

$231,722,794

Mark Warner (D-Va)

$192,730,605

Herb Kohl (D-Wis)

$173,538,010

Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa)

$99,057,011

Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ)

$85,572,116

Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn)

$73,151,590

Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif)

$69,046,622

Bob Corker (R-Tenn)

$59,550,022

James E. Risch (R-Idaho)

$54,088,026

Mitch McConnell (R-Ky)

$27,213,024

Senator

Average Net Worth

Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mich)

-$32,500

Mark Pryor (D-Ark)

$8,500

Mike Lee (R-Utah)

$16,001

James W. DeMint (R-SC)

$40,501

Russ Feingold (D-Wis)

$75,500

Max Baucus (D-Mont)

$85,005

Mark Kirk (R-Ill)

$89,002

Patrick Leahy (D-Vt)

$129,503

Roger Wicker (R-Miss)

$133,008

Carte Goodwin (D-WVa)

$213,003

 

Representat.

Average Net Worth

Darrell Issa (R-Calif)

$448,125,017

Michael McCaul (R-Texas)

$380,411,527

Jane Harman (D-Calif)

$326,844,751

Jared Polis (D-Colo)

$143,218,562

Vernon Buchanan (R-Fla)

$136,152,641

Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif)

$101,123,032

Alan Grayson (D-Fla)

$93,896,519

Kenny Marchant (R-Texas)

$49,340,275

Gary Miller (R-Calif)

$46,008,028

Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)

$42,900,594

Representative

Average Net Worth

Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla)

-$4,732,002

Steve Fincher (R-Tenn)

-$3,302,503

Ruben Hinojosa Sr. (D-Texas)

-$2,500,488

John Salazar (D-Colo)

-$474,501

Laura Richardson (D-Calif)

-$383,496

Bart Stupak (D-Mich)

-$178,996

Terri Sewell (D-Ala)

-$173,493

Sean P. Duffy (R-Wis)

-$167,497

Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. (D-Ga)

-$159,496

Patrick J. Murphy (D-Pa)

-$154,502

 

CONGRESSIONAL FRESHMEN

Below are average net worth numbers for first year freshman members for each recent session of Congress.

109th Congress

Year[5]

Number of Freshmen Reports

Average Net Worth

Change from previous year

2004

44

$3,133,813

--

2005

45

$3,219,896

2.75%

2006

45

$3,233,137

0.41%

2007

40

$4,209,184

30.19%

2008

40

$3,854,689

-8.42%

2009

39

$6,047,795

56.89%

2010

38

$12,939,172

113.95%

110th Congress

Year[5]

Number of Freshmen Reports[6]

Average Net Worth

Change from previous year

2006

58

$5,386,525

--

2007

75

$5,840,167

8.42%

2008

75

$4,719,385

-19.19%

2009

69

$5,058,388

7.18%

2010

68

$5,192,922

2.66%

111th Congress

Year[5]

Number of Freshmen Reports[6]

Average Net Worth

Change from previous year

2007

59

$12,876,803

--

2008

72

$10,209,940

-20.71%

2009

81

$9,666,020

-5.33%

2010

79

$8,913,200

-7.79%

 

113th Congress

Year[5]

Number of Freshmen Reports[6]

Average Net Worth

Change from previous year

2011

90

$7,835,242


State averages by year

State

Senate Average

Senate Rank

Senate Report Count

House Average

House Rank

House Report Count

Congressional Average

Congressional Rank

Alaska

$1,045,021

44

2

$872,504

43

1

$987,515

47

Alabama

$7,360,029

19

2

$1,649,225

36

7

$2,918,292

32

Arkansas

$1,489,503

41

2

$267,505

49

2

$878,504

48

Arizona

$3,301,081

29

3

$4,710,291

20

9

$4,357,988

25

California

$36,994,314

6

2

$13,487,344

7

60

$14,245,633

11

Connecticut

$34,055,238

7

3

$4,810,621

19

5

$15,777,353

10

Colorado

$6,791,773

20

2

$44,918,951

2

5

$34,025,472

1

Delaware

$4,476,637

24

2

$485,015

46

1

$3,146,096

31

Florida

$1,693,505

37

2

$6,831,237

12

27

$6,476,910

18

Georgia

$6,193,537

21

2

$2,763,447

29

13

$3,220,793

30

Hawaii

$2,113,843

34

3

$1,334,757

40

2

$1,802,208

40

Iowa

$9,288,549

16

2

$1,434,839

38

5

$3,678,756

29

Idaho

$27,139,022

8

2

$1,895,563

35

1

$18,724,536

7

Illinois

$671,783

46

2

$2,968,056

28

21

$2,768,380

36

Indiana

$2,451,176

31

3

$1,252,584

41

8

$1,579,473

42

Kansas

$1,285,264

42

2

$367,342

47

3

$734,511

49

Kentucky

$14,085,268

11

2

$5,351,390

17

6

$7,534,860

17

Louisiana

$1,734,519

36

2

$3,212,840

27

6

$2,843,260

35

Massachusetts

$82,250,150

1

3

$4,985,001

18

11

$21,541,819

5

Maryland

$1,543,023

39

2

$16,629,790

6

9

$13,886,741

12

Maine

$10,133,703

13

3

$44,480,020

3

2

$23,872,230

4

Michigan

$826,103

45

2

$2,335,343

32

17

$2,176,476

39

Minnesota

$4,555,271

23

2

$613,395

45

9

$1,330,100

44

Missouri

$12,465,308

12

2

$1,995,109

34

10

$3,740,142

27

Mississippi

$1,135,519

43

2

$1,602,177

37

3

$1,415,514

43

Montana

$661,502

47

2

$9,230,505

9

2

$4,946,003

23

Nebraska

$4,643,352

22

3

$327,009

48

2

$2,916,815

33

North Carolina

$9,992,394

14

2

$4,602,323

22

15

$5,236,449

22

North Dakota

$9,348,198

15

3

$46,438,414

1

1

$18,620,752

8

New Hampshire

$2,115,688

33

2

$2,354,059

31

4

$2,274,602

38

New Jersey

$44,027,806

5

2

$6,250,476

14

11

$12,062,373

14

New Mexico

$4,397,869

26

3

$6,993,337

11

3

$5,695,603

21

Nevada

$3,775,436

27

2

$5,377,818

16

4

$4,843,691

24

New York

$368,506

49

2

$6,182,855

15

32

$5,840,834

20

Ohio

$7,409,025

18

2

$3,339,310

26

20

$3,709,284

28

Oklahoma

$7,571,041

17

2

$2,139,021

33

4

$3,949,694

26

Oregon

$20,135,518

10

2

$3,910,103

25

6

$7,966,457

16

Pennsylvania

$1,806,771

35

2

$2,491,321

30

18

$2,422,866

37

Rhode Island

$4,440,568

25

2

$1,363,505

39

2

$2,902,036

34

South Carolina

$1,506,330

40

3

$667,639

44

4

$1,027,078

46

South Dakota

$575,012

48

2

N/A

N/A

0

$627,513

50

Tennessee

$26,977,516

9

2

$10,169,035

8

8

$13,530,731

13

Texas

$2,872,526

30

3

$17,855,000

5

36

$16,702,502

9

Utah

$1,578,767

38

2

$906,841

42

3

$1,175,611

45

Virginia

$78,455,068

2

3

$4,419,740

23

10

$21,504,816

6

Vermont

$218,754

50

2

$4,602,548

21

1

$1,680,019

41

Washington

$2,444,007

32

2

$6,579,204

13

10

$5,890,005

19

Wisconsin

$65,256,839

3

3

$7,579,123

10

7

$24,882,438

2

West Virginia

$55,178,031

4

2

$4,223,358

24

3

$24,605,227

3

Wyoming

$3,533,020

28

2

$18,918,517

4

1

$8,661,519

15

Data and methodology

Data

Every year members of congress are required by law to disclose certain financial information regarding personal assets and liabilities. OpenSecrets.org (The Center for Responsive Politics), a self-proclaimed "nonpartisan guide to money's influence on U.S. elections and public policy," tracks the financial information, and posts it publicly under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. That data, currently available for the years 2004 to 2010, is listed in part below in the section Individual data.

Congressional financial disclosure forms use value ranges, rather than precise amounts, when reporting assets and liabilities. OpenSecrets gathers this information to build a range of potential values. For instance, if three assets are listed at a value range of $1,001-$15,000, the total range of assets would be listed as a minimum of $3,003 (3 X $1,001) and a maximum value would be $45,000 (3 X $15,000). OpenSecrets combines all assets and liability to form a total potential range of values, and then provides an average value as the best guess of each individual's net worth.[7]

Analysis

Ballotpedia staff took OpenSecrets predicted net worth averages for all reported members of congress and using statistical software calculated yearly averages and changes for various congressional subsets.

Limitations

OpenSecrets notes some important limitations to the data:[7]

·         Data is not available for a limited number of congressional members.

·         The top range for item valuation is listed as "Over $50 million" on forms. When possible OpenSecrets tried to determine a more accurate figure.

·         The top range for Senate spousal assets is listed as Over $1 million." When possible OpenSecrets tried to determine a more accurate figure.

·         Property (such as personal residences) and non-income producing investments are not required to be reported under ethics laws. However, all mortgages are required to be disclosed.

Individual data

Senate

 

 

ARE BILLIONAIRES EVIL?

 

A8X06 FROM THE ECONOMIST

X Inside Economics: Are billionaires a policy failure?

Archie Hall

 

Acting economics editor

Before too long, worrying about billionaires might seem quaint. Elon Musk, whom our editor-in-chief interviewed on last week’s Insider, spent about a fortnight as the world’s first trillionaire earlier this year, before the slump in SpaceX stock pulled him back into the mere hundreds of billions. But don’t feel too sorry for him. Mr Musk also says AI will make money redundant within a decade.

Today, though, money still has its uses—and billionaires have rather a lot of it. Surging equity valuations have swelled billionaires’ fortunes and minted plenty more. That has powered a rather potent backlash. References to billionaires in Democratic party fundraising emails have quadrupled since 2024, finds Andrew Hall, a political scientist at Stanford. Few of those mentions are complimentary.

So, should we fear and loathe the ultra-rich? Would democracies be wise to clobber their fortunes with wealth taxes? Since this is Inside Economics, tomorrow’s discussion will take an inevitable detour into tax policy. The Economist has long supported some taxes on wealth (such as property or inheritance taxes), but we’re not all that keen on the standing levies on total wealth that are now gaining currency. We worry they will stymie innovation and raise less revenue than supporters hope.

Mostly, though, tomorrow’s show will focus on a broader issue. If billionaires are a social problem—a “policy failure”, as leftier Democrats in America like to say—then the economic arguments around wealth taxes are beside the point: the aim would be to eliminate, or at least hem in, billionaires as a class. You won’t be surprised to hear that The Economist doesn’t share that view. Our latest analysis found that a higher share of billionaires than ever seem to have earned their mammon fairly, not from inheritance or political connections.

That doesn’t mean there’s nothing to worry about. Too-big concentrations of political and economic power should trouble anyone committed to liberal ideals. There are plenty of democracies, like India or in eastern Europe, where the ultra-wealthy do seem to have distorted politics in a damaging way. So we’ll try to take a dispassionate look at whether or not there is a case for wider concern. We’re keen to get a sense of our readers’ views, too. Tell us whether you think billionaires are a threat to democracy by voting in our poll.

Joining me in the studio tomorrow to break down the billionaire backlash will be Henry Curr, our acting business affairs editor, and Josh Roberts, our capital markets correspondent. Worryingly, Josh tells me that he’s procured props for the show. Do tune in. Please submit your questions via the Q&A feature on the episode page and send your feedback on our conversation—and Josh’s curios—to insider@economist.com. The show will be available to watch from Tuesday from 6pm London time (1pm in New York) tomorrow.

 

THE FIRST and SECOND GILDED AGES

 

A9 X58 FROM HISTORY.COM

THE FIRST GILDED AGE

HISTORY.com Editors

Published: February 13, 2018   Last Updated: May 28, 2025

 

“The Gilded Age” is the term used to describe the tumultuous years between the Civil War and the turn of the 20th century. The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today was a famous satirical novel by Mark Twain set in the late 1800s, and was its namesake. During this era, America became more prosperous and saw unprecedented growth in industry and technology. But the Gilded Age had a more sinister side: It was a period where greedy, corrupt industrialists, bankers and politicians enjoyed extraordinary wealth and opulence at the expense of the working class. In fact, it was wealthy tycoons, not politicians, who inconspicuously held the most political power during the Gilded Age.

Transcontinental Railroad

Before the Civil War, rail travel was dangerous and difficult, but after the war, George Westinghouse invented the air brake, which made braking systems more dependable and safe.

Soon, the development of Pullman sleeping cars and dining cars made rail travel comfortable and more enjoyable for passengers. It wasn’t long before trains overtook other forms of long-distance travel such as the stagecoach and riding horseback.

In 1869, the Transcontinental Railroad was finished and led to rapid settlement of the western United States. It also made it much easier to transport goods over long distances from one part of the country to another.

This enormous railroad expansion resulted in rail companies and their executives receiving lavish amounts of money and land—up to 200 million acres, by some estimates—from the United States government. In many cases, politicians cut shady backroom deals and helped create railroad and shipping tycoons such as Cornelius Vanderbilt and Jay Gould. Meanwhile, thousands of African American—many of them former slaves—were hired as Pullman porters and paid a pittance to cater to riders’ every need.

Robber Barons

Railroad tycoons were just one of many types of so-called robber barons that emerged in the Gilded Age.

These men used union busting, fraud, intimidation, violence and their extensive political connections to gain an advantage over any competitors. Robber barons were relentless in their efforts to amass wealth while exploiting workers and ignoring standard business rules—and in many cases, the law itself.

They soon accumulated vast amounts of money and dominated every major industry including the railroad, oil, banking, timber, sugar, liquor, meatpacking, steel, mining, tobacco and textile industries.

 

Some wealthy entrepreneurs such as Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and Henry Frick are often referred to as robber barons but may not exactly fit the mold. While it’s true they built huge monopolies, often by crushing any small business or competitor in their way, they were also generous philanthropists who didn’t always rely on political ploys to build their empires.

Some tried to improve life for their employees, donated millions to charities and nonprofits and supported their communities by providing funding for everything from libraries and hospitals to universities, public parks and zoos.

Industrial Revolution

The Gilded Age was in many ways the culmination of the Industrial Revolution, when America and much of Europe shifted from an agricultural society to an industrial one.

Millions of immigrants and struggling farmers arrived in cities such as New York, Boston, Philadelphia, St. Louis and Chicago, looking for work and hastening the urbanization of America. By 1900, about 40 percent of Americans lived in major cities.

Most cities were unprepared for rapid population growth. Housing was limited, and tenements and slums sprung up nationwide. Heating, lighting, sanitation and medical care were poor or nonexistent, and millions died from preventable disease.

Many immigrants were unskilled and willing to work long hours for little pay. Gilded Age plutocrats considered them the perfect employees for their sweatshops, where working conditions were dangerous and workers endured long periods of unemployment, wage cuts and no benefits.

Gilded Age Homes

Homes of the Gilded Age elite were nothing short of spectacular. The wealthy considered themselves America’s royalty and settled for nothing less than estates worthy of that distinction. Some of America’s most famous mansions were built during the Gilded Age such as:

Biltmore, located in Asheville, North Carolina, was the family estate of George and Edith Vanderbilt. Construction started on the 250-room chateau in 1889, prior to the couple’s marriage, and continued for six years. The home had 35 bedrooms, 43 bathrooms, 65 fireplaces, a dairy, a horse barn and beautiful formal and informal gardens.

The Breakers in Newport, Rhode Island, is another Vanderbilt mansion. It was the summer home of railroad mogul Cornelius Vanderbilt. The Italian-Renaissance style home has 70 rooms, a stable and a carriage house.

Rosecliff, also in Newport, was completed in 1902. The oceanfront home was contracted by Theresa Fair Oelrichs and built to resemble the Grand Trianon of Versailles. Today, it’s best known as the backdrop for movie scenes in The Great Gatsby, High Society, 27 Dresses and True Lies.

Whitehall, located in Palm Beach, Florida, was the neoclassical winter retreat of oil tycoon Henry Flagler and his wife Mary. The 100,000 square foot, 75-room mansion was completed in 1902 and is now a popular museum.

Income Inequality in the Gilded Age

The industrialists of the Gilded Age lived high on the hog, but most of the working class lived below poverty level. As time went on, the income inequality between wealthy and poor became more and more glaring.

While the wealthy lived in opulent homes, dined on succulent food and showered their children with gifts, the poor were crammed into filthy tenement apartments, struggled to put a loaf of bread on the table and often accompanied their children to a sweatshop each morning where they faced a 12-hour (or longer) workday.

Some moguls used Social Darwinism to justify the inequality between the classes. The theory presumes that the fittest humans are the most successful and poor people are destitute because they’re weak and lack the skills to be prosperous.

Muckrakers

Muckrakers is a term used to describe reporters who exposed corruption among politicians and the elite. They used investigative journalism and the print revolution to dig through “the muck” of the Gilded Age and report scandal and injustice.

In 1890, reporter and photographer Jacob Riis brought the horrors of New York slum life to light in his book, How the Other Half Lives, prompting New York politicians to pass legislation to improve tenement conditions.

In 1902, McClure Magazine journalist Lincoln Steffens took on city corruption when he penned the article, “Tweed Days in St. Louis.” The article, which is widely considered the first muckracking magazine article, exposed how city officials deceitfully made deals with crooked businessmen to maintain power.

Another journalist, Ida Tarbell, spent years investigating the underhanded rise of oilman John D. Rockefeller. Her 19-part series, also published in McClure in 1902, led to the breakup of Rockefeller’s monopoly, the Standard Oil Company.

In 1906, activist journalist and novelist Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle to expose horrendous working conditions in the meatpacking industry. The book and ensuing public outcry led to the passing of the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act.

Labor Unions Rise

 

Labor Day's Railroad Strike Roots

Congress passed legislation in 1894—amid a railroad workers' strike—to create the holiday honoring labor.

1:02m watch

It soon became obvious that the huge disparity between the wealthy and poor couldn’t last, and the working class would have to organize to improve their working and living conditions. It was also obvious this wouldn’t happen without some degree of violence.

Much of the violence, however, was between the workers themselves as they struggled to agree on what they were fighting for. Some simply wanted increased wages and a better working environment, while others also wanted to keep women, immigrants and blacks out of the workforce.

Although the first labor unions occurred around the turn of the nineteenth century, they gained momentum during the Gilded Age, thanks to the increased number of unskilled and unsatisfied factory workers.

Railroad Strikes

On July 16, 1877, the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company announced a 10-percent pay cut on its railroad workers in Martinsburg, West Virginia, the second cut in less than eight months.

Infuriated and fed up, the workers—with the support of the locals—announced they’d prevent all trains from leaving the roundhouse until their pay was restored.

The mayor, the police and even the National Guard couldn’t stop the strike. It wasn’t until Federal troops arrived that one train finally left the station.

The strike spread among other railroads, sparking violence across America between the working class and local and federal authorities. At its peak, over 100,000 railroad workers were on strike. Many of the Robber Barons feared an aggressive, all-out revolution against their way of life.

Instead, the strike—later known as the Great Upheaval—ended abruptly and was labeled a dismal failure. Yet it showed America’s tycoons there was strength in numbers and that organized labor had the potential to shut down entire industries and inflict major economic and political damage.

As the working class continued to use strikes and boycotts to fight for higher wages and improved working conditions, their bosses staged lock-outs and brought in replacement workers known as scabs.

They also created blacklists to prevent active union workers from becoming employed elsewhere. Even so, the working class continued to unite and press their cause and often won at least some of their demands.

Gilded Age Cities

Innovations of the Gilded Age helped usher in modern America. Urbanization and technological creativity led to many engineering advances such as bridges and canals, elevators and skyscrapers, trolley lines and subways.

 

The invention of electricity brought illumination to homes and businesses and created an unprecedented, thriving night life. Art and literature flourished, and the rich filled their lavish homes with expensive works of art and elaborate décor.

In 1876, Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone and made the world a much smaller place for both individuals and businesses. Advances in sanitation and housing, and the availability of better quality food and material goods, improved quality of life for the middle  class.

But while the middle and upper classes enjoyed the allure of city life, little changed for the poor. Most still faced horrific living conditions, high crime rates and a pitiable existence.

Many escaped their drudgery by watching a vaudeville show or a spectator sport such as boxing, baseball or football, all of which enjoyed a surge during the Gilded Age.

Women in the Gilded Age

Upper-class women of the Gilded Age have been compared to dolls on display dressed in resplendent finery. They flaunted their wealth and endeavored to improve their status in society while poor and middle-class women both envied and mimicked them.

Some wealthy Gilded Age women were much more than eye candy, though, and often traded domestic life for social activism and charitable work. They felt a new degree of empowerment and fought for equality, including the right to vote through women’s suffrage groups.

Some created homes for destitute immigrants while others pushed a temperance agenda, believing the source of poverty and most family troubles was alcohol. Wealthy women philanthropists of the Gilded Age include:

Louise Whitfield Carnegie, wife of Andrew Carnegie, who created Carnegie Hall and donated to the Red Cross, the Y.W.C.A., and other charities.

Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, wife of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., who helped create hotels for women and solicited funds to create the New York Museum of Modern Art.

Margaret Olivia Sage, wife of Russell Sage, who after the death of her miserly husband gave away $45 million of her $75 million inheritance to support women’s causes, educational institutions and the creation of the Russell Sage Foundation for Social Betterment, which directly helped poor people.

Many women during the Gilded Age sought higher education. Others postponed marriage and took jobs such as typists or telephone switchboard operators.

 

Thanks to a print revolution and the accessibility of newspapers, magazines and books, women became increasingly knowledgeable, cultured, well-informed and a political force to be reckoned with.

Jane Addams

Jane Addams is arguably the best-known philanthropist of the Gilded Age. In 1889, she and Ellen Gates Star established a secular settlement house in Chicago known as Hull-House.

The neighborhood was a melting pot of struggling immigrants, and Hull-House provided everything from midwife services and basic medical care to kindergarten, day care and housing for abused women. It also offered English and citizenship classes. Addams received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1931.

Carrie Nation

Temperance leader Carrie Nation gained notoriety during the Gilded Age for smashing up saloons with a hatchet to bring attention to her sobriety agenda. She was also a strong voice for the suffrage movement.

Nation’s belief that alcohol was the root of all evil was partially due to her difficult first marriage to an alcoholic, and her work with women and children displaced or abused by over-imbibing husbands.

Convinced God had instructed her to use whatever means necessary to close bars throughout Kansas, she was often beaten, mocked and jailed but ultimately helped pave the way for the 18th Amendment (prohibiting the sale of alcohol) and the 19th Amendment (giving women the right to vote).

Limits to Power

Many other pivotal events happened during the Gilded Age which changed America’s course and culture. As muckrakers exposed corrupt robber barons and politicians, labor unions and reformist politicians enacted laws to limit their power.

The western frontier saw violent conflicts between white settlers and the United States Army against Native Americans. The Native Americans were eventually forced off their land and onto reservations with often disastrous results. In 1890, the western frontier was declared closed.

Populist Party

As drought and depression struck rural America, farmers in the west—who vilified railroad tycoons and wanted a political voice—organized and played a key role in forming the Populist Party.

The Populists had a democratic agenda that aimed to give power back to the people and paved the way for the progressive movement, which still fights to close the gap between the wealthy and poor and champion the needy and disenfranchised.

End of the Gilded Age

In 1893, both the overextended Philadelphia and Reading Railroad and the National Cordage Company failed, which set off an economic depression unlike any seen before in America.

Banks and other businesses folded, and the stock market plunged, leaving millions unemployed, homeless and hungry. In some states, unemployment rose to almost 50 percent.

The Panic of 1893 lasted four years and left lower and even middle-class Americans fed up with political corruption and social inequality. Their frustration gave rise to the Progressive Movement which took hold when President Theodore Roosevelt took office in 1901.

 

Although Roosevelt supported corporate America, he also felt there should be federal controls in place to keep excessive corporate greed in check and prevent individuals from making obscene amounts of money off the backs of immigrants and the lower class.

Helped by the muckrackers and the White House, the Progressive Era ushered in many reforms that helped shift away power from robber barons, such as:

By 1916, America’s cities were cleaner and healthier, factories safer, governments less corrupt and many people had better housing, working hours and wages. Fewer monopolies meant more people could pursue the American Dream and start their own businesses.

When America entered World War I in 1917, the Progressive Era and any remnants of the Gilded Age effectively ended as the country’s focus shifted to the realities of war. Most robber barons and their families, however, remained wealthy for generations.

Even so, many bequeathed much of their wealth, land and homes to charity and historical societies. And progressives continued their mission to close the gap between the wealthy and poor and champion the needy and disenfranchised.

Sources

Chicago Workers During the Long Gilded Age. The Newberry. Gilded Age Reform. University of Virginia. The Doll House: Wealth and Women in the Gilded Age. Journeys Into the Past: An Online Journal of Miami University’s History Department. The Gilded Age. Scholastic. About Jane Addams. Jane Addams Hull-House Museum. Carrie A. Nation (1846-1911). The State Historical Society of Missouri: Historic Missourians. Lincoln Steffens Exposes “Tweed Days in St. Louis.” History Matters. The Breakers. The Preservation Society of Newport County. The Progressive Era (1890-1920). The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project. Biltmore Estate History. Biltmore. Margaret Olivia Sage. Philanthropy Roundtable.

 

 

 

A10X10 FROM LIBERATION NEWS (SOCIALIST)

AI Overview

The Gilded Age in America was a period of rapid industrialization, extreme wealth inequality, and political corruption lasting from the 1870s to about 1900. Coined by Mark Twain and Charles Dudley Warner in their 1873 novel [The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today], the term describes an era that looked glittering and prosperous on the outside but was flawed underneath by poverty and greed. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Economy and Technology

Society and Labor

Politics and Civil Rights

 

A NEW GILDED AGE:   SUPREME COURT RULING SAYS ERA OF REGULATED CAPITALISM IS OVER

 Jeffrey Green July 23, 2026

Six Supreme Court Justices decided to virtually eliminate the capacity of government regulatory agencies to act independently of whoever sits in the White House. By invalidating the “for cause” removal protections of their commissioners and board members, the Trump v. Slaughter decision means that now the president can, whenever he wants, fire the top federal regulators who don’t do his bidding. 

This end of June decision stems from President Trump’s firing of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, without reason. The Court went far beyond allowing that firing to go through; it ruled that Congress had violated the Constitution in 1914 when it limited the president’s ability to fire FTC leaders.

The Court also overruled a previous Supreme Court ruling on this same issue — a case called Humphrey’s Executor in 1935. In essence, the conservative-dominated Court is proclaiming there is no such thing as an “independent” agency; they are all subordinates to the president and “the President may remove his subordinates at will.” 

CAPITALISTS WANTS TO ROLL BACK THE NEW DEAL

The stakes for the working class in this ruling go way beyond the job protections of the individual high-paid agency executives and commissioners who will be fired more easily. The ruling paves the way for a whole new level of direct corruption in Washington, the further erosion of safety standards, assaults on union rights, and the deregulation of Wall Street and Corporate America as a whole.

It is part and parcel of “Project 2025,” the overall vision of the far-right section of the ruling class to eliminate the liberal reforms of the progressive, New Deal and Civil Rights eras and reinstall a form of governance of unregulated and unrestrained corporate power. A core feature of that vision is unrestrained presidential power. 

The ruling will accelerate the post-2020 redistribution of wealth from workers to billionaires in a range of new ways. Because almost every multi-billion dollar project requires government approval at some level, it will create limitless opportunities for the president and his staff and family members to cash in directly — as they already have been under both the Biden and Trump administrations.

The agencies now functionally put under the direct control of the president are not all household names, but their decisions have a huge impact on the entire population. Those agencies include the main regulators of financial markets, including the Federal Trade Commission, the Security and Exchange Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.

Together, these agencies are responsible for stopping insider trading, Ponzi schemes, market manipulation, abusive trade practices, excessive speculation in basic committees, while monitoring financial disclosures, stocks, bonds, derivatives, the authenticity of audits, and compliance with a whole range of financial rules. Almost all of those rules — however insufficient — were developed as a consequence of previous financial crises and corruption scandals, as a way to guard against their recurrence. 

A compliant SEC chair could, for instance, selectively enforce insider trading rules, allow politically connected companies to obscure financial disclosures, or greenlight new financial products that benefit administration donors at the risk of millions of people’s retirement savings. Whether in a pension or a 401(k), most working people’s retirement savings are invested in the stock market. 

With regards to free speech and the media, the Federal Communications Commission could now be ordered, at the risk of their job, to eliminate the broadcast licenses of outlets that the president disapproves of. 

Or, consider the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which control pipeline approvals, electricity transmission rates, natural gas exports, licenses for nuclear reactors and regulation of nuclear waste. Their decisions, although largely invisible to the public, steer the investment of hundreds of billions of dollars, while impacting the safety, water and land of the whole country. Their leaders too are now at-will employees of the President. 

The National Transportation Safety Board investigates railway accidents, such as the one that devastated East Palestine, Ohio, a few years ago. The federal response was already criminal, but now just a phone call to the Oval Office from the rail tycoons — all of which are ingratiated with Wall Street hedge funds — could make such problems disappear. 

CAPITALIST REFORMS CAN ALWAYS BE REVERSED

In 2008, as part of the response to the Great Recession, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created by the Obama administration. The purpose of the Bureau has been to limit some of the most egregious forms of greed and exploitation in capitalism. Since the CFPB’s founding, it has returned over $21 billion dollars to consumers hit by financial fraud.

Emboldened by Slaughter, the President can fire CFPB directors of this independent agency at will until he gets someone who will do his bidding. Doing the bidding of billionaire presidents could look like ignoring obvious crypto scams, letting buy-now-pay-later systems send workers deeper into debt, and failing to do anything about the massive student-loan debt crisis. Bit-by-bit, what workers have done to try to regulate capitalism and make their lives marginally easier is being negated.

The most immediate impact for workers will likely be felt with the National Labor Relations Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Since the 1935 passage of the National Labor Relations Act, rules for organizing unions have been set by an independent regulatory agency, the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB also polices when employers violate those rules. While the workers’ struggle is the most important determinant, and the NLRB is not a final fix, the agency has held back some of the worst forms of strikebreaking and allowed workers to successfully organize in conditions where they might otherwise have failed. 

The five Board members serve five-year terms, staggered so that no single president could immediately install a majority. Combined with for-cause removal protection, a new president had to wait for vacancies to arise before shifting the board’s ideological balance. Now an anti-labor president can immediately gut the NLRB on their first day of office without reason — which means all the pending cases before the Board can immediately flip in the other direction.

Why would an employer respect a union election, stop committing an Unfair Labor Practice, or come to a settlement with their workers, if all they have to do is wait for Inauguration Day to get a new Board to rule in their favor? A hypothetical pro-labor president could now do the same thing with expanded executive authority, but since virtually all U.S. presidents have been owners, not workers, and all solicit huge corporate donations to run their campaigns, it is not hard to predict which class their NLRB appointees will favor.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the federal agency created out of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to investigate and prosecute cases of employment discrimination on the basis of race, gender, national origin, age and disability. It has the right to investigate all companies with over 15 employees. The EEOC already has received far more claims of discrimination than it can fully investigate, so its leadership choices about which cases to pursue define what the law actually means in practice.

Already the EEOC had been hollowed out; Trump fired its Democratic-appointed commissioners too, dropped many discrimination cases, and converted the agency into an instrument to attack diversity hiring programs as “anti-white.” After the Slaughter ruling, the EEOC’s former vice chair voluntarily dropped the lawsuit challenging her termination, seeing it as hopeless.

Direct attack on the very idea of regulating capitalism 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent correctly states that without functional independence from political pressure, regulatory agencies cannot perform the core functions given to them by Congress. It’s also why Congress originally gave the leaders of the Federal Trade Commission just-cause protection from being fired, similar to the protections unionized workers have. The majority didn’t have an error of logic; it is precisely the point. 

Rather than trying to understand this legal dispute on the basis of the original intent of the Constitution’s writers, or the intent of Congress back in 1914 when it founded the FTC, the real question is: what does this say about the intent of the ruling class now? The war on independent regulatory agencies can only be understood in the trajectory of U.S. capitalism and the creation of a New Gilded Age. 

Independent regulatory agencies first developed as a response to the unmediated social conflict, turmoil and crisis created by the Second Industrial Revolution in the late 19th century — sometimes known as the Gilded Age. The first target were the railway companies, which developed monopoly power over other sectors of the economy, while periodically producing financial panics, environmental destruction and intense labor wars. The rail tycoons had their counterparts in all other spheres of industrialized capitalism and in finance. A broad-based, cross-class “Progressive” movement developed to rein in their power, regulate their operations and if necessary break up their enterprises. 

This especially took off in the state of Wisconsin, which became a laboratory for new independent commissions and agencies to limit the power of the giant corporations, and respond to the unchecked inequality and unregulated working conditions which killed and maimed so many workers. From 1901 to 1906, Wisconsin had a progressive Republican Governor Robert LaFollete (then Senator from 1906 to 1925), who pioneered the “Wisconsin Idea,” calling upon professors and other outside experts, not politicians, to help craft legislation and staff regulatory agencies headed by experts in their fields. While a new crop of technocrats brought their specialized knowledge, it was Wisconsin’s strong labor union and socialist movement that brought the political power and pressure to make it happen. Of course, progressives like LaFollete were not socialists; they wanted not to overturn capitalism, but to regulate it, so it would be less unequal, chaotic and unstable.

In the general capitalist crisis of the Great Depression in the 1930s, the federal government under President Franklin D. Roosevelt essentially copied this “Wisconsin Idea” to create the independent regulatory agencies of the New Deal. This is where the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) come from. 

Many of the labor and anti-trust laws, as well as unemployment insurance and consumer protection laws to govern the marketplace that were pioneered as part of the “Wisconsin idea” were given federal form.

The idea of independent regulation of industry did not pop out of nowhere, nor was it handed down by benevolent capitalists. It was a product of the class struggle, and in many cases these agencies institutionalized hard-fought gains of the working class, and created a new state mechanism that could be pressured to make changes.

But these agencies were never in the hands of the working class itself. They were designed to save capitalism from itself, to insulate policymaking from direct political pressure, regulate volatile industries and stave off a larger collapse. Many economic historians credit the financial regulatory apparatus of the New Deal for helping stabilize the capitalist state and financial markets during the Great Depression. 

The major corporations initially hated these progressive-era agencies, and later the New Deal as a whole, as an infringement on their rights to control their property, businesses and workers. But in a time of generalized and ongoing depression, the political authority of the business elite was temporarily weakened. Over time, many titans of industry came to see the benefits of regulation – that it added stability into their otherwise ruthless competition, making it easier to predict costs, gain labor peace, and keep out new competitors.

PUT THE WORKING CLASS IN THE DRIVERS SEAT!

As the decades wore on, these agencies became more and more captured by the industries they were designed to regulate; there was a rotating door of personnel and lawyers from the private sector to the regulators, and it became quite common for the company to write the rules that the agencies then rubber-stamped. Where direct bribery did not do the trick, a new legal form — “lobbying” — was more than sufficient. The form of direct capitalist control over all relations of production was replaced with a more masked, indirect form.  

Justice Sotomayor’s dissent explains that this decision, “reshapes our [g]overnment.” That is true, but the new “shape” of the government has to be presented in class terms. The era of the capitalist ruling class accepting a level of administrative regulation for the sake of economic stability and a degree of class peace is over. Trump and a group of elite, unelected lawyers in the Supreme Court have scored a massive victory in the ultra-right program to an even more open and undisguised dictatorship of the rich — a form not seen since the Gilded Age. 

But the history of independent regulatory agencies, which ends with Slaughter, shows two things. The first is that working people, when united, can make huge things happen. The late 19th Century Gilded Age produced a period of intense class battles and working-class organization, which moved all of society to consider the fundamental question of what sort of society was being built, and challenged the authority of capitalist power altogether.

The second is that the capitalist class will always work to take all reforms away, no matter how modest. They might be briefly held back or beaten, but in the long run they view every infringement on their power and wealth as sacrilege. Any time they are in crisis — and they are in crisis now due to the perceived relative decline of the U.S. Empire — a section of that capitalist class will step forward and locate the source of their problems in previous reforms. 

It does not matter if the whole ruling class is pro-Trump or MAGA supporters as individuals. Many likely have unease about this Supreme Court decision, because without stable regulation all their industries could be made more challenging by ping-ponging regulatory decisions every four years. But, as with Trump’s great tax giveaways, the liberal sections of the ruling class has put up no great fight. 

That is why we can’t be satisfied with a more regulated capitalism or more regulated billionaires. They have to be removed from power altogether, and the working class — not just subject-matter experts or politicians who say pro-worker things— must be put in the driver’s seat.

The Second Gilded Age is a term used by historians, economists, and analysts to describe modern society—stretching from the late 20th century into the present day—because it mirrors the extreme wealth, vast technological changes, and political influence of the original late-19th-century Gilded Age. [1, 2]

KEY PARALLELS TO THE FIRST GILDED AGE

DRIVING ECONOMIC FACTORS

 

AI Overview

During the Gilded Age, the Republican Party supported high protective tariffs, the gold standard, and [railroad and industrial expansion](- GBH). [1, 2, 3, 4]

Economic Policies

Social and Political Support

 

 

A11 X@  FROM E&R overview

 

          @ productive v. degenerate capital

 

A12X12 FROM THE GEORGE W. BUSH INSTITUTE


AI Overview

Billionaires are defended through arguments centered on economic innovation, philanthropic impact, and property rights. Supporters claim that extreme wealth rewards risk-taking, drives technological progress, and funds diverse social causes more efficiently than centralized government spending. 

Core Arguments for Defense

Counterarguments and Criticism

 

Fall 2025   Issue36

In defense of billionaires

By James Pethokoukis


Attacking the uberwealthy is cheap and easy. But many billionaires enrich the whole economy – and the wrong restrictions could make all of us poorer.

Billionaires make easy villains. And no wonder. To quote the historian Bernard Lewis, “It is not possible to be rich, strong, and successful and be loved by those who are none of these things.”

Attacking the uberwealthy makes for vivid campaign soundbites. Billionaires serve as handy populist punching bags, reliable targets for social-media outrage. To rail against inequality, all a politician or activist has to do is tick off a few big names known to all: Elon Musk. Jeff Bezos. Mark Zuckerberg. A simple morality tale follows: In a world of need, no individual should command 10-digit fortunes. And if any of them do, society should force their fortunes through a filter of heavy wealth taxation. 

This story is alluring in its simplicity and intuitiveness: “Who really needs that much dough? You can only live in one mansion at a time, right?” But it is also dangerous, because it ignores how such wealth is created in America, who actually benefits from it, and the negative consequences of demonizing private fortune. 

Rather than condemn all billionaires, we would be far better off broadly distinguishing between two different types: productive billionaires, who build enterprises that generate widespread prosperity; and rent-seeking billionaires, who extract gains through political favoritism, resource monopolies, or financial gimmickry. The former can be paragons of economic dynamism; the latter, parasites on it. Lazily lumping the two together and treating them the same obscures reality and invites policies that would imperil innovation-driven economic growth.

 

@ pivot to how 400 made it

 

INNOVATING FOR EVERYONE 

The claim that all billionaires are inherently immoral rests on a false premise: that wealth and virtue cannot coexist. To make this case, critics point to jarring juxtapositions – like the existence of superyachts moored in Monaco while homelessness festers in San Francisco – and argue they prove that the system is badly askew. Yet the persistence of inequality does not prove that the wealthy are necessarily immoral or their wealth illegitimate. 

Take Bill Gates. Software produced by Microsoft, the firm Gates cofounded in 1975, helped power the PC revolution in the 1980s, enabling productivity gains that reshaped business and daily life – not to mention pouring money into millions of worker retirement accounts. The social gains Gates produced long predated his philanthropy. To suggest that he and his vast wealth only became moral once Gates became a philanthropist is to misunderstand how U.S.-style entrepreneurial capitalism works. Societies benefit not merely from big-dollar donations but from the goods and services that entrepreneurs bring into being. 

Indeed, as the economist and Nobel laureate William Nordhaus has calculatedinnovators capture a mere 2% of the value their inventions generate; the rest goes to consumers, in the form of lower prices, better products, and higher living standards. If Gates (or Musk or Bezos) pocket a fortune in the process, that fortune is still is a small fraction of the overall value to society – and millions or billions of individuals – that they generate. Banishing billionaires would mean banishing the positive-sum process that is essential to sustained and dispersed economic growth in the United States. 

Capitalism, in its best form, should reward bold risk-taking. In embarking on uncertain ventures, entrepreneurs wager their personal wealth and the security offered by more conventional career paths. Many of them fail. Those who succeed may reap extraordinary gains. But that is not an aberration; it is a feature of a system designed to encourage experimentation. Wealth caps or confiscatory taxation would alter these powerful incentives. If the potential payoff to taking entrepreneurial risks shrinks, fewer people will take the plunge. This would result in fewer companies being founded, fewer technologies being invented and commercialized, and fewer jobs being created.  

Consider the case of Elon Musk. Having made a fortune from PayPal, he then risked most of that money on Tesla and SpaceX – both of which teetered on the edge of bankruptcy in 2008. Few investors were willing to underwrite such long shots. As an analysis by the University of Chicago economist Steven Kaplan shows, had tax authorities confiscated a chunk of Musk’s PayPal windfall in the way some proponents of wealth taxes have advocated, neither company might have survived.  But they did not, and today, Tesla produces advances not just in autonomous electric cars but also in robotics, batteries, and energy storage. SpaceX’s reusable rockets have cut launch costs to a fraction of their former level, unleashing a boom in satellites, bolstering U.S. space defense, and edging humanity closer to becoming a multiplanetary species. 

Or take Jeff Bezos. In 1994, Bezos walked away from a lucrative Wall Street career to launch an online bookstore out of his garage. For years, Amazon bled red ink and was ridiculed as a relic of the earlier dot-com boom. Yet Bezos persisted, patiently building a logistics and cloud-computing behemoth that today underpins vast swathes of commerce and even the government. As Amazon grew, consumers enjoyed lower prices and faster delivery, and programmers and developers gained cheap access to storage and computing power. The personal fortune Bezos ended up amassing is inextricable from all that social value – even as the company has weathered union drives and antitrust scrutiny that some see as the inevitable tensions of its market dominance. Kaplan, the University of Chicago economist, estimates that a wealth tax might have forced Bezos to dump a quarter of Amazon stock right after the year 2000 dot-com crash, potentially crippling the firm. 

In both cases, the trade-offs are stark: a marginally fairer distribution of wealth would have come at the cost of dynamic enterprises that employ thousands and seed entire industries.

BOOTSTRAP BILLIONAIRES 

The United States is not unusual for having billionaires; what makes it extraordinary is the type of billionaire it produces. Roughly 70% of American billionaires are self made, compared with fewer than half in Western Europe, where fortunes tend to accrue through inheritance or luxury brands. The American economic system – which is characterized by high levels of venture capital, flexible labor markets, and a tax system that rewards big entrepreneurial swings – channels talent into company-building. Europe’s warier stance towards wealth, combined with heavier taxation and regulation, yields fewer entrepreneurial fortunes and more sclerosis. 

Emerging markets illustrate another divide. Russia’s oligarchs or Mexico’s telecom magnates amassed fortunes via one-time privatization deals, political protection, or monopolies on certain natural resources. Such fortunes, which stem from appropriation, not innovation, breed cynicism, anger, and disaffection in the countries where they exist. They represent what the scholars Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson call “extractive” systems, in which the elites can enrich themselves by capturing the state or monopolizing its resources, stifling innovation and broad-based prosperity. Citizens of such countries understandably conflate “capitalism” with corruption. Yet the existence of rent-seekers abroad is no reason to hobble productive entrepreneurs in the United States. 

Indeed, a glance at the global picture reveals some truths to which we should all pay attention. Today the most dynamic economic sectors in the world – digital platforms, biotech, space, and artificial intelligence – are disproportionately shaped by U.S. firms led and backed by American billionaires. Europe, for all its social democracy, has produced no equivalents to Tesla, SpaceX, or Amazon. China has minted plenty of tycoons, but only under its one-party system, and accruing and maintaining private wealth requires absolute loyalty to the regime. 

Still, some critics argue that great fortunes can undermine democracy. As they point out, vast resources allow billionaires to lobby, shape media narratives, and tilt the rules in their favor. These are all genuine concerns. Yet the remedy to such problems lies in creating transparent campaign finance rules, in the robust enforcement of antitrust regulations, and in curbs on cronyism – not in blanket hostility to wealth. The danger of equating all billionaires with malign political influence is that it confuses cause and effect: The problem is the capture of state power, not the existence of rich entrepreneurs. 

It is also wrong to suggest, as some critics do, that American billionaires do nothing productive with their money. It’s true that some of the 0.01% spend some of their cash on elaborate doomsday bunkers in Hawaii or New Zealand. But they plow much more money back into their businesses, and a hefty chunk into philanthropy as well. According to data from Altrata and the Wall Street Journal, U.S. billionaires have given away or pledged some $185 billion since 2015, and nearly half of that money has gone to education and medical research. The pattern is patchy – a quarter of American billionaires have given away less than $1 million in philanthropic donations over the past decade – but the broader picture contradicts the cartoon-image of Scrooge McDucks hoarding their loot in vaults. Billionaires often allow people with deep knowledge of industries and causes to funnel large portions of their money into universities, laboratories, and civic bodies. This messy pluralism of philanthropy fosters experimentation and diversity in ways that centralized state spending rarely manages. 

THE BLADE RUNNER FALLACY 

Perhaps the most imaginative indictment of billionaire wealth is the idea that today’s tycoons are plotting to abandon the rest of us and our problems – that Jeff Bezos wants to escape to colonies on the moon and that Elon Musk is heading for Mars. Popular culture has primed audiences for this dystopia. In Blade Runner, Ridley Scott’s 1982 classic film, the Earth of 2019 is a ravaged, rain-soaked husk. Floating above a bleak, smog-choked Los Angeles, advertisements invite those rich enough to move to the “off-world colonies.” In recent years, real-world critics have repurposed this imagery to warn that billionaires plan to decamp for the heavens, where they will cackle from above as the earth-bound masses linger in polluted slums. 

It is a powerful narrative device, and one Elon Musk has done more than a little to encourage through his public ruminations and his tongue-in-cheek T-shirts. Yet it is also a delusion. Call it the Blade Runner Fallacy. The idea that billionaires are planning to abandon the rest of us depends on the belief that technological progress can coexist with economic collapse so severe that only a handful of people would manage to benefit. The reality is the reverse. The kind of civilization that could build viable lunar bases or terraform Mars would, by definition, command such abundant energy and advanced engineering that it could also remediate climate change, desalinate oceans, and feed billions. To be sure, that doesn’t guarantee it would choose to do so–history is full of examples, like America’s costly Afghanistan Bush on Biden, not Iran??? - DJI misadventure, where vast resources might have been redirected toward more socially productive ends. But the capacity would exist. A society capable of off-world colonization and machine superintelligence is one capable of solving terrestrial problems many times over. 

Nor does history support the notion of exclusive techno-privilege. Billionaires do not own better iPhones. They do not enjoy premium versions of mRNA vaccines. Consumer technologies diffuse broadly. Even cutting-edge breakthroughs – self-driving electric cars, AI assistants, weight-loss drugs – swiftly move from luxury to mass market. Technological progress, when spurred by entrepreneurial risk, tends to trickle down the income ladder. 

The cinematic caricature of billionaires as sci-fi villains fleeing a ruined Earth reveals less about plausible futures than about cultural anxieties. It makes for potent cinema and convenient rhetoric, but as a guide to policy, it is useless. Better to focus on ensuring that the fruits of innovation spread widely than to indulge dystopian fantasies of plutocrats on planetary lifeboats. 

If Elon Musk or anyone else reaches a trillion-dollar net worth, it will be because their companies created technologies people wanted on a massive scale. Fortunes at that level are possible only when innovations spread widely – when electric cars become mainstream, rockets lower the cost of accessing space, or algorithms reshape entire industries. In each of these cases, the real story is the millions of consumers whose lives are changed by such breakthroughs. 

Societies obsessed with leveling down risk stifling the very dynamism that generates broad prosperity. Better to see large fortunes – when built through invention, not favoritism – as markers of progress. As a society, we should not seek to eradicate the rich, but to expand the circle of opportunity and ensure that as many of us benefit from innovation as possible. Billionaires, at their best, are not evidence of capitalism gone wrong. They are evidence that capitalism is working. 

 

James Pethokoukis is a senior fellow and the DeWitt Wallace Chair at the American Enterprise Institute, editor of the AEIdeas blog, and writes the Faster, Please! newsletter. He is also the author of The Conservative Futurist: How to Create the Sci-Fi World We Were Promised.

The Catalyst believes that ideas matter. We aim to stimulate debate on the most important issues of the day, featuring a range of arguments that are constructive, high-minded, and share our core values of freedom, opportunity, accountability, and compassion. To that end, we seek out ideas that may challenge us, and the authors’ views presented here are their own; The Catalyst does not endorse any particular policy, politician, or party.

 

 

A13 FROM REDDIT

RE: GEORGE W. BUSH INSTITUTE via REDDIT

By Annual_Necessary_196

Why capital become less productive?

I have always wondered how to measure the contribution of capitalists to economic growth, because workers, scientists, entrepreneurs (I differentiate entrepreneurs from capitalists in my research), the government, and other actors all help drive growth.

Earlier, I found research showing a constant decrease in capital utilization. Capital utilization reflects how efficiently capitalists allocate capital. It is important to analyze this over long periods, like 30–40 years, because our economy is cyclical; otherwise, the data will be biased.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CAPUTLB50001SQ

https://www.epi.org/publication/american_factories_operating_near_record_low_utilization/

In 1967, the U.S. economy used 88% of its capital capacity, while in 2022, this number decreased to 78%. This means capitalists are performing their role less effectively.  Currently, 22% of capacity is unused. It would be acceptable if this number at least stagnated, but the slow, constant fall suggests that capitalists are performing worse over time.

The situation is similar for U.S. return on capital, defined as:

Return on capital=Capital income (profits, rents, interest, corporate earnings)/Total capital stock (physical + financial + some intangible assets).

Return on capital decreased from 10% to 4% in 40 years.

It represents the average productivity of capital. This implies that capital accumulation is outpacing productive opportunities, causing a financialization effect where more capital is tied up in debt and financial instruments rather than in productive investment. As a result, new investments produce less output per dollar.

In other words, capital is abundant, but profitable opportunities are limited. This suggests that capital owners are underperforming.

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!18FB!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F35fa511e-f39b-4a95-b646-bd248b3a142e_1827x1139.jpeg

It seems capital owners underperform.

Workers on other side. Workers’ productivity is still growing; however, real wages are slightly lower than productivity.
ResearchGate

So, how do capitalists plan to solve these problems?
And how do socialists plan to solve these problems?

 

         

A14 From Taylor and Francis

The degeneration of capitalism from a system of production to a speculative orgy

Review by Jonathan Michie

Pages 147-151 | Published online: 29 Jan 2020

As an economic system, capitalism took root and developed globally because of its success in driving production, promoting the accumulation of capital, and delivering economic growth. Marx’s Capital analyses and describes its success as an economic system in driving capitalists to out-compete each other, insatiably re-investing their surpluses to generate ever-greater profits to accumulate still further, extending the working day, using child labour, and bringing workers together in factories and mills so that modern machinery could be utilised to its fullest potential, and the work which had previously been performed by artisans could be subsumed within and tied to the workplace’s ever faster work rate:

One capitalist always kills many. Hand in hand with this centralisation, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending scale, the co-operative form of the labour process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labour into instruments of labour only usable in common, the economising of all means of production by their use as the means of production of combined, socialised labour, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world market, and with this, the international character of the capitalistic regime. (Marx Citation1867, 714–15)

That fundamental driving force of the system to produce more and more, on an ever-expanding scale, to out-compete your rivals lost its primacy long ago. Today, a large part of that energy and action goes on speculation and deal-making, trying to grab a bigger size of the existing pie – baked by someone else – rather than contribute towards the production or creation of new goods and services. There have been historic attempts to create more sustainable models of economic activity, still based on the capitalist system, most notably out of the wreckage of the speculative frenzy that led to the 1929 Wall Street Crash and the global Great Depression of the 1930s that amongst other things contributed to the rise of Nazism and the path to World War Two. The post-war era, to which much is owed to John Maynard Keynes – from his critique of the post-World War One settlement (Keynes, Citation1919), to his magnum opus on how to tackle recession and unemployment (Keynes Citation1936), through to his role in the Bretton Woods planning for new economic institutions and policies for a regulated and co-operative economic regime.

When that ‘golden age of capitalism’ broke down in the 1970s, it paved the way for the Thatcher and Reagan era of deregulation, privatisation and free-market globalisation, which led ultimately to the 2007–2008 international financial crisis and the subsequent global recession of 2009. But instead of a new direction, the subsequent decade has seen the costs of the speculative failures transferred to the mass of the population via the politics of austerity, whilst corporate leaders have continued along the trajectory of speculation and deal making, with no serious attempt to realign the economy to focus on what today needs to be a Green New Deal. Instead, a major focus continues to be the ‘rent seeking’ search for new areas of society where existing activities can be monetised, with the anticipated revenues and profits speculated on through bond and share sales. There is less focus on the intrinsic merits of the new ‘product’, and more on the likely movement of the newly issued shares, with money to be made from the process of speculating on such movements, quite apart from the gains to be made from those who guess right. (The costs of guessing wrong are often passed on to others, through ‘limited liability’, or being ‘too big to fail’.)

Share buy-backs represent another aspect of this unproductive deal-making speculative model for today’s corporate sector.Footnote1 Rather than a company’s profits being invested in research and development or new facilities, they are used to buy their own company’s shares, hence boosting the price, and benefiting the shareholders – both those who sell, and those who haven’t sold and hence enjoy their increased wealth, caused by a rise in the value of the shares they retain. Opportunities for insider dealing and other corrupt practices are fostered and fester.

In ‘Do corporate insiders use stock buybacks for personal gain?’, Lenore Palladino investigates whether corporate insiders sell their own personal shareholdings more frequently when they are executing stock buybacks using corporate funds. Examining transactions for nonfinancial corporations with publicly traded stock from 2005 to 2017, Palladino finds that net insider sales of over $100k are nearly twice as common in quarters when stock buy-backs are also occurring than in non-buyback quarters. Palladino conducts an empirical analysis of the relationship between stock buybacks and insider transactions – and finds that a ten percent change in stock buy-backs is associated with a half-percent change in corporate insiders selling their personal shareholdings, holding other factors constant. This suggests that executives may indeed be taking advantage of the regulatory loophole left in the regulation of stock buybacks, and that policymakers should reform the regulations governing stock buybacks and corporate insider share-selling.

1. Capitalism unleashed

Just as the drive of capitalist firms to continually expand led them to expand overseas and globally, so the new era of speculative capitalism has done likewise. Indeed, Thatcher in Britain followed by others across the world deliberately took off the leash that Keynes and others had placed on the ability of capital to roam the world looking for nothing more than a speculative opportunity to make some money for its owners at the expense of others.Footnote2 In ‘Empirical evidence on international capital immobility: a consumption-based approach’, Sulaiman Al-Jassar and Imad A. Moosa propose a measure of capital mobility based on consumption patterns and consumption-income correlation, and find that capital mobility is actually surprisingly low. And that it is lower for low-income than high-income countries. This is because while capital mobility provides benefits to some, it can be detrimental to the recipient country, which encourages them to impose capital controls. Capital mobility is thus being impeded by this ‘home bias’, which is to be welcomed, as it derives from the failure of the supposed benefits of international capital mobility to materialise.

While these speculative funds that swirl around the globe on the look out for opportunities to exploit may have no intention to assist anyone but their financial owners, there is another type of financial flow that does have a positive intent, namely remittances. In ‘Disentangling the relationship between remittances and financial development: evidence from Jamaica’, Regan Deonanan, Benjamin Ramkissoon, Dana Ramkissoon and Roger Hosein examine the relationship between remittances and financial development – meaning the development of the banking and financial system – in Jamaica using annual data from 1976 to 2016. They find that in the short run remittances actually substitute for financial development, whilst promote financial development in the long run. They also find that it is remittances rather than financial development that is the driver. Thus, the focus shouldn’t be on the financial sector, but rather on practical ways of assisting the process of receiving remittances. In the longer term, if financial development can help direct any resulting savings into productive uses, then so much the better.

In ‘Savings and the informal sector’, Stephen Dobson, Carlyn Ramlogan-Dobson and Eric Strobl note that in many countries the informal sector is a vital source of employment and income, yet little is known about the impact of this sector on savings, which are crucial in promoting investment and growth. Through the research reported in their paper, they find an inverse relationship between savings rates and the informal sector when the informal sector is small, but that once the informal sector reaches a certain size, further growth in the size of the informal sector boosts savings rates. This is positive, but they argue that rather than allowing the informal sector to grow unchecked, it is in everyone’s interests – not least those otherwise stuck in the informal sector – for policy to focus on removing barriers for successful operation of business in the formal sector, thus enabling people and productive operations to move from the informal to the formal sector of the economy.

In ‘The first job and occupational trajectories: young workers in Brazil between 2002 and 2016ʹ Bárbara Christina Pereira Da Silva Carrijo, Sandro Eduardo Monsueto and Larissa Barbosa Cardoso analyze the impact of the first job on the occupational trajectory of young people in Brazilian metropolitan regions between 2002 and 2016. The main model estimated the probability of a young person obtaining a job of higher socio-economic status in comparison with the first job obtained one year prior. Results indicate that the first job was predominantly in activities of lower socio-economic status, mainly for young women, although no important differences were observed regarding the level of qualification between genders. The type of occupation taken to enter the labour market has important consequences on a person’s occupational trajectory. In other words, a dependency relation was detected. The article offers empirical evidence of a dependency relation between the quality of the position obtained as a first job and the future trajectory of young people in the Brazilian labour market. This impact tended to be greater among women. The immediate policy implications are the greater need to address the quality of positions created as points of entry to the market.

In ‘The economic and social determinants of participation in physical activity in Brazil’, Luan Vinicius Bernardelli, Camila Pereira and Michael A. Kortt examine the economic and social factors that influence the frequency of participation in physical activity in Brazil. Employing a modified allocation of time framework, they use data from the 2015 Brazilian National Household Sample Survey to analyse the frequency of participation in physical activity for men and women between the age of 18 and 64. They find that household income has a very small but positive effect on the frequency of participation in physical activity while, in contrast, full-time employment and caring for dependent children have a larger negative for both men and women. Thus, they argue, social policies such as those designed to make physical activity more convenient in the workforce may help to facilitate more frequent participation in physical activity.

In ‘Specialization and KIBS in the Euro area: a vertically integrated sector perspective’, Davide Antonioli, Claudio Di Berardino and Gianni Onesti note that the imbalances among countries belonging to the European Monetary Union (EMU) have been analysed under several angles in recent years, but often neglecting the evolution of economic and productive structures. They fill this gap by analysing country specialization through the differences in the inter-industrial linkages that affect economic systems competitiveness and production processes. They use the input-output subsystem approach exploiting the latest WIOD release (2018) to investigate the role of business services, with a special focus on knowledge business services (KIBS), in shaping the EMU countries’ productive structures through their integration in the manufacturing sectors. The results show that disparities are growing in the composition of productive structure, and that these are even more pronounced when considering inter-sectoral dynamics.

2. Conclusion: the need for an economics of human wellbeing

In his review article ‘A Man for a Crisis: Keynesianism, economic theory and the future of civilization’, Vishnu Padayachee touches on many of these issues, as well as the problem of increased income and wealth inequality that capitalism unleashed has created. Padayachee quotes the argument of Skidelsky (Citation2018) that:

The reinvention of macroeconomics requires inserting society into the study of economics. Marx understood this just as much as Keynes – and in some respects better, because he understood that individuals were members of classes, and their behaviour needed to be explained in terms of their class membership. (Skidelsky Citation2018, 386).

In different ways, but across the board, the economy needs to be redirected, away from financial speculation, monetisation of as many activities as can be profitably exploited, and deal making, towards a focus on human wellbeing and environmental and social sustainability. This means a return to a focus on actual outcomes, in terms of goods and services, within the context of the climate crisis whereby production needs to be sustainable, so that the focus shifts to the quality of life and human wellbeing, rather than increased economic growth for its own sake.

Notes

1. See the various critiques from William Lazonick, including Lazonick, Sakinç, and Hopkins (Citation2020).

2. Hence Andrew Glyn’s characterisation of this era of free-market globalisation as ‘capitalism unleashed’ (Glyn Citation2007).

References

Glyn, A. 2007. Capitalism Unleashed: Finance, Globalisation, and Welfare. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  VIEW

Keynes, J. M. 1919. The Economic Consequences of the Peace. London: Macmillan & Co., Limited.  VIEW

Keynes, J. M. 1936. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: Palgrave Macmillan.  VIEW

Lazonick, W., M. E. Sakinç, and M. Hopkins. 2020. “Why Stock Buybacks are Dangerous for the Economy.” Harvard Business Review, January.  VIEW

Marx, K. 1867. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Volume 1: The Process of Production of Capital; (1st English Edition 1887, published by Lawrence & Wishart, London, 1954).  VIEW

Skidelsky, R. 2018. Money and Government, a Challenge to Mainstream Economics. New York: Allen Lane, an imprint of Penguin Books.

 

 

A DUPE FROM

Necessary

The rule of 3s (air, water, food)

The Rule of Threes is a simple guideline that lists human survival limits in order of priority: 3 minutes without air, 3 hours without shelter in a harsh environment, 3 days without water, and 3 weeks without food. [1, 2]

The Survival Priorities

·         3 Minutes Without Air: Oxygen is your most urgent need. Severe bleeding or a blocked airway will cause death or brain damage very fast. [1, 2, 3]

·         3 Hours Without Shelter: Extreme cold, wind, sun, or rain can kill you through hypothermia or heat stroke before you get thirsty. Clothing and proper gear act as your first line of shelter. [1, 2, 3]

·         3 Days Without Water: Dehydration quickly leads to confusion, organ failure, and death. Finding a clean drinking source is vital early on. [1, 2, 3]

·         3 Weeks Without Food: While hunger drains your energy and mood, your body can go a long time using stored fat and calories before starvation becomes fatal. [1, 2]

 

A15 FROM DJI (As Above)

Discretionary (tech)

          Service (retail, medical, police.fire, transport

          Extraction

          Consumer finance/insurance

          Parasitic

 

 

          Get old docs... E&R, @

                   Google

 

          Workers v. Administrators

 

 

AND – from GUK:  SOME PEOPLE HAVE A WAY OUT; SOME WAY OUTS are WAY WAY OUT

Given the escalating prosecutorial appetites of the current three-tiered regime for prohibiting or even criminalizing speech (as, for example, Minnesota professor Erik Davis, facing six years for allegedly joining antifa protests, calling ICE SLAPP prosecutions “petty revenge”), let’s just associate the following AI overview with remarks by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards; controversial – but they can hardly be described as proletarian.  They just play in a rock and roll band...

         

A16 AI Overview on That Prospect...

Whether a (redacted) will happen in the U.S. is uncertain, but analysts note growing political polarization, institutional distrust, and executive overreach as key risk factors. While some think tanks warn of systemic political transformation, most experts view a traditional violent uprising as unlikely. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Risk Factors and Concerns

Countervailing Factors

 

 

A17 x16 FROM KATIE COURIC MEDIA

Be Careful When You Talk About Revolution

History is full of movements that ended somewhere no one expected.

By Glenn Sonnenberg, Lawyer, Businessman, Writer

Published: July 13, 2026 | Updated: July 23, 2026

Today is Bastille Day, France's national holiday commemorating the 1789 storming of the Bastille and the beginning of the end of Bourbon monarchy. What many people don’t realize is that the revolutionaries weren't attacking a government office or military barracks. The Bastille was a prison holding captives by order of the king for their politics, rather than for “traditional” crimes. 

What followed the Bastille was more than a simple adjustment of the political structures: It unleashed radicalism that led to the execution of the King and the Reign of Terror, during which over 40,000 people were executed or died in prison. Eventually, the Terror gave way to the Directory, then the Empire of Napoleon, the Napoleonic Wars, and the eventual restoration of the monarchy. The 19th century did not bring respite to the French people, who suffered through more revolution and successive wars that didn't abate until after the Second World War. All of this began because those in power didn't seize the opportunity to address fundamental flaws in their system. Imagine if the King had paid heed to the protestors. (For a great history of the revolution, Citizens by Simon Schama is the definitive work.) 

As is the case with most revolutions, once they begin, there's no predicting how they'll end. Certainly, Robespierre, among the more radical of the French revolutionaries, didn’t expect that the Revolution ultimately would call for his head. History suggests that most revolutions don't follow a neat template. They’re perhaps the ultimate example of the maxim, “Be careful what you wish for,” because the wish and the reality don’t neatly track.

WHEN PEOPLE STOP TRUSTING THE SYSTEM

Some fear that there is a revolution coming to America. I don’t think a violent revolution is coming but there is a revolution — of expectations, ideas, feelings about institutions, and disappointment with government’s failures — happening before our eyes. Sure, the polarization of our politics is an issue, as is the pernicious expansion of executive power. That's coupled with a seeming indifference of Congress, and the Supreme Court’s novel theories to support it. But I maintain that all of this is background noise to more fundamental issues that we face. 

The rise of the radical right and of the Democratic Socialists, while seemingly divergent in their political philosophies, are rooted in the same zeitgeist. There's broad sentiment in America that the system has failed, that it's broken beyond an easy fix, and that it's rigged against the working class and the middle class. As the wealth divide has widened — with wildly unimaginable fortunes being made and multiplying by the day, mostly benefiting the already-wealthy, while jobs are being replaced through AI, and with the rising costs of goods, services, and housing — the mood is right for populism. The recent emergence of white Christian nationalism, Democratic Socialists, and many of the politicians and commentators of the left and the right that are the loudest voices in the news and social media all are products of a bubbling populism across our nation. 

I believe populism, and a sense of not having a stake in the broader successes of America and its economy, increasingly drives the right and the left. And the problem with populism is that, like revolutions, no one can really predict where it will go, and when and how it achieves its ends. 

Often, populism strikes quickly and harshly, capturing the mood of the moment with horrific results. As Volker Ullrich, in his highly recommended book Fateful Hours, quotes a commentator from 1933, Hitler had “won the game with little effort…All he had to do was huff and puff — and the edifice of German politics collapsed like a house of cards.” Are the United States’s political institutions, party apparatus, economy, and governing documents as fragile as Weimar Germany’s? Of course not. Yet it all is fragile. The institutions of our democracy didn't appear fully formed; they're the result of centuries of human experience, endeavor, trial, and error. They are constructs that can prop up the most abundant and innovative nation the world has known, but they easily can be torn down, given the right circumstances.

Today, we seem stuck in a rut of competing extremes, rather than practical compromise. President Trump is right that other nations have taken advantage of global economic systems to our detriment. But that doesn’t justify enacting punishing tariffs. He's right that a country can't have an open border for anyone to step across. But that doesn’t justify the mass incarceration and deportation of those who've resided here for decades.

Similarly, NYC mayor Zohran Mamdani is right that the system has left many New Yorkers in economic binds. But I believe that the solution to rising housing costs is found in building more housing — not in freezing rents or assessing penalties on property owners. Others suggest abolishing prisons, when rehabilitating the criminal justice system might be necessary instead. Defunding the police makes little sense to me, particularly when police reform, better training, and body cameras could address the problem. Practical solutions are within our grasp. 

France vs. America

The American Revolution is a curious one, different from the French Revolution and most others. It wasn't an uprising of the working class, ŕ la Russia. And it wasn't an uprising of the peasant class, ŕ la China. It was an uprising of the elites in America against the elites and the monarchy of Great Britain. As such, it was in many ways a “conservative revolution” — one that employed the philosophy and governing principles of the very nation from whom it sought separation. 

Ours is a nation that was created by revolution only in part. Certainly, there was a war. But America is a nation born of evolution — of ideas and systems and local control. As Condorcet noted in comparing the American Revolution to the French: “The Americans were satisfied with the code of civil and criminal legislation which they had derived from England...They had only to direct their attention to the establishment of new powers, to be substituted in the place of those exercised over them by the British government.” The alternative was not nearly as productive for humanity.  As Albert Camus noted in 1957, “The French Revolution gave birth to no great artists…The only poet of the times was the guillotine.” And as Robespierre observed, “Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible…” Hardly words upon which to build a just future. 

I think both the Democratic and Republican parties are missing the moment. They should be working to address the inequities in our society before some of the disaffected folks take matters into their own hands. If they fail, there won’t be an evolution of systems, but a revolution of principles. That revolution, while perhaps not violent, will yield paroxysms of destructive ideas drawn from the dustbin of history, rather than imagining a better world.  

There are lessons to be learned from past revolutions. In 1963, Hannah Arendt had this to say: “One of the main consequences of the revolution in France was, for the first time in history, to bring the people into the streets and make them visible.” Populism in America today capitalizes upon the desire for visibility among those who feel invisible.  If we take their frustrations seriously, we can choose reform over revolution — and spare ourselves the cost that history so often demands after the latter.

 

When he isn’t writing his column Thinking Things Through, Glenn Sonnenberg heads a real estate investment company and serves on several nonprofit boards. A graduate of the University of Southern California, B.A. 1977 (history, magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa), Mr. Sonnenberg also received his J.D. in 1980 from USC. He began his career as an attorney specializing in real estate and finance. Follow him on Substack here.

 

A18X09 FROM DEMOCRACY w/o BORDERS

 

X09 FROM DEMOCRACY WITHOUT BORDERS

Extreme wealth inequality is threatening democracy, reports warn

Feb 2026 

Recent assessments warn that the global concentration of wealth keeps increasing and threatens democracy.

According to a report by Oxfam, “The world is not approaching a crucial tipping point: we are in it.” Global billionaire wealth has reached 18.3 trillion US dollars, the report says, an 81% increase in real terms since 2020. Over the past year alone, billionaire fortunes grew by 16.2%, three times faster than the average annual rate since 2020.

An expert committee mandated by the South African G20 presidency last year described inequality as an emergency. A report it presented in November 2025 states that between 2000 and 2024, the richest 1% increased their wealth 2,655 times more than the bottom 50%. The number of billionaires now exceeds 3,000 globally and they hold wealth equivalent to 14.1% of global GDP, up from 2.5% in 1990, the committee noted.

 

Billionaires increased their wealth by over 80% in five years

The World Inequality Report 2026, published shortly after the G20 committee report, reaches a similar conclusion about the persistence of extreme disparities. It finds that global income inequality remains at very high levels and emphasizes that these outcomes are shaped by political and institutional choices rather than economic inevitability. The report warns that such concentration risks undermining democratic accountability and social cohesion.

The G20 committee confirms that global income inequality remains extremely high, with a global income Gini coefficient of 0.61. It reports that 83% of countries, accounting for 90% of the world’s population, have high income inequality, defined as a Gini above 0.4.

Oxfam emphasized that the wealth surge at the top coincides with widespread hardship. For instance, one in four people globally faces moderate or severe food insecurity, and 2.6 billion people cannot afford a healthy diet. The G20 committee report notes that food insecurity is up by 335 million people since 2019.

INTERNATIONAL PANEL ON INEQUALITY RECOMMENDED

All three reports link these wealth imbalances to democratic challenges. Oxfam cites research showing that more unequal countries are up to seven times more likely to experience democratic erosion. The G20 committee similarly finds that countries with high inequality are more likely to experience democratic decline. It warns that inequality erodes trust in institutions, fuels political polarization, and translates into political inequality through concentrated media ownership and campaign finance power. Oxfam argues that extreme wealth has become “a direct threat to political freedom.”

The G20 committee recommended in its report the creation of an International Panel on Inequality, modeled on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The proposed body would provide governments with independent assessments of inequality trends, policy impacts and recommendations.

Last month, the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2026 identified inequality as one of the most interconnected global risks, linking it to social fragmentation, political instability, and weakened governance.

Lawmakers urge UN to establish independent democracy mandate

Civil society declaration warns UN goals are off track, urges reforms

 

 

A”A”X56 FROM GINI (world worst to first)  Rename “A”

X56  FROM GINI

 

The Gini index (or coefficient) is a statistical metric used to measure economic inequality, primarily focusing on income or wealth distribution within a population. Scores range from 0 (perfect equality, where everyone earns the exact same amount) to 1 (perfect inequality, where one person holds all the wealth). [1, 2, 3, 4]

How the Gini Index is Calculated

Global Comparison and Context

To explore the Gini index and compare inequality metrics across different countries, check the World Population Review or the official OECD Income Inequality Data. [1, 2]

 

From Our World in Data

What you should know about this indicator

 

International

Countries ranked by GINI coefficient (worst to first) and date of last ranking

 

South Africa

63.0

2014

Namibia

59.1

2015

Botswana

54.9

2015

Eswatini

54.6

2016

Colombia

53.9

2023

Brazil

51.6

2023

Zambia

51.5

2022

Angola

51.3

2018

Saint Lucia

51.2

2016

Zimbabwe

50.3

2020

Panama

49.7

2024

Mozambique

49.6

2022

Republic of the Congo

48.9

2011

Nicaragua

46.2

2014

Singapore

45.8

2016

Costa Rica

45.8

2024

Honduras

45.7

2024

Comoros

45.3

2014

Guatemala

45.2

2023

Ecuador

45.2

2024

Guyana

45.1

1998

Lesotho

44.9

2017

DR Congo

44.7

2020

Venezuela

44.7

2006

Turkey

44.5

2022

Paraguay

44.2

2024

South Sudan

44.0

2016

Grenada

43.8

2018

Mexico

43.5

2022

Ghana

43.5

2016

Chile

43.0

2022

Central African Republic

43.0

2021

Uganda

42.7

2019

Madagascar

42.5

2012

Argentina

42.4

2024

Cape Verde

42.4

2015

Cameroon

42.2

2021

Bolivia

42.1

2023

Papua New Guinea

41.9

2009

United States

41.8

2023

Djibouti

41.6

2017

Haiti

41.1

2012

Turkmenistan

40.8

1998

Malaysia

40.7

2021

Sao Tome and Principe

40.7

2017

Tanzania

40.5

2018

Trinidad and Tobago

40.2

1992

Peru

40.1

2024

Micronesia

40.1

2013

Uruguay

40.0

2024

Jamaica

39.9

2021

Belize

39.9

2018

El Salvador

39.8

2023

Morocco

39.5

2013

Rwanda

39.4

2023

Philippines

39.3

2023

Suriname

39.2

2022

Tuvalu

39.1

2010

Dominican Republic

39.0

2024

Laos

38.8

2018

Gambia

38.8

2020

Samoa

38.7

2013

Malawi

38.5

2019

Equatorial Guinea

38.5

2023

Bulgaria

38.2

2022

Gabon

38.0

2017

Togo

37.9

2021

Israel

37.9

2021

Kenya

37.7

2022

Sri Lanka

37.7

2019

Burundi

37.5

2020

Burkina Faso

37.4

2021

Chad

37.4

2022

Solomon Islands

37.1

2012

Mauritius

36.8

2017

Yemen

36.7

2014

Palestine

36.4

2023

Senegal

36.2

2021

Vietnam

36.1

2022

Lithuania

36.0

2023

Iran

35.9

2023

Mali

35.7

2021

Sierra Leone

35.7

2018

Marshall Islands

35.5

2019

Ivory Coast

35.3

2021

Lebanon

35.3

2022

Liberia

35.3

2016

Qatar

35.1

2017

Indonesia

34.9

2024

Uzbekistan

34.6

2024

Malta

34.6

2022

Benin

34.4

2021

Italy

34.3

2023

Australia

34.3

2018

Montenegro

34.3

2021

Sudan

34.2

2014

Barbados

34.1

2016

Latvia

34.0

2023

Nigeria

33.9

2022

Taiwan

33.9

2023

Portugal

33.9

2023

Georgia

33.9

2024

Switzerland

33.8

2022

Tunisia

33.7

2021

Jordan

33.7

2010

Luxembourg

33.6

2023

Thailand

33.5

2023

North Macedonia

33.5

2019

Bangladesh

33.4

2022

Spain

33.4

2023

Greece

33.4

2023

Guinea-Bissau

33.4

2021

Russia

33.0

2023

Bosnia and Herzegovina

33.0

2011

South Korea

32.9

2021

Niger

32.9

2021

Serbia

32.8

2022

Germany

32.4

2020

United Kingdom

32.4

2021

Nauru

32.4

2012

Japan

32.3

2020

Vanuatu

32.3

2019

Seychelles

32.1

2018

Mauritania

32.0

2019

France

31.8

2023

Cyprus

31.8

2023

Mongolia

31.4

2022

Austria

31.2

2023

Ethiopia

31.1

2021

Myanmar

30.7

2017

Estonia

30.7

2023

Fiji

30.7

2019

Hungary

30.2

2022

Croatia

30.1

2023

Nepal

30.0

2022

Canada

29.9

2020

Denmark

29.9

2023

Iraq

29.8

2023

Romania

29.8

2023

Pakistan

29.6

2018

Guinea

29.6

2018

Albania

29.4

2020

Sweden

29.3

2023

Maldives

29.3

2019

Kazakhstan

29.2

2021

Ireland

29.0

2023

Timor-Leste

28.7

2014

Egypt

28.5

2021

Poland

28.5

2023

Bhutan

28.5

2022

Kiribati

27.8

2019

Algeria

27.6

2011

Finland

27.4

2023

Kyrgyzstan

27.2

2023

Armenia

27.2

2023

Tonga

27.1

2021

Belgium

26.8

2023

Moldova

26.8

2023

Syria

26.6

2022

Azerbaijan

26.6

2005

Iceland

26.6

2018

Norway

26.5

2023

United Arab Emirates

26.4

2018

Tajikistan

26.1

2024

China

26.0

2022

Netherlands

25.7

2021

Czechia

25.7

2023

Ukraine

25.6

2020

India

25.5

2022

Slovenia

24.7

2023

Belarus

24.4

2020

Slovakia

23.8

2023

 

 

A”B”X57 FROM GINI (US states worst to first)

The Gini coefficient for the United States is approximately 0.49 (or 41.8 to 49 depending on whether macro disposable income or standard Census household metrics are used), reflecting a high level of income inequality compared to other developed nations. [1, 2, 3]

Understanding the U.S. Gini Index

 

 

From WIKI

The United States has the greatest income disparity among developed nations.[1] However, the inequality indicators vary considerably from state to state. States that have a high concentration of skilled jobs, implement regressive tax policies, or have weaker worker protections in general tend to have greater income inequalities. As of 2019, the highest inequality may be observed in Puerto Rico, around the New York City and Washington, D.C. metropolitan areas, across much of the Southern United States, in California, and in Massachusetts.

 

The uncertainties are not shown in the table. The ACS gives a much higher estimate of the Gini coefficient for the United States than other sources.[15][16][19]

#

Entity[a]

Gini coefficient (2019)[18]

Gini coefficient (2015–2019)[20]

United States

0.4811

0.4823

1

Puerto Rico

0.5509

0.5486

2

New York

0.5149

0.5142

3

District of Columbia

0.5115

0.5269

4

Connecticut

0.5024

0.4963

5

Louisiana

0.4978

0.4953

6

Mississippi

0.4964

0.4907

7

California

0.4866

0.4886

8

Florida

0.4808

0.4862

9

Massachusetts

0.4803

0.4826

10

Illinois

0.4800

0.4821

11

Georgia

0.4795

0.4819

12

New Jersey

0.4782

0.4814

13

New Mexico

0.4768

0.4784

14

Kentucky

0.4764

0.4786

15

Texas

0.4753

0.4791

16

Arkansas

0.4750

0.4765

17

Tennessee

0.4749

0.4788

18

South Carolina

0.4747

0.4740

19

Pennsylvania

0.4745

0.4720

20

North Carolina

0.4743

0.4760

21

Alabama

0.4741

0.4791

22

Oklahoma

0.4739

0.4689

23

Nevada

0.4710

0.4620

24

Virginia

0.4690

0.4689

25

Ohio

0.4651

0.4654

26

West Virginia

0.4644

0.4667

27

Michigan

0.4634

0.4669

28

Missouri

0.4633

0.4641

29

Rhode Island

0.4628

0.4702

30

Montana

0.4597

0.4594

31

Arizona

0.4591

0.4664

32

Indiana

0.4584

0.4526

33

Washington

0.4577

0.4573

34

Maryland

0.4558

0.4535

35

 North Dakota

0.4558

0.4537

36

Colorado

0.4548

0.4566

37

Delaware

0.4509

0.4545

38

Kansas

0.4500

0.4563

39

Oregon

0.4500

0.4586

40

Maine

0.4490

0.4511

41

Vermont

0.4471

0.4484

42

Minnesota

0.4434

0.4494

43

Iowa

0.4422

0.4416

44

New Hampshire

0.4406

0.4384

45

Nebraska

0.4400

0.4442

46

Hawaii

0.4397

0.4414

47

Wisconsin

0.4391

0.4448

48

Alaska

0.4376

0.4284

49

South Dakota

0.4360

0.4440

50

Wyoming

0.4345

0.4361

51

Idaho

0.4337

0.4462

52

Utah

0.4268

0.4265

 

 

RICHEST AMERICAN CORPORATIONS

 

A”C”X60 FROM WIKI – United States

 

List of largest companies in the United States by revenue


The first list includes the largest companies in the United States by revenue as of 2024, according to the Fortune 500 and Forbes rankings. The Fortune 500 list of companies includes only publicly traded companies, also including tax inversion companies. There are also corporations having foundation in the United States, such as corporate headquarters, operational headquarters and independent subsidiaries. However, this list does include several government-sponsored enterprises that were created by acts of Congress and later became publicly traded.

The second list used 2024 data and includes large privately held companies such as Cargill and Koch Industries.

List of the largest public / publicly traded companies

Below are the 100 largest companies by revenue in 2025 (mostly for fiscal year 2024), according to the Fortune 500 list.[1]

 

Rank

Name

Industry

Revenue
(USD millions)

Revenue growth

Employees

Headquarters

1

Walmart

Retail

680,985

Increase 5.1%

2,100,000

Bentonville, Arkansas

2

Amazon

Retail and cloud computing

637,959

Increase 11.0%

1,556,000

Seattle, Washington

3

UnitedHealth Group

Healthcare

400,278

Increase 7.7%

400,000

Minnetonka, Minnesota

4

Apple

Technology

391,035

Increase 2.0%

164,000

Cupertino, California

5

CVS Health

Healthcare

372,809

Increase 4.2%

259,500

Woonsocket, Rhode Island

6

Berkshire Hathaway

Conglomerate

371,433

Increase 1.9%

392,400

Omaha, Nebraska

7

Alphabet

Technology and cloud computing

350,018

Increase 13.9%

183,323

Mountain View, California

8

Exxon Mobil

Petroleum

349,595

Increase 1.5%

60,900

Spring, Texas

9

McKesson Corporation

Healthcare

308,951

Increase 11.7%

48,000

Irving, Texas

10

Cencora

Pharmacy wholesale

293,959

Increase 12.1%

44,000

Conshohocken, Pennsylvania

11

JPMorgan Chase

Financials

278,906

Increase 16.5%

317,233

New York City, New York

12

Costco Wholesale

Retail

254,453

Increase 5.0%

333,000

Issaquah, Washington

13

Cigna

Health insurance

247,121

Increase 26.6%

72,398

Bloomfield, Connecticut

14

Microsoft

Technology and cloud computing

245,122

Increase 15.7%

228,000

Redmond, Washington

15

Cardinal Health

Healthcare

226,827

Increase 10.6%

48,411

Dublin, Ohio

16

Chevron

Petroleum

202,792

Increase 0.9%

45,298

Houston, Texas

17

Bank of America

Financials

192,434

Increase 11.9%

213,193

Charlotte, North Carolina

18

General Motors

Automotive

187,442

Increase 9.1%

162,000

Detroit, Michigan

19

Ford Motor

Automotive

184,992

Increase 5.0%

171,000

Dearborn, Michigan

20

Elevance Health

Healthcare

177,011

Increase 3.3%

103,679

Indianapolis, Indiana

21

Citigroup

Financials

170,757

Increase 8.9%

227,855

New York City, New York

22

Meta Platforms

Technology

164,501

Increase 21.9%

74,067

Menlo Park, California

23

Centene

Healthcare

163,071

Increase 5.9%

60,500

St. Louis, Missouri

24

The Home Depot

Retail

159,514

Increase 4.5%

470,100

Atlanta, Georgia

25

Fannie Mae

Financials

152,670

Increase 8.1%

8,200

Washington, D.C.

26

Walgreens Boots Alliance

Pharmaceutical

147,658

Increase 6.2%

252,500

Deerfield, Illinois

27

Kroger

Retail

147,123

Decrease -1.9%

409,000

Cincinnati, Ohio

28

Phillips 66

Petroleum

145,496

Decrease -2.9%

13,200

Houston, Texas

29

Marathon Petroleum

Petroleum

140,412

Decrease -6.6%

18,300

Findlay, Ohio

30

Verizon Communications

Telecommunications

134,788

Increase 0.6%

99,600

New York City, New York

31

Nvidia

Technology

130,497

Increase 114.2%

36,000

Santa Clara, California

32

Goldman Sachs Group

Financials

126,853

Increase 17.0%

46,500

New York City, New York

33

Wells Fargo

Financials

125,397

Increase 8.7%

217,502

San Francisco, California

34

Valero Energy

Petroleum

123,974

Decrease -10.8%

9,910

San Antonio, Texas

35

Comcast

Telecommunications

123,731

Increase 1.8%

182,000

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

36

State Farm Insurance

Financials

122,951

Increase 18.0%

67,381

Bloomington, Illinois

37

AT&T

Conglomerate and telecommunications

122,336

Decrease -0.1%

140,990

Dallas, Texas

38

Freddie Mac

Financials

122,052

Increase 13.0%

8,090

McLean, Virginia

39

Humana

Health insurance

117,761

Increase 10.7%

65,680

Louisville, Kentucky

40

Morgan Stanley

Financials

107,285

Increase 11.5%

80,478

New York City, New York

41

Target

Retail

106,566

Decrease -0.8%

440,000

Minneapolis, Minnesota

42

StoneX Group

Financials

99,888

Increase 64.1%

4,500

New York City, New York

43

Tesla

Automotive and energy

97,690

Increase 0.9%

125,665

Austin, Texas

44

Dell Technologies

Technology

95,567

Increase 8.1%

108,000

Round Rock, Texas

45

PepsiCo

Beverage

91,854

Increase 0.4%

319,000

Purchase, New York

46

Walt Disney

Media

91,361

Increase 2.8%

205,040

Burbank, California

47

United Parcel Service

Transportation

91,070

Increase 0.1%

372,180

Atlanta, Georgia

48

Johnson & Johnson

Pharmaceutical

88,821

Decrease -6.7%

138,100

New Brunswick, New Jersey

49

FedEx

Transportation

87,693

Decrease -2.7%

422,100

Memphis, Tennessee

50

Archer Daniels Midland

Food industry

85,530

Decrease -8.9%

43,213

Chicago, Illinois

51

Procter & Gamble

Consumer products manufacturing

84,039

Increase 2.5%

108,000

Cincinnati, Ohio

52

Lowe's

Retail

83,674

Decrease -3.1%

215,500

Mooresville, North Carolina

53

Energy Transfer Partners

Petroleum

82,671

Increase 5.2%

16,248

Dallas, Texas

54

RTX

Aerospace and defense

80,739

Increase 17.1%

186,000

Arlington County, Virginia

55

Albertsons

Retail

79,238

Increase 2.0%

196,650

Boise, Idaho

56

Sysco

Food processing

78,844

Increase 3.3%

76,000

Houston, Texas

57

Progressive

Insurance

75,372

Increase 21.4%

66,308

Mayfield Village, Ohio

58

American Express

Financials

74,201

Increase 10.1%

75,100

New York City, New York

59

Lockheed Martin

Aerospace and defense

71,043

Increase 5.1%

121,000

Bethesda, Maryland

60

MetLife

Financials

70,986

Increase 6.1%

45,000

New York City, New York

61

HCA Healthcare

Healthcare

70,603

Increase 8.7%

271,000

Nashville, Tennessee

62

Prudential Financial

Financials

70,405

Increase 30.4%

37,936

Newark, New Jersey

63

Boeing

Aerospace and defense

66,517

Decrease -14.5%

172,000

Arlington County, Virginia

64

Caterpillar

Machinery

64,809

Decrease -3.4%

112,900

Irving, Texas

65

Merck

Pharmaceutical industry

64,168

Increase 6.7%

74,000

Kenilworth, New Jersey

66

Allstate

Insurance

64,106

Increase 12.3%

55,200

Northfield Township, Illinois

67

Pfizer

Pharmaceutical industry

63,627

Increase 8.8%

81,000

New York City, New York

68

IBM

Technology and cloud computing

62,753

Increase 1.4%

284,500

Armonk, New York

69

New York Life Insurance Company

Insurance

62,639

Increase 15.3%

15,131

New York City, New York

70

Delta Air Lines

Airline

61,643

Increase 6.2%

103,000

Atlanta, Georgia

71

Publix Super Markets

Retail

60,177

Increase 4.6%

255,000

Lakeland, Florida

72

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company

Financials

58,646

Increase 7.4%

22,453

Columbus, Ohio

73

TD Synnex

Information Technology

58,452

Increase 1.6%

25,750

Clearwater, Florida

74

United Airlines Holdings

Airline

57,063

Increase 6.2%

107,300

Chicago, Illinois

75

ConocoPhillips

Petroleum

56,953

Decrease -2.8%

11,800

Houston, Texas

76

TJX

Retail

56,360

Increase 4.0%

364,000

Framingham, Massachusetts

77

AbbVie

Pharmaceutical

56,334

Increase 3.7%

55,000

Lake Bluff, Illinois

78

Enterprise Products Partners

Petroleum

56,219

Increase 13.1%

7,800

Houston, Texas

79

Charter Communications

Telecommunications

55,085

Increase 0.9%

94,500

Stamford, Connecticut

80

Performance Food Group

Food processing

54,681

Increase 2.5%

36,815

Richmond, Virginia

81

American Airlines Group

Airline

54,211

Increase 2.7%

133,300

Fort Worth, Texas

82

Capital One Financial

Financials

53,938

Increase 9.0%

52,600

Tysons, Virginia

83

Cisco Systems

Telecom hardware manufacturing

53,803

Decrease -5.6%

90,400

San Jose, California

84

HP

Technology

53,559

Decrease -0.3%

58,000

Palo Alto, California

85

Tyson Foods

Food processing

53,309

Increase 0.8%

138,000

Springdale, Arkansas

86

Intel

Technology

53,101

Decrease -2.1%

108,900

Santa Clara, California

87

Oracle

Technology

52,961

Increase 6.0%

159,000

Austin, Texas

88

Broadcom

Technology

52,432

Increase 46.4%

37,000

Palo Alto, California

89

Deere

Agriculture manufacturing

51,716

Decrease -15.6%

55,524

Moline, Illinois

90

Nike

Apparel

51,361

Increase 0.3%

78,400

Beaverton, Oregon

91

Liberty Mutual Insurance Group

Insurance

50,429

Decrease -4.1%

40,000

Boston, Massachusetts

92

Plains GP Holdings

Petroleum

50,073

Increase 2.8%

4,200

Houston, Texas

93

USAA

Insurance

48,560

Increase 14.3%

38,018

San Antonio, Texas

94

Bristol-Myers Squibb

Pharmaceutical

48,300

Increase 7.3%

34,100

New York CityNew York

95

Ingram Micro Holding

Technology

47,984

Decrease -0.1%

26,125

Irvine, California

96

General Dynamics

Aerospace and defense

47,716

Increase 12.9%

117,000

Reston, Virginia

97

Coca-Cola

Beverage

47,061

Increase 2.9%

69,700

Atlanta, Georgia

98

TIAA

Financials

46,946

Increase 2.6%

15,623

New York City, New York

99

Travelers

Insurance

46,423

Increase 12.2%

34,000

New York City, New York

100

Eli Lilly

Pharmaceutical

45,043

Increase 32.0%

47,000

Indianapolis, Indiana

 

List of largest private companies

 

Rank

Name

Industry

Revenue
(USD billions)

Employees

Headquarters

1

Cargill

Food & Drink

154

155,000

Minnetonka, Minnesota

2

Koch

Multicompany

125

120,000

Wichita, Kansas

3

Publix Super Markets

Food Markets

59.7

260,000

Lakeland, Florida

4

Mars

Food & Drink

55

150,000

McLean, Virginia

5

H-E-B Grocery Company

Food Markets

49.57

175,000

San Antonio, Texas

6

Reyes Holdings

Food, Drink & Tobacco

44

36,000

Rosemont, Illinois

7

Enterprise Mobility

Services

38

100,000

Clayton, Missouri

8

Fidelity Investments

Insurance

32.7

78,000

Boston, Massachusetts

9

Southern Glazer's Wine & Spirits

Food, Drink & Tobacco

25

24,000

Miramar, Florida

10

Cox Enterprises

Media

23.5

50,000

Atlanta, Georgia

 

 

Rank

Name

Industry

Profits
(USD millions)

Headquarters

1

Alphabet

Technology and cloud computing

100,118

Mountain View, California

2

Apple

Technology

93,736

Cupertino, California

3

Berkshire Hathaway

Conglomerate

88,995

Omaha, Nebraska

4

Microsoft

Technology and cloud computing

88,136

Redmond, Washington

5

Nvidia

Technology

72,880

Santa Clara, California

6

Meta Platforms

Technology

62,360

Menlo Park, California

7

Amazon

Retail and cloud computing

59,248

Seattle, Washington

8

JPMorgan Chase

Financials

58,471

New York City, New York

9

ExxonMobil

Petroleum industry

33,680

Spring, Texas

10

Bank of America

Financials

27,132

Charlotte, North Carolina

         

 

ATTACHMENT “D”  FROM FORBES

“d” X51 FROM FORBES

THE TOP 400

The wealthiest people in America have never been wealthier. Here's who's up, who's down and who's new.  

Tariffs. Inflation. Slowing employment. None of it has hit the fortunes of America’s billionaires. The 400 richest people in the U.S. are worth a record $6.6 trillion after getting $1.2 trillion richer over the past year amid surging stock markets and AI mania. A decade ago, when it took $1.7 billion to make The Forbes 400, a net worth of $3.8 billion was comfortably within the top half of the ranking—now that lofty sum is the minimum required. Still, 14 newcomers, including four worth $10 billion or more, have muscled their way into America’s most elite club.

AI OVERVIEW

Elon Musk's net worth is measured in hundreds of billions of dollars, not millions. The figure of $428 billion was a milestone he passed in late 2024, and his wealth has since fluctuated heavily between roughly $695 billion and over $900 billion. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Current Wealth Status

 

ATTACHMENT “D”   @TO DO:  sort by Productive (consumer), Tech, Service (medical, retail etc.), AIM (Amusement, Information and Media), Extractive (oil, gas, coal, diamonds) and Degenerate (money manipulative, @, surveillance) enterprises

 

 

 

Name

Net Worth

Age

Location

Source (sorted by genre)

Philanthropy Score

1

Elon Musk

$428 B

54

Texas

Tesla, SpaceX  P

1

2

Larry Ellison

$276 B

81

Hawaii

Oracle  D

1

3

Mark Zuckerberg

$253 B

41

California

Facebook AIM

2

4

Jeff Bezos

$241 B

61

Florida

Amazon AIM

2

5

Larry Page

$179 B

52

California

Google AIM

1

6

Sergey Brin

$166 B

52

California

Google AIM

2

7

Steve Ballmer

$153 B

69

Washington

Microsoft T

2

8

Jensen Huang

$151 B

62

California

Semiconductors T

1

9

Warren Buffett

$150 B

95

Nebraska

Berkshire Hathaway

5

10

Michael Dell

$129 B

60

Texas

Dell Technologies T

2

11

Rob Walton & family

$118 B

80

Arkansas

Walmart S

1

12

Jim Walton & family

$115 B

77

Arkansas

Walmart S

2

13

Michael Bloomberg

$109 B

83

New York

Bloomberg LP

4

14

Bill Gates

$107 B

69

Washington

Microsoft T

5

15

Alice Walton

$106 B

75

Texas

Walmart S

2

17

Charles Koch & family

$73.8 B

89

Kansas

Koch, Inc.  P

2

18

Thomas Peterffy

$73.3 B

80

Florida

Discount brokerage

1

19

Jeff Yass

$65.7 B

67

Pennsylvania

Trading, investments  D

1

20

Stephen Schwarzman

$51.9 B

78

New York

Investments

2

21

Ken Griffin

$50.4 B

56

Florida

Hedge funds

2

22

Jacqueline Mars

$42.2 B

85

Virginia

Candy, pet food P

 

22

John Mars

$42.2 B

89

Wyoming

Candy, pet food P

 

24

Lukas Walton

$39.8 B

38

Illinois

Walmart S

2

25

Miriam Adelson & family

$37.9 B

79

Nevada

Casinos AIM

2

26

Phil Knight & family

$35.7 B

87

Oregon

Nike P

4

27

Abigail Johnson

$35 B

63

Massachusetts

Fidelity

1

28

MacKenzie Scott

$33.9 B

55

Washington

Amazon AIM

5

29

Marilyn Simons & family

$32.5 B

74

New York

Hedge funds

5

30

Thomas Frist, Jr. & family

$32.4 B

87

Tennessee

Hospitals S

2

31

Len Blavatnik

$31 B

68

 

Music, chemicals AIM

2

32

Elaine Marshall & family

$30.9 B

83

Texas

Koch Inc. P

1

33

Melinda French Gates

$29 B

61

Washington

Microsoft T

5

34

Henry Samueli

$27.7 B

70

California

Semiconductors T

2

35

Lyndal Stephens Greth & family

$27.4 B

50

Texas

Oil, gas  E

 

36

Eric Schmidt

$26.8 B

70

California

Google AIM

3

37

Daniel Gilbert

$26.7 B

63

Michigan

Rocket Mortgage

2

38

Rupert Murdoch & family

$24.1 B

94

New York

Newspapers, TV network AIM

1

39

Robert Pera

$24 B

47

California

Wireless networking T

1

40

Peter Thiel

$23.9 B

57

California

Facebook, investments T

1

41

David Tepper

$23.7 B

67

Florida

Hedge funds

2

42

Ernest Garcia, II.

$23.1 B

68

Arizona

Used cars R

1

43

Steve Cohen

$23 B

69

Connecticut

Hedge funds

3

44

Diane Hendricks

$22.3 B

78

Wisconsin

Building supplies P

1

45

Rick Cohen & family

$22.1 B

73

New Hampshire

Warehouse automation

1

46

Todd Graves

$22 B

53

Louisiana

Fast food S

2

47

Stanley Kroenke

$21.3 B

78

Texas

Sports, real estate AIM

1

48

John Menard, Jr.

$20 B

85

Wisconsin

Home improvement stores S

1

49

Christy Walton

$19.7 B

76

Wyoming

Walmart S

1

50

Jerry Jones & Family

$19.6B

82

Texas

Dallas Cowboys AIM

1

51

Henry Nicholas, III.

$19.6 B

65

California

Semiconductors T

1

52

Philip Anschutz

$19.4 B

85

Colorado

Energy, sports, entertainment AIM

3

53

Donald Bren

$19.2 B

93

California

Real estate

3

54

Israel Englander

$18.9 B

76

New York

Hedge funds

1

55

Edwin Chen

$18 B

37

New York

Artificial intelligence T

1

56

Eric Smidt

$17.9 B

65

California

Hardware stores S

1

57

Adam Foroughi

$17.4 B

45

California

Advertising technology AIM

1

57

Jan Koum

$17.4 B

49

California

WhatsApp AIM

2

59

Stephen Ross

$17 B

85

Florida

Real estate

2

60

George Roberts

$16.8 B

81

California

Private equity

2

61

Lin Bin

$16.5 B

57

 

Smartphones T

1

62

Arthur Dantchik

$16.3 B

67

Pennsylvania

Trading, investments

2

63

John Doerr

$16.1 B

74

California

Venture capital

2

64

Harold Hamm & family

$16 B

79

Oklahoma

Oil & gas E

2

65

Jay Chaudhry

$15.7 B

66

Nevada

Security software T, D

1

66

Nancy Walton Laurie

$15.6 B

74

Nevada

Walmart S

1

66

Donald Newhouse

$15.6 B

96

New York

Media AIM

2

68

Robert Duggan

$15.4 B

81

Florida

Pharmaceuticals S

 

68

Ray Dalio

$15.4 B

76

Connecticut

Hedge funds

3

68

Brad Jacobs

$15.4 B

69

Connecticut

Logistics

 

68

Henry Kravis

$15.4 B

81

New York

Private equity

2

72

James Goodnight

$15.3 B

82

North Carolina

Software T

1

73

George Kaiser

$14.4 B

83

Oklahoma

Oil & gas, banking E

4

74

Alexander Karp

$14.3 B

57

New Hampshire

Software firm T

1

74

Shahid Khan

$14.3 B

75

Florida

Auto parts P

1

76

Edward Johnson, IV.

$14.2 B

60

Massachusetts

Fidelity

2

77

Jack Dangermond

$14.1 B

80

California

Mapping software T

2

78

Leon Black

$13.8 B

74

New York

Private equity

2

78

Antony Ressler

$13.8 B

64

California

Finance

1

78

Robert Kraft

$13.8 B

84

Massachusetts

Manufacturing, New England Patriots P, AIM

3

78

John Tu

$13.8 B

84

California

Computer hardware T

1

78

David Sun

$13.8 B

73

California

Computer hardware T

1

83

Bubba Cathy

$13.7 B

71

Georgia

Chick-fil-A S

1

83

Dan Cathy

$13.7 B

72

Georgia

Chick-fil-A S

1

83

Trudy Cathy White

$13.7 B

69

Georgia

Chick-fil-A S

1

86

Ken Fisher

$13.2 B

74

Texas

Money management

1

87

J. Christopher Reyes

$13.1 B

71

Florida

Food distribution S

1

87

Jude Reyes

$13.1 B

69

Florida

Food distribution S

1

87

Charles Schwab

$13.1 B

88

California

Discount brokerage

3

90

Brian Armstrong

$12.9 B

42

California

Cryptocurrency

 

91

Orlando Bravo

$12.8 B

54

Florida

Private equity

1

91

David Duffield

$12.8 B

84

Nevada

Business software T

3

91

Ann Walton Kroenke

$12.8 B

76

Texas

Walmart

1

91

Robert Pender

$12.8 B

72

Virginia

Oil & gas P

1

91

Michael Sabel

$12.8 B

58

District of Columbia

Oil & gas P

1

96

Ralph Lauren & Family

$12.7 B

85

New York

Apparel P

1

96

Laurene Powell Jobs

$12.7 B

61

California

Apple, Disney AIM

3

98

David Steward

$12.4 B

74

Missouri

IT provider T

2

99

Elizabeth Johnson

$12.3 B

62

Massachusetts

Fidelity

2

100

Pierre Omidyar

$12.2 B

58

Hawaii

EBay, PayPal S

4

Rank

Name

Net Worth

Age

State

Source

Philanthropy Score

101

Andrew Beal

$12 B

72

Texas

Banks, real estate

1

101

Dustin Moskovitz

$12 B

41

California

Facebook

5

101

Carl Cook

$11.7 B

63

Indiana

Medical devices

1

103

Chris Larsen

$11.5 B

65

California

Cryptocurrency

2

104

Arthur Blank

$11.4 B

82

Georgia

Home Depot

3

105

Ernest Garcia III

$11.4 B

43

Arizona

Used cars

1

105

John Malone

$11.3 B

84

Colorado

Cable television AIM

3

107

Richard Kinder

$11.1 B

80

Texas

Pipelines P

3

108

Josh Harris

$11 B

60

Florida

Private equity

1

109

Gabe Newell

$11 B

62

Washington

Video games AIM

1

109

Tilman Fertitta

$11 B

68

Texas

Entertainment, Houston Rockets AIM

2

109

Riley Bechtel & family

$10.8 B

73

California

Engineering, construction

1

112

Ramzi Musallam

$10.8 B

56

New York

Private equity

 

112

Pamela Mars

$10.5 B

65

Virginia

Candy, pet food P

 

114

Marijke Mars

$10.5 B

61

California

Candy, pet food

 

114

Valerie Mars

$10.5 B

66

New York

Candy, pet food

 

114

Victoria Mars

$10.5 B

68

Pennsylvania

Candy, pet food

 

114

Mark Stevens

$10.5 B

65

Colorado

Venture capital

2

114

Jonathan Gray

$10.4 B

55

New York

Investments

2

119

Charles Butt

$10.3 B

87

Texas

Supermarkets

4

120

Micky Arison

$10.1 B

76

Florida

Carnival Cruises AIM

2

121

Tom Gores

$10.1 B

61

California

Private equity

1

121

Jeffery Hildebrand

$10 B

66

Texas

Oil & gas P

2

123

Patrick Ryan

$10 B

88

Illinois

Insurance

2

123

Robert F. Smith

$10 B

62

Texas

Private equity

2

123

Harry Stine & family

$9.9 B

83

Iowa

Agriculture P?

1

126

Vinod Khosla

$9.9 B

70

California

Sun Microsystems, venture capital

2

126

Dan Friedkin

$9.7 B

60

Texas

Toyota dealerships

3

128

Michael Rubin

$9.6 B

53

Pennsylvania

Online retail

1

129

Mat Ishbia

$9.5 B

45

Michigan

Mortgage lender

1

130

Michael Kim

$9.5 B

61

 

Private equity

1

130

Blair Parry-Okeden

$9.5 B

75

 

Media, automotive P, AIM

2

130

Jim Kennedy

$9.5 B

77

Georgia

Media, automotive P, AIM

3

130

Randa Duncan Williams

$9.5 B

64

Texas

Pipelines P

1

130

Dannine Avara

$9.4 B

61

Texas

Pipelines

1

135

Milane Frantz

$9.4 B

56

Texas

Pipelines

1

135

Todd Boehly

$9.3 B

51

Florida

Finance

2

137

Ken Langone

$9.3 B

89

New York

Investments

2

137

Terrence Pegula

$9.3 B

74

Florida

Natural gas P

2

137

Les Wexner & family

$9.3 B

88

Ohio

Retail

3

137

Brian Chesky

$9.2 B

44

California

Airbnb

2

141

Scott Duncan

$9.2 B

42

Texas

Pipelines P

1

141

William Ackman

$9.1 B

59

New York

Hedge funds

2

143

Marc Benioff

$9.1 B

60

California

Business software

4

143

Douglas Leone

$9.1 B

68

California

Venture capital

2

143

Elisabeth DeLuca & family

$9 B

78

Florida

Subway P

2

146

Jeff Greene

$9 B

70

Florida

Real estate, investments

1

146

Bruce Kovner

$9 B

80

New York

Hedge funds

2

146

Robert Rowling

$8.8 B

71

Texas

Hotels, investments  AIM

2

149

David Geffen

$8.8 B

82

California

Movies, record labels AIM

3

Rank

Name

Net Worth

Age

State

Source

Philanthropy Score

149

Michael Saylor

$8.8 B

60

Florida

Cryptocurrency

 

149

David Shaw

$8.8 B

74

New York

Hedge funds

2

153

Nathan Blecharczyk

$8.7 B

42

California

Airbnb

1

153

Neil Bluhm

$8.7 B

87

Illinois

Real estate

2

153

Lynsi Snyder

$8.7 B

43

California

In-N-Out Burger P

2

153

Jimmy Haslam

$8.7 B

71

Tennessee

Gas stations, retail P

2

157

Ronda Stryker

$8.6 B

71

Michigan

Medical equipment P

3

158

Stephen Bisciotti

$8.5 B

65

Florida

Staffing, Baltimore Ravens AIM

2

158

Michael Dorrell

$8.5 B

52

New York

Investing

 

158

John Brown

$8.5 B

90

Georgia

Medical equipment P

2

158

Tamara Gustavson

$8.5 B

63

Kentucky

Self storage S

1

158

Pauline MacMillan Keinath

$8.5 B

91

Missouri

Cargill P

1

163

J. Joe Ricketts & family

$8.4 B

84

Wyoming

TD Ameritrade

2

163

Charles Simonyi

$8.4 B

76

Washington

Microsoft T

2

163

Denise York & family

$8.4 B

74

Ohio

San Francisco 49ers AIM

1

168

Charles Ergen

$8.2 B

72

Colorado

Satellite TV AIM

1

168

Don Hankey

$8.2 B

82

Nevada

Auto loans

1

168

Steven Rales

$8.2 B

74

California

Manufacturing, investments

2

171

Paul Tudor Jones, II.

$8.1 B

70

Florida

Hedge funds

2

172

Joe Gebbia

$8 B

44

Texas

Airbnb S

2

172

Igor Olenicoff

$8 B

82

Florida

Real estate

1

172

John Overdeck

$8 B

55

New Jersey

Hedge funds

3

172

David Siegel

$8 B

64

New York

Hedge funds

2

176

Gayle Benson

$7.9 B

78

Louisiana

New Orleans Saints AIM

2

176

George Kurtz

$7.9 B

54

Arizona

Security software T

1

176

Philippe Laffont

$7.9 B

57

New York

Hedge fund

1

176

John Morris

$7.9 B

77

Missouri

Sporting goods retail AIM, R

3

176

Marc Rowan

$7.9 B

63

New York

Private equity

2

181

Stanley Druckenmiller

$7.8 B

72

New York

Hedge funds

4

181

Judy Faulkner

$7.8 B

82

Wisconsin

Healthcare software T

2

181

Sami Mnaymneh

$7.8 B

64

Florida

Private equity

 

181

Leonid Radvinsky

$7.8 B

43

Florida

OnlyFans T

 

181

Tony Tamer

$7.8 B

67

New York

Private equity

 

181

Dennis Washington

$7.8 B

91

Montana

Construction, mining P

3

187

Andrew Cherng

$7.7 B

78

Nevada

Fast food S

1

187

Peggy Cherng

$7.7 B

77

Nevada

Fast food S

1

187

Jim Kavanaugh

$7.7 B

62

Missouri

IT provider T

1

187

Roger Penske

$7.7 B

88

Michigan

Cars P

1

191

Jeffrey Lurie

$7.6 B

74

Pennsylvania

Philadelphia Eagles AIM

2

192

Tench Coxe

$7.5 B

67

California

Venture capital

 

192

Min Kao & family

$7.5 B

76

Kansas

Navigation equipment P

1

192

Thai Lee

$7.5 B

66

Texas

IT provider T

1

192

Michael Milken

$7.5 B

79

California

Investments

3

192

John Sall

$7.5 B

77

North Carolina

Software T

2

192

George Soros

$7.5 B

95

New York

Hedge funds

5

192

Kelcy Warren

$7.5 B

69

Texas

Pipelines E

2

199

Gary Rollins & family

$7.4 B

81

Georgia

Pest control S

2

199

Edward Roski, Jr.

$7.4 B

86

California

Real estate

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

201

Janice McNair & family

$7.3 B

88

Texas

Energy, sports AIM

2

201

Donald Trump

$7.3 B

79

Florida

Real estate

1

201

Mark Walter

$7.3 B

65

Illinois

Finance, asset management

2

204

James Clark

$7.2 B

81

Florida

Netscape, investments

2

204

Daniel Ziff

$7.2 B

53

New York

Investments

1

204

Dirk Ziff

$7.2 B

61

Florida

Investments

1

204

Robert Ziff

$7.2 B

59

New York

Investments

1

208

Chase Coleman, III.

$7.1 B

50

New York

Investments

2

208

Li Ge

$7.1 B

58

 

Pharmaceuticals P

 

208

Steven Spielberg

$7.1 B

78

California

Movies AIM

2

211

David Baszucki

$7 B

62

California

Online games AIM

2

211

Edythe Broad & family

$7 B

89

California

Homebuilding, insurance P

5

211

Scott Cook

$7 B

73

California

Software T

3

214

Marian Ilitch & family

$6.9 B

92

Michigan

Little Caesars Pizza S

2

214

Doug Meijer & family

$6.9 B

71

Michigan

Supermarkets S

1

214

Hank Meijer & family

$6.9 B

73

Michigan

Supermarkets S

1

214

Mark Meijer & family

$6.9 B

67

Michigan

Supermarkets S

1

218

Michael Moritz

$6.8 B

70

California

Venture capital

4

219

Thomas Hagen & family

$6.7 B

89

Pennsylvania

Insurance

2

219

Michael Intrator

$6.7 B

56

New York

Technology T

1

219

Karen Pritzker

$6.7 B

67

Connecticut

Hotels, investments AIM

2

219

Paul Singer

$6.7 B

81

New York

Hedge funds

2

223

Joseph Liemandt

$6.6 B

57

Texas

Software T

 

224

Ron Baron

$6.5 B

82

New York

Money management

1

224

Tom Golisano

$6.5 B

83

Florida

Payroll services

3

224

Ray Lee Hunt

$6.5 B

82

Texas

Oil, real estate E

2

224

H. Ross Perot, Jr.

$6.5 B

66

Texas

Real estate

2

224

Robert Rich, Jr.

$6.5 B

84

Florida

Frozen foods P

1

224

Herb Simon

$6.5 B

90

Indiana

Real estate

2

224

Ty Warner

$6.5 B

81

Illinois

Plush toys, real estate P,D

2

231

Matthew Prince

$6.4 B

50

Utah

Cybersecurity T

1

232

James Chambers

$6.3 B

68

New York

Media, automotive AIM

1

232

Reed Hastings

$6.3 B

64

California

Netflix AIM

5

232

Steve Lavin & family

$6.3 B

70

Illinois

Meat processing P

 

232

Katharine Rayner

$6.3 B

80

New York

Media, automotive AIM, R

1

232

John A. Sobrato & family

$6.3 B

86

California

Real estate

4

232

Margaretta Taylor

$6.3 B

83

New York

Media, automotive AIM,R

1

232

Vincent Viola

$6.3 B

69

New York

Electronic trading

2

239

William Berkley & family

$6.2 B

79

Florida

Insurance

1

239

Justin Ishbia

$6.2 B

47

Illinois

Private equity

1

239

Annette Lerner & family

$6.2 B

95

Maryland

Real estate

1

239

Elizabeth Uihlein

$6.2 B

80

Illinois

Packaging materials P

2

239

Richard Uihlein

$6.2 B

80

Illinois

Packaging materials P

2

244

Robert Bass

$6.1 B

77

Texas

Oil, investments E

2

244

Mitchell Morgan & family

$6.1 B

71

Pennsylvania

Real estate

2

246

Baiju Bhatt

$6 B

40

California

Stock trading app

1

246

Mark Cuban

$6 B

67

Texas

Online media, Dallas Mavericks AIM

1

246

William Goldring & family

$6 B

82

Louisiana

Liquor P

1

246

Robert Hale, Jr.

$6 B

59

Massachusetts

Telecom T

3

246

Dan Kurzius

$6 B

53

Georgia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

246

Eric Lefkofsky

$6 B

56

Illinois

Groupon, investments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

246

Joe Mansueto

$6 B

69

Illinois

Investment research

 

246

Reinhold Schmieding

$6 B

70

Florida

Medical devices P

 

246

Ronald Wanek

$6 B

84

Florida

Furniture P

 

255

Archie Aldis Emmerson & family

$5.9 B

96

California

Timberland, lumber mills P

 

255

Rakesh Gangwal

$5.9 B

72

Florida

Airline S

 

255

Thomas Pritzker

$5.9 B

75

Illinois

Hotels, investments S

 

255

Trevor Rees-Jones

$5.9 B

74

Texas

Oil & gas P

 

255

Don Vultaggio & family

$5.9 B

73

New York

Beverages P

 

255

Rick Caruso

$5.9 B

66

California

Real estate

 

261

Martha Ingram & family

$5.8 B

90

Tennessee

Book distribution, transportation AIM

 

261

Vlad Tenev

$5.8 B

38

California

Stock trading app

 

261

Jayshree Ullal

$5.8 B

64

California

Computer networking T

 

264

Margot Birmingham Perot

$5.7 B

91

Texas

Computer services, real estate T

 

264

Bill Haslam

$5.7 B

67

Tennessee

Gas stations S

 

264

Thomas Secunda

$5.7 B

71

New York

Bloomberg LP AIM

 

264

John Henry

$5.7 B

75

Florida

Sports AIM

 

264

Jon Stryker

$5.7 B

67

New York

Medical equipment P

 

264

Carl Thoma

$5.7 B

76

Texas

Private equity

 

270

Bert Beveridge

$5.6 B

63

Texas

Vodka P

 

270

Rocco Commisso

$5.6 B

75

New Jersey

Telecom T

 

270

Jack Dorsey

$5.6 B

48

California

Twitter, Square T

 

270

Charles B. Johnson

$5.6 B

92

Florida

Franklin Templeton

 

270

Patrick Soon-Shiong

$5.6 B

73

California

Pharmaceuticals P

 

270

Ken Xie & family

$5.6 B

62

California

Cybersecurity T

 

276

Neal Blue & family

$5.5 B

90

California

Defense P

 

276

Gordon Getty & family

$5.5 B

91

California

Getty Oil P

 

276

Michael Novogratz

$5.5 B

60

New York

Investments, cryptocurrency

 

276

Romesh T. Wadhwani

$5.5 B

78

California

Software

 

280

Jim Coulter

$5.4 B

65

California

Private equity

 

280

Stephen Cohen

$5.4 B

42

California

Software T

 

280

Jeremy Jacobs, Sr. & family

$5.4 B

85

New York

Food service S

 

280

George Lucas

$5.4 B

81

California

Star Wars AIM

 

280

Gwendolyn Sontheim Meyer

$5.4 B

63

California

Cargill P

 

280

Lynda Resnick

$5.4 B

82

California

Agriculture P

 

280

Stewart Resnick

$5.4 B

88

California

Agriculture P

 

280

Edward Stack & family

$5.4 B

70

Pennsylvania

Dick's Sporting Goods S

 

280

Jeff Skoll

$5.4 B

60

Florida

EBay S, T

 

280

Russell Savage

$5.4 B

55

Florida

Energy drinks P

 

280

Jon Yarbrough

$5.4 B

68

Tennessee

Gambling machines P?

 

291

Ben Chestnut

$5.3 B

51

Georgia

Email marketing

 

291

Daniel D'Aniello

$5.3 B

78

Virginia

Private equity

 

291

Joseph Grendys

$5.3 B

63

Illinois

Poultry processing P

 

291

Thomas Tull

$5.3 B

55

Pennsylvania

Movies, investments AIM

 

295

Jim Davis & family

$5.2 B

82

Massachusetts

New Balance sneakers P

 

295

Josh Kushner

$5.2 B

40

New York

Venture capital

 

295

Isaac Perlmutter

$5.2 B

82

Florida

Marvel comics AIM

 

298

Peter Kellogg

$5.1 B

83

New Jersey

Investments

 

298

Jean (Gigi) Pritzker

$5.1 B

63

California

Hotels, investments AIM

 

298

Tim Sweeney

$5.1 B

54

North Carolina

Video games AIM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rank

Name

 

 

 

 

 

301

Mike Brown & family

$5 B

90

Ohio

Cincinnati Bengals AIM

1

301

Barry Diller

$5 B

83

New York

Online media AIM

4

301

Dagmar Dolby & family

$5 B

84

California

Dolby Laboratories P

4

301

Robert Faith

$5 B

61

South Carolina

Real estate management

1

301

Stephen Feinberg

$5 B

65

New York

Private equity

1

301

Hamilton James & family

$5 B

74

New York

Investments

2

301

Scott Kapnick

$5 B

66

Florida

Private equity

 

308

Seth Boro

$4.9 B

49

California

Private equity

1

308

Scott Crabill

$4.9 B

55

California

Private equity

1

308

Peter Cancro

$4.9 B

68

Florida

Jersey Mike's Subs P

1

308

David Dean Halbert

$4.9 B

69

Texas

Biotech T

2

308

Bom Kim

$4.9 B

46

 

Online retailing S

 

308

Steven Klinsky

$4.9 B

69

New York

Investments

 

308

Ronald Lauder

$4.9 B

81

New York

Estee Lauder P

3

308

Arturo Moreno

$4.9 B

79

Arizona

Billboards, Los Angeles Angels AIM

1

308

Eren Ozmen

$4.9 B

67

Nevada

Aerospace T

1

308

Holden Spaht

$4.9 B

51

California

Private equity

1

308

Eric Yuan & family

$4.9 B

55

California

Zoom Video Communications

1

319

Austen Cargill, II.

$4.8 B

74

Montana

Cargill P

1

319

James Cargill, II.

$4.8 B

76

Wisconsin

Cargill P

1

319

John Catsimatidis

$4.8 B

77

New York

Oil, real estate E

1

319

Helen Johnson-Leipold

$4.8 B

68

Wisconsin

Cleaning products P

2

319

Marianne Liebmann

$4.8 B

72

Montana

Cargill P

1

319

Gail Miller & family

$4.8 B

81

Utah

Car dealerships S

2

325

George Bishop

$4.7 B

87

Texas

Oil & gas P

1

325

H. Fisk Johnson

$4.7 B

67

Wisconsin

Cleaning products P

2

325

S. Curtis Johnson

$4.7 B

70

Wisconsin

Cleaning products P

2

325

Andrew Karam

$4.7 B

43

California

Advertising technology

1

325

Winifred J. Marquart

$4.7 B

66

Virginia

Cleaning products P

2

325

Fatih Ozmen

$4.7 B

67

Nevada

Aerospace T

1

325

Phil Ruffin

$4.7 B

90

Nevada

Casinos, real estate AIM

1

325

Dan Snyder

$4.7 B

60

Maryland

Washington Commanders AIM

2

325

Michael Xie

$4.7 B

56

California

Cybersecurity T

2

334

William Conway, Jr.

$4.6 B

76

Virginia

Private equity

4

334

David Filo

$4.6 B

59

California

Yahoo AIM

3

334

Carl Icahn

$4.6 B

89

Florida

Investments

3

334

Rupert Johnson, Jr.

$4.6 B

85

California

Franklin Templeton

2

334

David Rubenstein

$4.6 B

76

Maryland

Private equity

4

339

Peter Gassner

$4.5 B

60

California

Software T

 

339

Steven Udvar-Hazy

$4.5 B

79

Texas

Aircraft leasing S

2

341

Anthony Pritzker

$4.4 B

64

California

Hotels, investments S

3

341

Richard Schulze

$4.4 B

84

Florida

Best Buy S

3

341

Lynn Schusterman & family

$4.4 B

86

Oklahoma

Oil & gas, investments E

5

341

Donald Sterling

$4.4 B

91

California

Real estate

1

341

Cameron Winklevoss

$4.4 B

44

New York

Cryptocurrency

 

341

Tyler Winklevoss

$4.4 B

44

New York

Cryptocurrency

 

347

Travis Boersma

$4.3 B

54

Oregon

Coffee P

1

347

Maggie Hardy

$4.3 B

59

Pennsylvania

Building materials P

 

347

John Middleton

$4.3 B

70

Pennsylvania

Tobacco P

2

347

Byron Trott

$4.3 B

66

Illinois

Investments

2

347

Stewart Rahr

$4.3 B

79

New York

Drug distribution S (unless criminal)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

352

Sanjit Biswas

$4.2 B

43

California

Sensor systems T

1

352

Eleanor Butt Crook & family

$4.2 B

93

Texas

Supermarkets R

3

352

Paul Foster

$4.2 B

67

Texas

Oil refining P

2

352

Rajiv Jain

$4.2 B

57

Florida

Finance

1

352

Penny Pritzker

$4.2 B

66

Illinois

Hotels, investments AIM

3

352

Daniel Och

$4.2 B

64

Florida

Hedge funds

3

352

Phillip T. (Terry) Ragon

$4.2 B

76

Massachusetts

Health IT S

3

352

Rodger Riney & family

$4.2 B

79

Missouri

Discount brokerage

2

352

Alan Trefler

$4.2 B

69

Massachusetts

Software T

1

352

Brian Venturo

$4.2 B

40

New Jersey

Technology P

1

362

Nick Caporella

$4.1 B

89

Florida

Beverages P

1

362

Todd Christopher

$4.1 B

62

Florida

Hair care products P

1

362

James Duff

$4.1 B

64

Mississippi

Tires, diversified P

1

362

Thomas Duff

$4.1 B

68

Mississippi

Tires, diversified P

1

362

Stewart Horejsi & family

$4.1 B

87

Arizona

Berkshire Hathaway

2

362

Johnelle Hunt

$4.1 B

93

Arkansas

Trucking P

2

362

Drayton McLane, Jr.

$4.1 B

89

Texas

Walmart, logistics S

2

362

C. Dean Metropoulos

$4.1 B

79

Florida

Investments

1

362

Bob Parsons

$4.1 B

74

Arizona

Web hosting T

3

362

Mitchell Rales

$4.1 B

69

Maryland

Manufacturing, investments P

4

362

Mark Shoen

$4.1 B

74

Arizona

U-Haul P

1

362

Thomas Siebel

$4.1 B

72

California

Business software T

4

362

Pat Stryker

$4.1 B

69

Colorado

Medical equipment P

3

362

Meg Whitman

$4.1 B

69

California

EBay S

2

362

Charles Zegar

$4.1 B

77

New York

Bloomberg LP AIM

2

377

John Bicket

$4 B

45

California

Sensor systems T

1

377

Neal Aronson

$4 B

60

Georgia

Private equity

 

377

Jim Davis

$4 B

65

Maryland

Staffing & recruiting S

2

377

Marc Lore

$4 B

54

New York

Jet.com online shopping S

1

377

John Paulson

$4 B

69

New York

Hedge funds

4

382

Behdad Eghbali

$3.9 B

49

California

Private equity

 

382

José E. Feliciano

$3.9 B

52

California

Private equity

1

382

Amos Hostetter, Jr.

$3.9 B

88

Massachusetts

Cable television AIM

5

382

Theodore Leonsis

$3.9 B

69

Maryland

Sports teams AIM

1

382

J.B. Pritzker

$3.9 B

60

Illinois

Hotels, investments

4

382

William Stone

$3.9 B

70

Connecticut

Software T

2

382

Steve Wynn

$3.9 B

83

Florida

Casinos, hotels AIM

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

389

Sid Bass

$3.8 B

83

Texas

Oil, investments E

2

389

Jim Breyer

$3.8 B

64

Texas

Venture capital

1

389

Ray Davis

$3.8 B

83

Texas

Pipelines P

2

389

Edward DeBartolo, Jr.

$3.8 B

78

Florida

Shopping centers S

2

389

Robert Johnson & family

$3.8 B

78

Florida

Johnson & Johnson, New York Jets P, AIM

1

389

Michael Jordan

$3.8 B

62

Florida

Charlotte Hornets, endorsements AIM

1

389

Daniel Loeb

$3.8 B

63

New York

Hedge funds

2

389

Ira Rennert

$3.8 B

91

New York

Investments

2

389

Scott Shleifer

$3.8 B

48

New York

Private equity

2

389

Jeff Tangney

$3.8 B

53

California

Healthcare IT S

 

389

Eduardo Vivas

$3.8 B

39

California

Advertising technology

1

389

Herbert Wertheim

$3.8 B

86

Florida

Investments

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT “E”  FROM

X53 FROM QUIVER QUANTITATIVE

 

A “E” X53  FROM QUIVER QUANTITATIVE 

We used our data on politicians' stock portfolios to calculate the most recent live net worth estimates for members of Congress.

 

AMERICA’S 100 RICHEST POLITICIANS

 

 

Name

Position

State

Current Net Worth (USD)

Daily Change (USD)

Daily % Change

1

James C. Justice

Senate - Rep

West Virginia

$ 664.51 M

- 0.00

0.00%

2

Jefferson Shreve

House - Rep

Indiana

$ 600.73 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

3

Rick Scott

Senate - Rep

Florida

$ 508.34 M

- 0.00

0.00%

4

Darrell Issa

House - Rep

California

$ 288.53 M

- 0.00

0.00%

5

Vern Buchanan

House - Rep

Florida

$ 271.95 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

6

Nancy Pelosi

House - Dem

California

$ 248.41 M

- 0.00

0.00%

7

Pete Ricketts

Senate - Rep

Nebraska

$ 215.44 M

- 0.00

0.00%

8

Mark R. Warner

Senate - Dem

Virginia

$ 210.59 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

9

Daniel S. Goldman

House - Dem

New York

$ 207.49 M

- 0.00

0.00%

10

David McCormick

Senate - Rep

Pennsylvania

$ 172.62 M

- 0.00

0.00%

11

Tim Sheehy

Senate - Rep

Montana

$ 153.44 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

12

April McClain Delaney

House - Dem

Maryland

$ 152.89 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

13

Bernie Moreno

Senate - Rep

Ohio

$ 139.14 M

- 0.00

0.00%

14

Suzan K. DelBene

House - Dem

Washington

$ 129.16 M

- 0.00

0.00%

15

Donald S. Beyer, Jr.

House - Dem

Virginia

$ 121.83 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

16

Kevin Hern

House - Rep

Oklahoma

$ 113.91 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

17

Jay Obernolte

House - Rep

California

$ 97.76 M

0.00

0.00%

18

Sara Jacobs

House - Dem

California

$ 84.70 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

19

Gilbert Ray Cisneros, Jr.

House - Dem

California

$ 80.28 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

20

Roger Williams

House - Rep

Texas

$ 74.68 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

21

Ron Johnson

Senate - Rep

Wisconsin

$ 69.67 M

0.00

0.00%

22

Daniel Meuser

House - Rep

Pennsylvania

$ 69.29 M

- 0.00

0.00%

23

Mitch McConnell

Senate - Rep

Kentucky

$ 68.93 M

- 0.00

0.00%

24

Markwayne Mullin

Senate - Rep

Oklahoma

$ 68.33 M

- 0.00

0.00%

25

Cleo Fields

House - Dem

Louisiana

$ 62.12 M

- 0.00

0.00%

26

Scott H. Peters

House - Dem

California

$ 61.73 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

27

Ralph Norman

House - Rep

South Carolina

$ 57.22 M

- 0.00

0.00%

28

James E. Risch

Senate - Rep

Idaho

$ 56.61 M

- 0.00

0.00%

29

John W. Rose

House - Rep

Tennessee

$ 56.51 M

- 0.00

0.00%

30

Lloyd Doggett

House - Dem

Texas

$ 55.50 M

- 0.00

0.00%

31

Bill Hagerty

Senate - Rep

Tennessee

$ 55.07 M

- 0.00

0.00%

32

Marlin A. Stutzman

House - Rep

Indiana

$ 54.38 M

0.00

0.00%

33

John Hoeven

Senate - Rep

North Dakota

$ 48.48 M

0.00

0.00%

34

Julie Johnson

House - Dem

Texas

$ 47.85 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

35

Kelly Morrison

House - Dem

Minnesota

$ 41.93 M

- 0.00

0.00%

36

Shri Thanedar

House - Dem

Michigan

$ 39.93 M

- 0.00

0.00%

37

Josh Gottheimer

House - Dem

New Jersey

$ 39.14 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

38

Robert Bresnahan

House - Rep

Pennsylvania

$ 36.76 M

- 0.00

0.00%

39

Earl L. "Buddy" Carter

House - Rep

Georgia

$ 36.21 M

0.00

0.00%

40

George Whitesides

House - Dem

California

$ 36.06 M

- 0.00

0.00%

41

Lori Trahan

House - Dem

Massachusetts

$ 34.31 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

42

John W. Hickenlooper

Senate - Dem

Colorado

$ 32.30 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

43

James R. Baird

House - Rep

Indiana

$ 30.93 M

0.00

0.00%

44

Scott Franklin

House - Rep

Florida

$ 28.41 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

45

Carol D. Miller

House - Rep

West Virginia

$ 27.92 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

46

Sheldon Whitehouse

Senate - Dem

Rhode Island

$ 27.36 M

- 0.00

0.00%

47

Michael A. Rulli

House - Rep

Ohio

$ 26.91 M

0.00

0.00%

48

Craig Goldman

House - Rep

Texas

$ 26.18 M

- 0.00

0.00%

49

Ann Wagner

House - Rep

Missouri

$ 25.94 M

- 0.00

0.00%

50

Marjorie Taylor Greene

House - Rep

Georgia

$ 25.87 M

- 0.00

0.00%

51

Victoria Spartz

House - Rep

Indiana

$ 25.58 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

52

Ron Wyden

Senate - Dem

Oregon

$ 24.91 M

- 0.00

0.00%

53

Rick W. Allen

House - Rep

Georgia

$ 23.31 M

- 0.00

0.00%

54

Bill Foster

House - Dem

Illinois

$ 23.04 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

55

Ken Calvert

House - Rep

California

$ 22.85 M

0.00

0.00%

56

Angus S. King Jr.

Senate - Ind

Maine

$ 22.33 M

- 0.00

0.00%

57

J. French Hill

House - Rep

Arkansas

$ 21.64 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

58

Steve Daines

Senate - Rep

Montana

$ 21.37 M

0.00

0.00%

59

Nicholas Begich

House - Rep

Alaska

$ 21.34 M

- 0.00

0.00%

60

William R. Timmons IV

House - Rep

South Carolina

$ 21.31 M

- 0.00

0.00%

61

Cory Mills

House - Rep

Florida

$ 21.25 M

0.00

0.00%

62

John Kennedy

Senate - Rep

Louisiana

$ 21.06 M

- 0.00

0.00%

63

Mark Kelly

Senate - Dem

Arizona

$ 20.45 M

0.00

0.00%

64

Dale W. Strong

House - Rep

Alabama

$ 20.13 M

0.00

0.00%

65

Kim Schrier

House - Dem

Washington

$ 19.95 M

- 0.00

0.00%

66

Kathy Castor

House - Dem

Florida

$ 19.90 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

67

Andrew S. Clyde

House - Rep

Georgia

$ 19.18 M

0.00

0.00%

68

Dan Newhouse

House - Rep

Washington

$ 18.80 M

- 1.62 K

- 0.01%

69

Mike Collins

House - Rep

Georgia

$ 18.75 M

0.00

0.00%

70

John R. Curtis

Senate - Rep

Utah

$ 18.33 M

- 0.00

0.00%

71

Michael F. Bennet

Senate - Dem

Colorado

$ 18.29 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

72

Robert Onder

House - Rep

Missouri

$ 18.18 M

- 0.00

0.00%

73

Pat Fallon

House - Rep

Texas

$ 18.14 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

74

Gregory F. Murphy

House - Rep

North Carolina

$ 18.01 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

75

Jacky Rosen

Senate - Dem

Nevada

$ 17.82 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

76

John Joyce

House - Rep

Pennsylvania

$ 17.07 M

0.00

0.00%

77

Pete Sessions

House - Rep

Texas

$ 16.38 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

78

Christopher A. Coons

Senate - Dem

Delaware

$ 16.35 M

- 0.00

0.00%

79

Mike Kelly

House - Rep

Pennsylvania

$ 16.35 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

80

Chuck Edwards

House - Rep

North Carolina

$ 16.21 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

81

Janelle Bynum

House - Dem

Oregon

$ 16.18 M

- 0.00

0.00%

82

Jamie Raskin

House - Dem

Maryland

$ 16.01 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

83

Mary E. Miller

House - Rep

Illinois

$ 15.79 M

0.00

0.00%

84

Laurel M. Lee

House - Rep

Florida

$ 15.54 M

+ 15.24 K

+ 0.10%

85

Cynthia M. Lummis

Senate - Rep

Wyoming

$ 15.50 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

86

Sheri Biggs

House - Rep

South Carolina

$ 15.31 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

87

Debbie Dingell

House - Dem

Michigan

$ 15.30 M

- 0.00

0.00%

88

Mikie Sherrill

House - Dem

New Jersey

$ 15.18 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

89

Judy Chu

House - Dem

California

$ 14.89 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

90

Katherine M. Clark

House - Dem

Massachusetts

$ 14.81 M

- 0.00

0.00%

91

Thomas R. Suozzi

House - Dem

New York

$ 14.12 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

92

Thomas H. Kean, Jr.

House - Rep

New Jersey

$ 13.90 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

93

Rudy Yakym III

House - Rep

Indiana

$ 13.89 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

94

Ryan K. Zinke

House - Rep

Montana

$ 13.84 M

0.00

0.00%

95

Tony Wied

House - Rep

Wisconsin

$ 13.67 M

- 0.00

0.00%

96

James A. Himes

House - Dem

Connecticut

$ 13.65 M

- 1.98 K

- 0.01%

97

Ami Bera

House - Dem

California

$ 13.65 M

- 0.00

0.00%

98

Seth Moulton

House - Dem

Massachusetts

$ 13.10 M

- 0.00

0.00%

99

Lisa Blunt Rochester

Senate - Dem

Delaware

$ 12.76 M

- 0.00

0.00%

100

Jared Moskowitz

House - Dem

Florida

$ 12.44 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

 

 

ALL POLITICIANS

 

 

 

Name

Position

State

Current Net Worth (USD)

Daily Change (USD)

Daily % Change

1

James C. Justice

Senate - Rep

West Virginia

$ 664.51 M

- 0.00

0.00%

2

Jefferson Shreve

House - Rep

Indiana

$ 600.73 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

3

Rick Scott

Senate - Rep

Florida

$ 508.34 M

- 0.00

0.00%

4

Darrell Issa

House - Rep

California

$ 288.53 M

- 0.00

0.00%

5

Vern Buchanan

House - Rep

Florida

$ 271.95 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

6

Nancy Pelosi

House - Dem

California

$ 248.41 M

- 0.00

0.00%

7

Pete Ricketts

Senate - Rep

Nebraska

$ 215.44 M

- 0.00

0.00%

8

Mark R. Warner

Senate - Dem

Virginia

$ 210.59 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

9

Daniel S. Goldman

House - Dem

New York

$ 207.49 M

- 0.00

0.00%

10

David McCormick

Senate - Rep

Pennsylvania

$ 172.62 M

- 0.00

0.00%

11

Tim Sheehy

Senate - Rep

Montana

$ 153.44 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

12

April McClain Delaney

House - Dem

Maryland

$ 152.89 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

13

Bernie Moreno

Senate - Rep

Ohio

$ 139.14 M

- 0.00

0.00%

14

Suzan K. DelBene

House - Dem

Washington

$ 129.16 M

- 0.00

0.00%

15

Donald S. Beyer, Jr.

House - Dem

Virginia

$ 121.83 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

16

Kevin Hern

House - Rep

Oklahoma

$ 113.91 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

17

Jay Obernolte

House - Rep

California

$ 97.76 M

0.00

0.00%

18

Sara Jacobs

House - Dem

California

$ 84.70 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

19

Gilbert Ray Cisneros, Jr.

House - Dem

California

$ 80.28 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

20

Roger Williams

House - Rep

Texas

$ 74.68 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

21

Ron Johnson

Senate - Rep

Wisconsin

$ 69.67 M

0.00

0.00%

22

Daniel Meuser

House - Rep

Pennsylvania

$ 69.29 M

- 0.00

0.00%

23

Mitch McConnell

Senate - Rep

Kentucky

$ 68.93 M

- 0.00

0.00%

24

Markwayne Mullin

Senate - Rep

Oklahoma

$ 68.33 M

- 0.00

0.00%

25

Cleo Fields

House - Dem

Louisiana

$ 62.12 M

- 0.00

0.00%

26

Scott H. Peters

House - Dem

California

$ 61.73 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

27

Ralph Norman

House - Rep

South Carolina

$ 57.22 M

- 0.00

0.00%

28

James E. Risch

Senate - Rep

Idaho

$ 56.61 M

- 0.00

0.00%

29

John W. Rose

House - Rep

Tennessee

$ 56.51 M

- 0.00

0.00%

30

Lloyd Doggett

House - Dem

Texas

$ 55.50 M

- 0.00

0.00%

31

Bill Hagerty

Senate - Rep

Tennessee

$ 55.07 M

- 0.00

0.00%

32

Marlin A. Stutzman

House - Rep

Indiana

$ 54.38 M

0.00

0.00%

33

John Hoeven

Senate - Rep

North Dakota

$ 48.48 M

0.00

0.00%

34

Julie Johnson

House - Dem

Texas

$ 47.85 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

35

Kelly Morrison

House - Dem

Minnesota

$ 41.93 M

- 0.00

0.00%

36

Shri Thanedar

House - Dem

Michigan

$ 39.93 M

- 0.00

0.00%

37

Josh Gottheimer

House - Dem

New Jersey

$ 39.14 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

38

Robert Bresnahan

House - Rep

Pennsylvania

$ 36.76 M

- 0.00

0.00%

39

Earl L. "Buddy" Carter

House - Rep

Georgia

$ 36.21 M

0.00

0.00%

40

George Whitesides

House - Dem

California

$ 36.06 M

- 0.00

0.00%

41

Lori Trahan

House - Dem

Massachusetts

$ 34.31 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

42

John W. Hickenlooper

Senate - Dem

Colorado

$ 32.30 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

43

James R. Baird

House - Rep

Indiana

$ 30.93 M

0.00

0.00%

44

Scott Franklin

House - Rep

Florida

$ 28.41 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

45

Carol D. Miller

House - Rep

West Virginia

$ 27.92 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

46

Sheldon Whitehouse

Senate - Dem

Rhode Island

$ 27.36 M

- 0.00

0.00%

47

Michael A. Rulli

House - Rep

Ohio

$ 26.91 M

0.00

0.00%

48

Craig Goldman

House - Rep

Texas

$ 26.18 M

- 0.00

0.00%

49

Ann Wagner

House - Rep

Missouri

$ 25.94 M

- 0.00

0.00%

50

Marjorie Taylor Greene

House - Rep

Georgia

$ 25.87 M

- 0.00

0.00%

51

Victoria Spartz

House - Rep

Indiana

$ 25.58 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

52

Ron Wyden

Senate - Dem

Oregon

$ 24.91 M

- 0.00

0.00%

53

Rick W. Allen

House - Rep

Georgia

$ 23.31 M

- 0.00

0.00%

54

Bill Foster

House - Dem

Illinois

$ 23.04 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

55

Ken Calvert

House - Rep

California

$ 22.85 M

0.00

0.00%

56

Angus S. King Jr.

Senate - Ind

Maine

$ 22.33 M

- 0.00

0.00%

57

J. French Hill

House - Rep

Arkansas

$ 21.64 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

58

Steve Daines

Senate - Rep

Montana

$ 21.37 M

0.00

0.00%

59

Nicholas Begich

House - Rep

Alaska

$ 21.34 M

- 0.00

0.00%

60

William R. Timmons IV

House - Rep

South Carolina

$ 21.31 M

- 0.00

0.00%

61

Cory Mills

House - Rep

Florida

$ 21.25 M

0.00

0.00%

62

John Kennedy

Senate - Rep

Louisiana

$ 21.06 M

- 0.00

0.00%

63

Mark Kelly

Senate - Dem

Arizona

$ 20.45 M

0.00

0.00%

64

Dale W. Strong

House - Rep

Alabama

$ 20.13 M

0.00

0.00%

65

Kim Schrier

House - Dem

Washington

$ 19.95 M

- 0.00

0.00%

66

Kathy Castor

House - Dem

Florida

$ 19.90 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

67

Andrew S. Clyde

House - Rep

Georgia

$ 19.18 M

0.00

0.00%

68

Dan Newhouse

House - Rep

Washington

$ 18.80 M

- 1.62 K

- 0.01%

69

Mike Collins

House - Rep

Georgia

$ 18.75 M

0.00

0.00%

70

John R. Curtis

Senate - Rep

Utah

$ 18.33 M

- 0.00

0.00%

71

Michael F. Bennet

Senate - Dem

Colorado

$ 18.29 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

72

Robert Onder

House - Rep

Missouri

$ 18.18 M

- 0.00

0.00%

73

Pat Fallon

House - Rep

Texas

$ 18.14 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

74

Gregory F. Murphy

House - Rep

North Carolina

$ 18.01 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

75

Jacky Rosen

Senate - Dem

Nevada

$ 17.82 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

76

John Joyce

House - Rep

Pennsylvania

$ 17.07 M

0.00

0.00%

77

Pete Sessions

House - Rep

Texas

$ 16.38 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

78

Christopher A. Coons

Senate - Dem

Delaware

$ 16.35 M

- 0.00

0.00%

79

Mike Kelly

House - Rep

Pennsylvania

$ 16.35 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

80

Chuck Edwards

House - Rep

North Carolina

$ 16.21 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

81

Janelle Bynum

House - Dem

Oregon

$ 16.18 M

- 0.00

0.00%

82

Jamie Raskin

House - Dem

Maryland

$ 16.01 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

83

Mary E. Miller

House - Rep

Illinois

$ 15.79 M

0.00

0.00%

84

Laurel M. Lee

House - Rep

Florida

$ 15.54 M

+ 15.24 K

+ 0.10%

85

Cynthia M. Lummis

Senate - Rep

Wyoming

$ 15.50 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

86

Sheri Biggs

House - Rep

South Carolina

$ 15.31 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

87

Debbie Dingell

House - Dem

Michigan

$ 15.30 M

- 0.00

0.00%

88

Mikie Sherrill

House - Dem

New Jersey

$ 15.18 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

89

Judy Chu

House - Dem

California

$ 14.89 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

90

Katherine M. Clark

House - Dem

Massachusetts

$ 14.81 M

- 0.00

0.00%

91

Thomas R. Suozzi

House - Dem

New York

$ 14.12 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

92

Thomas H. Kean, Jr.

House - Rep

New Jersey

$ 13.90 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

93

Rudy Yakym III

House - Rep

Indiana

$ 13.89 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

94

Ryan K. Zinke

House - Rep

Montana

$ 13.84 M

0.00

0.00%

95

Tony Wied

House - Rep

Wisconsin

$ 13.67 M

- 0.00

0.00%

96

James A. Himes

House - Dem

Connecticut

$ 13.65 M

- 1.98 K

- 0.01%

97

Ami Bera

House - Dem

California

$ 13.65 M

- 0.00

0.00%

98

Seth Moulton

House - Dem

Massachusetts

$ 13.10 M

- 0.00

0.00%

99

Lisa Blunt Rochester

Senate - Dem

Delaware

$ 12.76 M

- 0.00

0.00%

100

Jared Moskowitz

House - Dem

Florida

$ 12.44 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

101

Ted Cruz

Senate - Rep

Texas

$ 11.97 M

- 0.00

0.00%

102

Max L. Miller

House - Rep

Ohio

$ 11.95 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

103

Chip Roy

House - Rep

Texas

$ 11.76 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

104

Robert E. Latta

House - Rep

Ohio

$ 11.62 M

- 0.00

0.00%

105

Suzanne Bonamici

House - Dem

Oregon

$ 11.28 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

106

Jeff Merkley

Senate - Dem

Oregon

$ 10.99 M

0.00

0.00%

107

Maggie Goodlander

House - Dem

New Hampshire

$ 10.95 M

- 0.00

0.00%

108

Mary Gay Scanlon

House - Dem

Pennsylvania

$ 10.94 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

109

Peter Welch

Senate - Dem

Vermont

$ 10.77 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

110

Steve Cohen

House - Dem

Tennessee

$ 10.42 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

111

Robert B. Aderholt

House - Rep

Alabama

$ 10.36 M

- 0.00

0.00%

112

John Barrasso

Senate - Rep

Wyoming

$ 10.27 M

0.00

0.00%

113

Tim Moore

House - Rep

North Carolina

$ 9.87 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

114

Blake D. Moore

House - Rep

Utah

$ 9.74 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

115

Bradley Scott Schneider

House - Dem

Illinois

$ 9.72 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

116

Juan Vargas

House - Dem

California

$ 9.57 M

0.00

0.00%

117

Mike Rounds

Senate - Rep

South Dakota

$ 9.35 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

118

Tom Cole

House - Rep

Oklahoma

$ 9.21 M

+ 677.99 K

+ 7.94%

119

Susie Lee

House - Dem

Nevada

$ 9.17 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

120

Mike Haridopolos

House - Rep

Florida

$ 9.10 M

0.00

0.00%

121

Troy Downing

House - Rep

Montana

$ 9.02 M

- 0.00

0.00%

122

Jake Ellzey

House - Rep

Texas

$ 8.84 M

0.00

0.00%

123

Pat Harrigan

House - Rep

North Carolina

$ 8.81 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

124

David Kustoff

House - Rep

Tennessee

$ 8.67 M

- 0.00

0.00%

125

Sam Liccardo

House - Dem

California

$ 8.67 M

0.00

0.00%

126

Dan Sullivan

Senate - Rep

Alaska

$ 8.37 M

- 0.00

0.00%

127

Lizzie Fletcher

House - Dem

Texas

$ 8.23 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

128

Mike Flood

House - Rep

Nebraska

$ 8.18 M

0.00

0.00%

129

Thom Tillis

Senate - Rep

North Carolina

$ 7.89 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

130

Lisa C. McClain

House - Rep

Michigan

$ 7.85 M

- 0.00

0.00%

131

Katie Boyd Britt

Senate - Rep

Alabama

$ 7.83 M

0.00

0.00%

132

Jeanne Shaheen

Senate - Dem

New Hampshire

$ 7.82 M

0.00

0.00%

133

Julie Fedorchak

House - Rep

North Dakota

$ 7.63 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

134

Gary C. Peters

Senate - Dem

Michigan

$ 7.52 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

135

Mazie K. Hirono

Senate - Dem

Hawaii

$ 7.49 M

- 0.00

0.00%

136

Scott Fitzgerald

House - Rep

Wisconsin

$ 7.27 M

- 0.00

0.00%

137

Chellie Pingree

House - Dem

Maine

$ 7.16 M

- 0.00

0.00%

138

Elizabeth Warren

Senate - Dem

Massachusetts

$ 7.09 M

0.00

0.00%

139

James Comer

House - Rep

Kentucky

$ 7.00 M

- 0.00

0.00%

140

Dusty Johnson

House - Rep

South Dakota

$ 6.98 M

0.00

0.00%

141

Susan M. Collins

Senate - Rep

Maine

$ 6.97 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

142

Neal P. Dunn

House - Rep

Florida

$ 6.82 M

- 0.00

0.00%

143

Ed Case

House - Dem

Hawaii

$ 6.67 M

- 0.00

0.00%

144

Cliff Bentz

House - Rep

Oregon

$ 6.65 M

- 0.00

0.00%

145

John James

House - Rep

Michigan

$ 6.63 M

- 0.00

0.00%

146

Brad Knott

House - Rep

North Carolina

$ 6.61 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

147

Warren Davidson

House - Rep

Ohio

$ 6.58 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

148

J. Luis Correa

House - Dem

California

$ 6.48 M

0.00

0.00%

149

Ted Budd

Senate - Rep

North Carolina

$ 6.25 M

- 0.00

0.00%

150

Donald Norcross

House - Dem

New Jersey

$ 6.22 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

151

Chuck Grassley

Senate - Rep

Iowa

$ 6.22 M

0.00

0.00%

152

Margaret Wood Hassan

Senate - Dem

New Hampshire

$ 6.19 M

0.00

0.00%

153

Tommy Tuberville

Senate - Rep

Alabama

$ 6.16 M

- 0.00

0.00%

154

Deborah K. Ross

House - Dem

North Carolina

$ 6.10 M

- 0.00

0.00%

155

Andy Biggs

House - Rep

Arizona

$ 6.07 M

0.00

0.00%

156

Roger Marshall

Senate - Rep

Kansas

$ 6.05 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

157

Tracey Mann

House - Rep

Kansas

$ 6.04 M

- 0.00

0.00%

158

Josh Harder

House - Dem

California

$ 6.02 M

0.00

0.00%

159

Tim Scott

Senate - Rep

South Carolina

$ 5.96 M

- 0.00

0.00%

160

Zoe Lofgren

House - Dem

California

$ 5.82 M

- 0.00

0.00%

161

Al Green

House - Dem

Texas

$ 5.70 M

0.00

0.00%

162

Robert J. Wittman

House - Rep

Virginia

$ 5.63 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

163

Tina Smith

Senate - Dem

Minnesota

$ 5.57 M

- 0.00

0.00%

164

Andy Harris

House - Rep

Maryland

$ 5.23 M

- 0.00

0.00%

165

Maxine Dexter

House - Dem

Oregon

$ 5.20 M

0.00

0.00%

166

Ashley Hinson

House - Rep

Iowa

$ 5.08 M

- 0.00

0.00%

167

Shelley Moore Capito

Senate - Rep

West Virginia

$ 4.98 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

168

Deb Fischer

Senate - Rep

Nebraska

$ 4.93 M

0.00

0.00%

169

David P. Joyce

House - Rep

Ohio

$ 4.92 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

170

Ayanna Pressley

House - Dem

Massachusetts

$ 4.88 M

0.00

0.00%

171

Brian Schatz

Senate - Dem

Hawaii

$ 4.81 M

0.00

0.00%

172

Rick Larsen

House - Dem

Washington

$ 4.80 M

- 0.00

0.00%

173

Virginia Foxx

House - Rep

North Carolina

$ 4.65 M

- 0.00

0.00%

174

Derek Tran

House - Dem

California

$ 4.62 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

175

Christopher R. Deluzio

House - Dem

Pennsylvania

$ 4.62 M

- 0.00

0.00%

176

Jake Auchincloss

House - Dem

Massachusetts

$ 4.47 M

- 0.00

0.00%

177

Jim Costa

House - Dem

California

$ 4.45 M

0.00

0.00%

178

Frank Pallone, Jr.

House - Dem

New Jersey

$ 4.44 M

- 0.00

0.00%

179

Byron Donalds

House - Rep

Florida

$ 4.42 M

- 0.00

0.00%

180

Yassamin Ansari

House - Dem

Arizona

$ 4.39 M

0.00

0.00%

181

Catherine Cortez Masto

Senate - Dem

Nevada

$ 4.36 M

0.00

0.00%

182

Chris Pappas

House - Dem

New Hampshire

$ 4.35 M

0.00

0.00%

183

Jennifer Kiggans

House - Rep

Virginia

$ 4.25 M

0.00

0.00%

184

Brian Babin

House - Rep

Texas

$ 4.12 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

185

Joyce Beatty

House - Dem

Ohio

$ 4.10 M

- 0.00

0.00%

186

John Garamendi

House - Dem

California

$ 4.09 M

0.00

0.00%

187

Sean Casten

House - Dem

Illinois

$ 4.08 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

188

Gerald E. Connolly

House - Dem

Virginia

$ 4.05 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

189

Harriet M. Hageman

House - Rep

Wyoming

$ 4.05 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

190

Brad Finstad

House - Rep

Minnesota

$ 4.03 M

0.00

0.00%

191

Steny H. Hoyer

House - Dem

Maryland

$ 3.93 M

0.00

0.00%

192

Raja Krishnamoorthi

House - Dem

Illinois

$ 3.88 M

0.00

0.00%

193

Mike Crapo

Senate - Rep

Idaho

$ 3.87 M

0.00

0.00%

194

Ted Lieu

House - Dem

California

$ 3.86 M

0.00

0.00%

195

Barry Moore

House - Rep

Alabama

$ 3.82 M

0.00

0.00%

196

Sydney Kamlager-Dove

House - Dem

California

$ 3.78 M

0.00

0.00%

197

Wesley Hunt

House - Rep

Texas

$ 3.77 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

198

Maxine Waters

House - Dem

California

$ 3.74 M

0.00

0.00%

199

John R. Carter

House - Rep

Texas

$ 3.70 M

0.00

0.00%

200

Young Kim

House - Rep

California

$ 3.62 M

0.00

0.00%

201

James P. McGovern

House - Dem

Massachusetts

$ 3.59 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

202

Mark Harris

House - Rep

North Carolina

$ 3.57 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

203

Derek Schmidt

House - Rep

Kansas

$ 3.57 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

204

Jonathan L. Jackson

House - Dem

Illinois

$ 3.55 M

- 0.00

0.00%

205

Doug LaMalfa

House - Rep

California

$ 3.52 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

206

Nanette Diaz Barragán

House - Dem

California

$ 3.52 M

- 0.00

0.00%

207

Nancy Mace

House - Rep

South Carolina

$ 3.43 M

0.00

0.00%

208

John Boozman

Senate - Rep

Arkansas

$ 3.42 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

209

William R. Keating

House - Dem

Massachusetts

$ 3.42 M

- 0.00

0.00%

210

Jim Banks

Senate - Rep

Indiana

$ 3.40 M

- 0.00

0.00%

211

Patty Murray

Senate - Dem

Washington

$ 3.38 M

0.00

0.00%

212

Maria Cantwell

Senate - Dem

Washington

$ 3.34 M

0.00

0.00%

213

Bennie G. Thompson

House - Dem

Mississippi

$ 3.31 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

214

David Taylor

House - Rep

Ohio

$ 3.26 M

0.00

0.00%

215

David Scott

House - Dem

Georgia

$ 3.26 M

- 0.00

0.00%

216

Jon Ossoff

Senate - Dem

Georgia

$ 3.25 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

217

Jerry Moran

Senate - Rep

Kansas

$ 3.23 M

- 493.77

- 0.02%

218

Rosa L. DeLauro

House - Dem

Connecticut

$ 3.22 M

0.00

0.00%

219

Grace Meng

House - Dem

New York

$ 3.20 M

- 0.00

0.00%

220

Thomas Massie

House - Rep

Kentucky

$ 3.10 M

- 0.00

0.00%

221

Luz Rivas

House - Dem

California

$ 3.08 M

0.00

0.00%

222

Patrick Ryan

House - Dem

New York

$ 3.07 M

- 0.00

0.00%

223

Lloyd Smucker

House - Rep

Pennsylvania

$ 3.06 M

- 0.00

0.00%

224

Frank D. Lucas

House - Rep

Oklahoma

$ 3.01 M

0.00

0.00%

225

Brian K. Fitzpatrick

House - Rep

Pennsylvania

$ 3.01 M

0.00

0.00%

226

Julia Brownley

House - Dem

California

$ 3.00 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

227

Chrissy Houlahan

House - Dem

Pennsylvania

$ 2.88 M

0.00

0.00%

228

Diana DeGette

House - Dem

Colorado

$ 2.84 M

0.00

0.00%

229

Josh Hawley

Senate - Rep

Missouri

$ 2.83 M

- 0.00

0.00%

230

Vince Fong

House - Rep

California

$ 2.71 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

231

Gary J. Palmer

House - Rep

Alabama

$ 2.70 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

232

Lois Frankel

House - Dem

Florida

$ 2.68 M

0.00

0.00%

233

Carlos A. Gimenez

House - Rep

Florida

$ 2.65 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

234

John B. Larson

House - Dem

Connecticut

$ 2.60 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

235

Jennifer L. McClellan

House - Dem

Virginia

$ 2.57 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

236

Eleanor Holmes Norton

House - Dem

District of Columbia

$ 2.54 M

- 0.00

0.00%

237

Greg Landsman

House - Dem

Ohio

$ 2.53 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

238

Frederica S. Wilson

House - Dem

Florida

$ 2.52 M

0.00

0.00%

239

Marilyn Strickland

House - Dem

Washington

$ 2.48 M

0.00

0.00%

240

Mike Levin

House - Dem

California

$ 2.46 M

0.00

0.00%

241

Lisa Murkowski

Senate - Rep

Alaska

$ 2.38 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

242

Michael K. Simpson

House - Rep

Idaho

$ 2.36 M

- 0.00

0.00%

243

Tim Kaine

Senate - Dem

Virginia

$ 2.35 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

244

Jeff Crank

House - Rep

Colorado

$ 2.35 M

0.00

0.00%

245

James C. Moylan

House - Rep

Guam

$ 2.31 M

0.00

0.00%

246

Maria Elvira Salazar

House - Rep

Florida

$ 2.31 M

- 0.00

0.00%

247

Jason Smith

House - Rep

Missouri

$ 2.30 M

0.00

0.00%

248

Adam B. Schiff

Senate - Dem

California

$ 2.28 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

249

Amy Klobuchar

Senate - Dem

Minnesota

$ 2.27 M

0.00

0.00%

250

Dave Min

House - Dem

California

$ 2.27 M

- 0.00

0.00%

251

Suhas Subramanyam

House - Dem

Virginia

$ 2.26 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

252

Madeleine Dean

House - Dem

Pennsylvania

$ 2.25 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

253

Glenn Grothman

House - Rep

Wisconsin

$ 2.24 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

254

Bill Huizenga

House - Rep

Michigan

$ 2.21 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

255

Teresa Leger Fernandez

House - Dem

New Mexico

$ 2.19 M

- 0.00

0.00%

256

Greg Stanton

House - Dem

Arizona

$ 2.10 M

- 0.00

0.00%

257

Rand Paul

Senate - Rep

Kentucky

$ 2.09 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

258

Sam Graves

House - Rep

Missouri

$ 2.09 M

0.00

0.00%

259

Becca Balint

House - Dem

Vermont

$ 2.05 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

260

Aaron Bean

House - Rep

Florida

$ 2.04 M

- 0.00

0.00%

261

Nellie Pou

House - Dem

New Jersey

$ 2.04 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

262

Julia Letlow

House - Rep

Louisiana

$ 2.01 M

- 0.00

0.00%

263

Charles E. Schumer

Senate - Dem

New York

$ 2.00 M

0.00

0.00%

264

Mark Messmer

House - Rep

Indiana

$ 1.99 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

265

Andy Barr

House - Rep

Kentucky

$ 1.96 M

- 0.00

0.00%

266

Pete Stauber

House - Rep

Minnesota

$ 1.94 M

- 0.00

0.00%

267

Scott Perry

House - Rep

Pennsylvania

$ 1.92 M

0.00

0.00%

268

Bryan Steil

House - Rep

Wisconsin

$ 1.88 M

- 0.00

0.00%

269

Adrian Smith

House - Rep

Nebraska

$ 1.88 M

0.00

0.00%

270

Shomari Figures

House - Dem

Alabama

$ 1.88 M

0.00

0.00%

271

Stephanie I. Bice

House - Rep

Oklahoma

$ 1.86 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

272

Brandon Gill

House - Rep

Texas

$ 1.82 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

273

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott

House - Dem

Virginia

$ 1.78 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

274

Mariannette Miller-Meeks

House - Rep

Iowa

$ 1.77 M

0.00

0.00%

275

Nicole Malliotakis

House - Rep

New York

$ 1.76 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

276

Ronny Jackson

House - Rep

Texas

$ 1.75 M

- 0.00

0.00%

277

Don Bacon

House - Rep

Nebraska

$ 1.74 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

278

Joe Courtney

House - Dem

Connecticut

$ 1.74 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

279

Pramila Jayapal

House - Dem

Washington

$ 1.71 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

280

Morgan McGarvey

House - Dem

Kentucky

$ 1.70 M

- 0.00

0.00%

281

John Fetterman

Senate - Dem

Pennsylvania

$ 1.70 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

282

Andy Kim

Senate - Dem

New Jersey

$ 1.69 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

283

Michael Baumgartner

House - Rep

Washington

$ 1.65 M

0.00

0.00%

284

Austin Scott

House - Rep

Georgia

$ 1.64 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

285

August Pfluger

House - Rep

Texas

$ 1.63 M

- 0.00

0.00%

286

Josh Riley

House - Dem

New York

$ 1.62 M

- 0.00

0.00%

287

Lucy McBath

House - Dem

Georgia

$ 1.60 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

288

Erin Houchin

House - Rep

Indiana

$ 1.58 M

0.00

0.00%

289

Linda T. Sánchez

House - Dem

California

$ 1.54 M

- 15.39 K

- 0.99%

290

Joe Wilson

House - Rep

South Carolina

$ 1.53 M

0.00

0.00%

291

Jared Huffman

House - Dem

California

$ 1.52 M

- 0.00

0.00%

292

John Cornyn

Senate - Rep

Texas

$ 1.50 M

0.00

0.00%

293

Laura Friedman

House - Dem

California

$ 1.48 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

294

Darren Soto

House - Dem

Florida

$ 1.48 M

0.00

0.00%

295

Lindsey Graham

Senate - Rep

South Carolina

$ 1.48 M

- 0.00

0.00%

296

Mike Kennedy

House - Rep

Utah

$ 1.46 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

297

Raphael G. Warnock

Senate - Dem

Georgia

$ 1.45 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

298

Elijah Crane

House - Rep

Arizona

$ 1.43 M

0.00

0.00%

299

Tammy Duckworth

Senate - Dem

Illinois

$ 1.41 M

- 0.00

0.00%

300

Zachary Nunn

House - Rep

Iowa

$ 1.40 M

- 0.00

0.00%

301

Glenn Ivey

House - Dem

Maryland

$ 1.39 M

- 0.00

0.00%

302

Raul Ruiz

House - Dem

California

$ 1.36 M

- 0.00

0.00%

303

Claudia Tenney

House - Rep

New York

$ 1.34 M

+ 2.33 K

+ 0.17%

304

Dan Crenshaw

House - Rep

Texas

$ 1.34 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

305

Kristen McDonald Rivet

House - Dem

Michigan

$ 1.34 M

0.00

0.00%

306

Brendan F. Boyle

House - Dem

Pennsylvania

$ 1.33 M

0.00

0.00%

307

Richard McCormick

House - Rep

Georgia

$ 1.33 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

308

Mark Pocan

House - Dem

Wisconsin

$ 1.33 M

0.00

0.00%

309

Jimmy Gomez

House - Dem

California

$ 1.32 M

0.00

0.00%

310

Mike Carey

House - Rep

Ohio

$ 1.32 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

311

Stephen F. Lynch

House - Dem

Massachusetts

$ 1.31 M

- 0.00

0.00%

312

Cindy Hyde-Smith

Senate - Rep

Mississippi

$ 1.31 M

0.00

0.00%

313

Laura Gillen

House - Dem

New York

$ 1.31 M

0.00

0.00%

314

Daniel Webster

House - Rep

Florida

$ 1.30 M

0.00

0.00%

315

Robert Menendez

House - Dem

New Jersey

$ 1.27 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

316

Dwight Evans

House - Dem

Pennsylvania

$ 1.24 M

0.00

0.00%

317

Kevin Mullin

House - Dem

California

$ 1.24 M

0.00

0.00%

318

Bruce Westerman

House - Rep

Arkansas

$ 1.23 M

- 0.00

0.00%

319

John McGuire

House - Rep

Virginia

$ 1.21 M

- 0.00

0.00%

320

Sylvia R. Garcia

House - Dem

Texas

$ 1.21 M

0.00

0.00%

321

Henry Cuellar

House - Dem

Texas

$ 1.20 M

0.00

0.00%

322

Seth Magaziner

House - Dem

Rhode Island

$ 1.17 M

- 0.00

0.00%

323

Bernard Sanders

Senate - Ind

Vermont

$ 1.15 M

0.00

0.00%

324

John H. Rutherford

House - Rep

Florida

$ 1.14 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

325

Marsha Blackburn

Senate - Rep

Tennessee

$ 1.14 M

0.00

0.00%

326

Brian Jack

House - Rep

Georgia

$ 1.13 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

327

Kirsten E. Gillibrand

Senate - Dem

New York

$ 1.13 M

0.00

0.00%

328

Cory A. Booker

Senate - Dem

New Jersey

$ 1.13 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

329

Marcy Kaptur

House - Dem

Ohio

$ 1.10 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

330

Kweisi Mfume

House - Dem

Maryland

$ 1.10 M

0.00

0.00%

331

Johnny Olszewski

House - Dem

Maryland

$ 1.08 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

332

Eric Schmitt

Senate - Rep

Missouri

$ 1.07 M

+ 0.00

0.00%

333

Nikki Budzinski

House - Dem

Illinois

$ 1.05 M

0.00

0.00%

334

Jack Bergman

House - Rep

Michigan

$ 1.01 M

0.00

0.00%

335

Eric Burlison

House - Rep

Missouri

$ 1.01 M

- 0.00

0.00%

336

Val T. Hoyle

House - Dem

Oregon

$ 1.01 M

0.00

0.00%

337

Salud O. Carbajal

House - Dem

California

$ 1.01 M

+ 32.50 K

+ 3.34%

338

Christian Menefee

House - Dem

Texas

$ 1.00 M

- 0.00

0.00%

339

David Rouzer

House - Rep

North Carolina

$ 988.28 K

- 0.00

0.00%

340

Adam Gray

House - Dem

California

$ 965.50 K

0.00

0.00%

341

Tammy Baldwin

Senate - Dem

Wisconsin

$ 933.00 K

0.00

0.00%

342

Brian J. Mast

House - Rep

Florida

$ 925.50 K

0.00

0.00%

343

W. Gregory Steube

House - Rep

Florida

$ 924.64 K

- 0.00

0.00%

344

Marie Gluesenkamp Perez

House - Dem

Washington

$ 922.50 K

0.00

0.00%

345

Christopher Murphy

Senate - Dem

Connecticut

$ 904.00 K

0.00

0.00%

346

Kevin Cramer

Senate - Rep

North Dakota

$ 896.00 K

0.00

0.00%

347

James R. Walkinshaw

House - Dem

Virginia

$ 889.36 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

348

Monica De La Cruz

House - Rep

Texas

$ 881.00 K

0.00

0.00%

349

Ron Estes

House - Rep

Kansas

$ 859.54 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

350

Morgan Luttrell

House - Rep

Texas

$ 858.73 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

351

Brittany Pettersen

House - Dem

Colorado

$ 855.00 K

0.00

0.00%

352

Randy K. Weber, Sr.

House - Rep

Texas

$ 852.50 K

0.00

0.00%

353

LaMonica McIver

House - Dem

New Jersey

$ 848.50 K

0.00

0.00%

354

James Lankford

Senate - Rep

Oklahoma

$ 841.42 K

- 0.00

0.00%

355

Delia C. Ramirez

House - Dem

Illinois

$ 841.00 K

0.00

0.00%

356

Abraham Hamadeh

House - Rep

Arizona

$ 833.00 K

0.00

0.00%

357

Jodey C. Arrington

House - Rep

Texas

$ 833.00 K

0.00

0.00%

358

Joni Ernst

Senate - Rep

Iowa

$ 827.76 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

359

Joe Neguse

House - Dem

Colorado

$ 825.00 K

0.00

0.00%

360

Andrea Salinas

House - Dem

Oregon

$ 820.98 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

361

Jill N. Tokuda

House - Dem

Hawaii

$ 812.71 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

362

Roger F. Wicker

Senate - Rep

Mississippi

$ 799.17 K

- 0.00

0.00%

363

Nathaniel Moran

House - Rep

Texas

$ 791.22 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

364

Jeff Hurd

House - Rep

Colorado

$ 772.10 K

- 0.00

0.00%

365

Michelle Fischbach

House - Rep

Minnesota

$ 769.00 K

0.00

0.00%

366

John Thune

Senate - Rep

South Dakota

$ 757.07 K

- 0.00

0.00%

367

Nydia M. Velázquez

House - Dem

New York

$ 750.00 K

0.00

0.00%

368

Ryan Mackenzie

House - Rep

Pennsylvania

$ 733.26 K

- 0.00

0.00%

369

Ben Cline

House - Rep

Virginia

$ 715.50 K

0.00

0.00%

370

John R. Moolenaar

House - Rep

Michigan

$ 711.50 K

0.00

0.00%

371

David Schweikert

House - Rep

Arizona

$ 703.50 K

0.00

0.00%

372

Lance Gooden

House - Rep

Texas

$ 695.47 K

- 0.00

0.00%

373

Emanuel Cleaver

House - Dem

Missouri

$ 688.50 K

0.00

0.00%

374

Tom Cotton

Senate - Rep

Arkansas

$ 687.94 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

375

Tim Walberg

House - Rep

Michigan

$ 681.22 K

- 0.00

0.00%

376

Gabe Evans

House - Rep

Colorado

$ 679.00 K

0.00

0.00%

377

Andrew Ogles

House - Rep

Tennessee

$ 673.00 K

0.00

0.00%

378

Hakeem S. Jeffries

House - Dem

New York

$ 666.13 K

0.00

0.00%

379

H. Morgan Griffith

House - Rep

Virginia

$ 665.50 K

0.00

0.00%

380

Ritchie Torres

House - Dem

New York

$ 657.40 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

381

Veronica Escobar

House - Dem

Texas

$ 641.00 K

0.00

0.00%

382

Scott DesJarlais

House - Rep

Tennessee

$ 632.30 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

383

Riley Moore

House - Rep

West Virginia

$ 631.46 K

- 0.00

0.00%

384

Anna Paulina Luna

House - Rep

Florida

$ 626.00 K

0.00

0.00%

385

Hillary J. Scholten

House - Dem

Michigan

$ 621.56 K

- 0.00

0.00%

386

Martin Heinrich

Senate - Dem

New Mexico

$ 613.00 K

0.00

0.00%

387

Kat Cammack

House - Rep

Florida

$ 612.29 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

388

Joseph D. Morelle

House - Dem

New York

$ 612.00 K

- 0.00

0.00%

389

Adam Smith

House - Dem

Washington

$ 594.85 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

390

Terri A. Sewell

House - Dem

Alabama

$ 579.64 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

391

Debbie Wasserman Schultz

House - Dem

Florida

$ 563.84 K

0.00

0.00%

392

Michael R. Turner

House - Rep

Ohio

$ 563.00 K

0.00

0.00%

393

Jim Jordan

House - Rep

Ohio

$ 560.93 K

- 0.00

0.00%

394

Angela Alsobrooks

Senate - Dem

Maryland

$ 558.00 K

0.00

0.00%

395

Juan Ciscomani

House - Rep

Arizona

$ 546.30 K

- 0.00

0.00%

396

Emilia Strong Sykes

House - Dem

Ohio

$ 538.50 K

0.00

0.00%

397

John Mannion

House - Dem

New York

$ 521.00 K

0.00

0.00%

398

Janice D. Schakowsky

House - Dem

Illinois

$ 512.50 K

0.00

0.00%

399

Rashida Tlaib

House - Dem

Michigan

$ 490.50 K

0.00

0.00%

400

Danny K. Davis

House - Dem

Illinois

$ 489.53 K

- 0.00

0.00%

401

Mark Alford

House - Rep

Missouri

$ 487.70 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

402

Mike Bost

House - Rep

Illinois

$ 480.17 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

403

Trent Kelly

House - Rep

Mississippi

$ 465.50 K

0.00

0.00%

404

Pablo Hernández

House - Dem

Puerto Rico

$ 463.33 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

405

Nick LaLota

House - Rep

New York

$ 460.11 K

- 0.00

0.00%

406

Elissa Slotkin

Senate - Dem

Michigan

$ 458.71 K

- 0.00

0.00%

407

Mark DeSaulnier

House - Dem

California

$ 458.00 K

0.00

0.00%

408

Michael Cloud

House - Rep

Texas

$ 450.50 K

0.00

0.00%

409

Darin LaHood

House - Rep

Illinois

$ 448.26 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

410

George Latimer

House - Dem

New York

$ 445.15 K

- 0.00

0.00%

411

Tom Barrett

House - Rep

Michigan

$ 433.45 K

- 0.00

0.00%

412

Bill Cassidy

Senate - Rep

Louisiana

$ 431.50 K

0.00

0.00%

413

Sharice Davids

House - Dem

Kansas

$ 431.00 K

0.00

0.00%

414

Timothy M. Kennedy

House - Dem

New York

$ 431.00 K

0.00

0.00%

415

Adriano Espaillat

House - Dem

New York

$ 415.50 K

0.00

0.00%

416

Mark E. Amodei

House - Rep

Nevada

$ 415.50 K

0.00

0.00%

417

Eric Swalwell

House - Dem

California

$ 415.50 K

0.00

0.00%

418

Herbert Conaway

House - Dem

New Jersey

$ 415.00 K

0.00

0.00%

419

Alma S. Adams

House - Dem

North Carolina

$ 407.50 K

0.00

0.00%

420

Jimmy Panetta

House - Dem

California

$ 398.50 K

0.00

0.00%

421

Frank J. Mrvan

House - Dem

Indiana

$ 398.00 K

0.00

0.00%

422

Jack Reed

Senate - Dem

Rhode Island

$ 390.72 K

- 0.00

0.00%

423

Mike Lee

Senate - Rep

Utah

$ 390.50 K

0.00

0.00%

424

Guy Reschenthaler

House - Rep

Pennsylvania

$ 390.00 K

+ 43.00 K

+ 12.39%

425

Christopher H. Smith

House - Rep

New Jersey

$ 382.50 K

0.00

0.00%

426

Troy Balderson

House - Rep

Ohio

$ 382.50 K

0.00

0.00%

427

Troy E. Nehls

House - Rep

Texas

$ 378.50 K

0.00

0.00%

428

Steve Womack

House - Rep

Arkansas

$ 365.00 K

0.00

0.00%

429

Richard E. Neal

House - Dem

Massachusetts

$ 359.00 K

0.00

0.00%

430

Russ Fulcher

House - Rep

Idaho

$ 356.50 K

0.00

0.00%

431

Eugene Vindman

House - Dem

Virginia

$ 352.75 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

432

Haley M. Stevens

House - Dem

Michigan

$ 348.35 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

433

Nicholas A. Langworthy

House - Rep

New York

$ 347.65 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

434

James E. Clyburn

House - Dem

South Carolina

$ 336.36 K

- 0.00

0.00%

435

Robert Garcia

House - Dem

California

$ 333.00 K

0.00

0.00%

436

Jason Crow

House - Dem

Colorado

$ 331.12 K

- 0.00

0.00%

437

Mark Takano

House - Dem

California

$ 331.00 K

0.00

0.00%

438

Glenn Thompson

House - Rep

Pennsylvania

$ 320.00 K

0.00

0.00%

439

Richard Hudson

House - Rep

North Carolina

$ 258.68 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

440

Andrew R. Garbarino

House - Rep

New York

$ 249.34 K

- 0.00

0.00%

441

Lateefah Simon

House - Dem

California

$ 234.56 K

- 0.00

0.00%

442

Pete Aguilar

House - Dem

California

$ 218.00 K

0.00

0.00%

443

Thomas P. Tiffany

House - Rep

Wisconsin

$ 215.00 K

0.00

0.00%

444

Yvette D. Clarke

House - Dem

New York

$ 207.50 K

0.00

0.00%

445

Valerie P. Foushee

House - Dem

North Carolina

$ 207.50 K

0.00

0.00%

446

Josh Brecheen

House - Rep

Oklahoma

$ 207.50 K

0.00

0.00%

447

Sanford D. Bishop, Jr.

House - Dem

Georgia

$ 198.50 K

0.00

0.00%

448

Tony Gonzales

House - Rep

Texas

$ 190.00 K

0.00

0.00%

449

Michael Lawler

House - Rep

New York

$ 183.04 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

450

Melanie A. Stansbury

House - Dem

New Mexico

$ 175.00 K

0.00

0.00%

451

Jahana Hayes

House - Dem

Connecticut

$ 175.00 K

0.00

0.00%

452

Nikema Williams

House - Dem

Georgia

$ 164.00 K

0.00

0.00%

453

Marc A. Veasey

House - Dem

Texas

$ 152.86 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

454

Beth Van Duyne

House - Rep

Texas

$ 144.35 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

455

Mario Diaz-Balart

House - Rep

Florida

$ 123.62 K

- 0.00

0.00%

456

Ruben Gallego

Senate - Dem

Arizona

$ 121.50 K

0.00

0.00%

457

Jared F. Golden

House - Dem

Maine

$ 121.00 K

0.00

0.00%

458

Norma J. Torres

House - Dem

California

$ 115.50 K

0.00

0.00%

459

Gabe Amo

House - Dem

Rhode Island

$ 99.20 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

460

Emily Randall

House - Dem

Washington

$ 99.03 K

- 0.00

0.00%

461

Derrick Van Orden

House - Rep

Wisconsin

$ 99.00 K

0.00

0.00%

462

Steven Horsford

House - Dem

Nevada

$ 97.50 K

0.00

0.00%

463

Todd Young

Senate - Rep

Indiana

$ 91.00 K

0.00

0.00%

464

Randy Feenstra

House - Rep

Iowa

$ 89.00 K

0.00

0.00%

465

Alex Padilla

Senate - Dem

California

$ 85.15 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

466

Eric Sorensen

House - Dem

Illinois

$ 83.00 K

0.00

0.00%

467

Russell Fry

House - Rep

South Carolina

$ 77.19 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

468

Ilhan Omar

House - Dem

Minnesota

$ 72.50 K

0.00

0.00%

469

Lauren Underwood

House - Dem

Illinois

$ 65.50 K

0.00

0.00%

470

Kevin Kiley

House - Rep

California

$ 56.50 K

0.00

0.00%

471

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

House - Dem

New York

$ 49.00 K

0.00

0.00%

472

Tim Burchett

House - Rep

Tennessee

$ 42.59 K

- 0.00

0.00%

473

Barry Loudermilk

House - Rep

Georgia

$ 40.50 K

0.00

0.00%

474

Tom McClintock

House - Rep

California

$ 40.50 K

0.00

0.00%

475

Robin L. Kelly

House - Dem

Illinois

$ 40.50 K

0.00

0.00%

476

Donald G. Davis

House - Dem

North Carolina

$ 40.50 K

0.00

0.00%

477

Wesley Bell

House - Dem

Missouri

$ 32.50 K

0.00

0.00%

478

André Carson

House - Dem

Indiana

$ 32.50 K

0.00

0.00%

479

Henry C. "Hank" Johnson, Jr.

House - Dem

Georgia

$ 32.50 K

0.00

0.00%

480

Sarah McBride

House - Dem

Delaware

$ 32.50 K

0.00

0.00%

481

Paul Tonko

House - Dem

New York

$ 32.50 K

0.00

0.00%

482

Shontel M. Brown

House - Dem

Ohio

$ 32.00 K

0.00

0.00%

483

Jasmine Crockett

House - Dem

Texas

$ 31.86 K

+ 0.00

0.00%

484

Gabe Vasquez

House - Dem

New Mexico

$ 24.00 K

0.00

0.00%

485

Celeste Maloy

House - Rep

Utah

$ 24.00 K

0.00

0.00%

486

Mike Ezell

House - Rep

Mississippi

$ 16.00 K

0.00

0.00%

487

Burgess Owens

House - Rep

Utah

$ 16.00 K

0.00

0.00%

488

Sarah Elfreth

House - Dem

Maryland

$ 16.00 K

0.00

0.00%

489

Steve Scalise  POOREST REP

House - Rep

Louisiana

$ 8.00 K

0.00

0.00%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT “F”  FROM REAL CLEAR POLITICS

 

POLLING DATA from REAL CLEAR POLITICS

 

Race

Poll

Results

Spread

Thursday, July 30

 

2026 Texas Senate - Paxton vs. Talarico

FOX News

Talarico 51, Paxton 48

 

Talarico+3

 

2026 Texas Governor - Abbott vs. Hinojosa

FOX News

Abbott 50, Hinojosa 49

 

Abbott+1

 

2026 Michigan Senate - Democratic Primary

Emerson

El-Sayed 54, Stevens 39

 

El-Sayed+15

 

2026 Michigan Senate - Democratic Primary

Mitchell Research

El-Sayed 52, Stevens 38

 

El-Sayed+14

 

South Carolina Senate Republican Special Primary

Emerson

Norman 22, Graham Nordone 19, Fry 12, Sanford 11, Lynch 7, Evette , Mace

 

Norman+3

 

2026 Michigan Governor - Republican Primary

Emerson

James 40, Johnson 32, Cox 9, Nesbitt 3

 

James+8

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Big Data Poll

Democrats 50, Republicans 39

 

Democrats+11

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

CNN

Democrats 47, Republicans 39

 

Democrats+8

 

2026 Texas Senate - Paxton vs. Talarico

FOX News

Talarico 51, Paxton 48

 

Talarico+3

 

 

 

 

 

Wednesday, July 29

2026 Michigan Senate - Democratic Primary

Tavern Research**

El-Sayed 46, Stevens 36

 

El-Sayed+10

 

2026 Wisconsin Governor - Democratic Primary

Marquette

Hong 38, Barnes 16, Crowley 7, Roys 2, Brennan 2

 

Hong+22

 

2026 Pennsylvania Governor - Garrity vs. Shapiro

PennLive

Shapiro 53, Garrity 28

 

Shapiro+25

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Quinnipiac

Democrats 48, Republicans 41

 

Democrats+7

 

President Trump Job Approval

Quinnipiac

Approve 32, Disapprove 58

 

Disapprove+26

 

President Trump Job Approval

CNN

Approve 35, Disapprove 65

 

Disapprove+30

 

President Trump Job Approval

Rasmussen Reports

Approve 44, Disapprove 55

 

Disapprove+11

 

President Trump Job Approval - Iran

Quinnipiac

Approve 28, Disapprove 66

 

Disapprove+38

 

President Trump Job Approval - Iran

CNN

Approve 30, Disapprove 70

 

Disapprove+40

 

Tuesday, July 28

2028 Democratic Presidential Nomination

Morning Consult

Harris 26, Newsom 20, Buttigieg 10, Ocasio-Cortez 7, Shapiro , Kelly , Ossoff , Pritzker , Beshear , Booker 2

 

Harris+6

 

2028 Republican Presidential Nomination

Morning Consult

Vance 32, Rubio 14, Trump Jr. 22, DeSantis 8, Kennedy Jr. , Haley , Cruz , Ramaswamy , Carlson

 

Vance+10

 

President Trump Job Approval

Economist/YouGov

Approve 39, Disapprove 59

 

Disapprove+20

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Economist/YouGov

Democrats 46, Republicans 42

 

Democrats+4

 

Direction of Country

Economist/YouGov

Right Direction 31, Wrong Track 62

 

Wrong Track+31

 

Monday, July 27

2028 Democratic Presidential Nomination

Daily Mail

Harris 31, Newsom 14, Buttigieg 9, Ocasio-Cortez 7, Shapiro 5, Kelly , Ossoff 4, Pritzker , Beshear , Booker

 

Harris+17

 

2028 Republican Presidential Nomination

Daily Mail

Vance 48, Rubio 18, Trump Jr. , DeSantis 12, Kennedy Jr. , Haley 2, Cruz 5, Ramaswamy 2, Carlson

 

Vance+30

 

2028 Republican Presidential Nomination

Rasmussen Reports

Vance 39, Rubio 27, Trump Jr. 9, DeSantis 7, Kennedy Jr. 3, Haley 4, Cruz 2, Ramaswamy , Carlson

 

Vance+12

 

President Trump Job Approval

Morning Consult

Approve 45, Disapprove 52

 

Disapprove+7

 

President Trump Job Approval

Reuters/Ipsos

Approve 39, Disapprove 60

 

Disapprove+21

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Reuters/Ipsos

Democrats 40, Republicans 38

 

Democrats+2

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Morning Consult

Democrats 46, Republicans 43

 

Democrats+3

 

Direction of Country

Rasmussen Reports

Right Direction 38, Wrong Track 57

 

Wrong Track+19

 

Sunday, July 26

South Carolina Senate Republican Special Primary

Resonance Media **

Graham Nordone 21, Norman 17, Evette 10, Fry 7, Lynch 7, Sanford 7, Mace 3

 

Graham Nordone+4

 

President Trump Job Approval

CBS News

Approve 39, Disapprove 61

 

Disapprove+22

 

Friday, July 24

President Trump Job Approval

RMG Research*

Approve 46, Disapprove 52

 

Disapprove+6

 

President Trump Job Approval - Iran

RMG Research*

Approve 41, Disapprove 52

 

Disapprove+11

 

Thursday, July 23

2026 Georgia Senate - Collins vs. Ossoff

Fabrizio/Anzalone

Ossoff 52, Collins 43

 

Ossoff+9

 

2026 Georgia Governor - Jackson vs. Lance Bottoms

Fabrizio/Anzalone

Lance Bottoms 48, Jackson 46

 

Lance Bottoms+2

 

President Trump Job Approval

Daily Mail

Approve 44, Disapprove 56

 

Disapprove+12

 

President Trump Job Approval

Pew Research

Approve 34, Disapprove 64

 

Disapprove+30

 

President Trump Job Approval

Emerson

Approve 39, Disapprove 57

 

Disapprove+18

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Emerson

Democrats 53, Republicans 42

 

Democrats+11

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Daily Mail

Democrats 50, Republicans 41

 

Democrats+9

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Pew Research

Democrats 43, Republicans 37

 

Democrats+6

 

2028 Democratic Presidential Nomination

Emerson

Harris 8, Newsom 17, Buttigieg 19, Ocasio-Cortez 13, Shapiro 5, Kelly , Ossoff 13, Pritzker 3, Beshear 7, Booker

 

Buttigieg+2

 

2028 Republican Presidential Nomination

Emerson

Vance 39, Rubio 38, Trump Jr. 5, DeSantis 5, Kennedy Jr. 0, Haley 1, Cruz 2, Ramaswamy , Carlson 1

 

Vance+1

 

Wednesday, July 22

2028 New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary

UNH

Buttigieg 21, Ocasio-Cortez 22, Newsom 8, Kelly 9, Sanders 6, Harris 5, Pritzker 1, Shapiro 2, Beshear 1, Klobuchar 1

 

Ocasio-Cortez+1

 

2028 New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary

UNH

Vance 36, Rubio 26, Haley 8, Paul 8, DeSantis 6, Gabbard 4, Kennedy , Cruz 0, Youngkin 0, Ramaswamy

 

Vance+10

 

2026 Minnesota Senate - Democratic Primary

KSTP/SurveyUSA

Flanagan 40, Craig 40

 

Tie

 

2026 Minnesota Senate - Republican Primary

KSTP/SurveyUSA

Tafoya 41, White 10, Weiler 7, Schwarze 5

 

Tafoya+31

 

 

 

Race

Poll

Results

Spread

Wednesday, July 22

2026 Minnesota Governor - Republican Primary

KSTP/SurveyUSA

Lindell 35, Demuth 26, Qualls 11

 

Lindell+9

 

2026 Wisconsin Governor - Democratic Primary

Marquette

Hong 26, Barnes 15, Crowley , Roys 1, Brennan 2

 

Hong+11

 

2026 Wisconsin Governor - Tiffany vs. Hong

Marquette

Tiffany 43, Hong 40

 

Tiffany+3

 

2026 Wisconsin Governor - Tiffany vs. Barnes

Marquette

Barnes 44, Tiffany 40

 

Barnes+4

 

President Trump Job Approval

FOX News

Approve 39, Disapprove 61

 

Disapprove+22

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

FOX News

Democrats 53, Republicans 46

 

Democrats+7

 

President Trump Job Approval - Iran

FOX News

Approve 34, Disapprove 66

 

Disapprove+32

 

Tuesday, July 21

2026 Maine Senate - Collins vs. Jackson

UNH

Jackson 49, Collins 46

 

Jackson+3

 

2026 Maine Governor - Charles vs. Pingree vs. Bennett

UNH

Pingree 49, Charles 35, Bennett 6

 

Pingree+14

 

President Trump Job Approval

Economist/YouGov

Approve 40, Disapprove 58

 

Disapprove+18

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Economist/YouGov

Democrats 46, Republicans 41

 

Democrats+5

 

Direction of Country

Economist/YouGov

Right Direction 30, Wrong Track 63

 

Wrong Track+33

 

Monday, July 20

2026 Florida Governor - Donalds vs. Jolly

Univ. of North Florida

Donalds 46, Jolly 41

 

Donalds+5

 

2026 Florida Senate Special Election - Moody vs. Vindman

Univ. of North Florida

Moody 50, Vindman 40

 

Moody+10

 

2026 Florida Senate Special Election - Moody vs. Nixon

Univ. of North Florida

Moody 50, Nixon 42

 

Moody+8

 

2026 Florida Governor - Republican Primary

Cygnal

Donalds 43, Fishback 12, Collins 11, Renner 2

 

Donalds+31

 

President Trump Job Approval

Morning Consult

Approve 44, Disapprove 53

 

Disapprove+9

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Morning Consult

Democrats 46, Republicans 43

 

Democrats+3

 

Direction of Country

Rasmussen Reports

Right Direction 36, Wrong Track 58

 

Wrong Track+22

 

Saturday, July 18

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Wash Post/Ipsos

Democrats 48, Republicans 45

 

Democrats+3

 

President Trump Job Approval - Iran

RMG Research*

Approve 40, Disapprove 53

 

Disapprove+13

 

Friday, July 17

President Trump Job Approval

RMG Research*

Approve 44, Disapprove 53

 

Disapprove+9

 

President Trump Job Approval

CNBC

Approve 40, Disapprove 59

 

Disapprove+19

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

CNBC

Democrats 49, Republicans 45

 

Democrats+4

 

Thursday, July 16

2026 Michigan Senate - Democratic Primary

Data for Progress (D)**

El-Sayed 54, Stevens 41

 

El-Sayed+13

 

South Carolina Senate Republican Special Primary

Emerson

Graham Nordone 6, Norman 16, Evette 10, Fry 9, Lynch 13, Sanford 5, Mace 10

 

Norman+3

 

2026 California Governor - Hilton vs. Becerra

PPIC

Becerra 61, Hilton 36

 

Becerra+25

 

President Trump Job Approval

Wash Post/Ipsos

Approve 40, Disapprove 59

 

Disapprove+19

 

President Trump Job Approval - Iran

Wash Post/Ipsos

Approve 32, Disapprove 67

 

Disapprove+35

 

Wednesday, July 15

2026 South Dakota Governor - GOP Runoff (Rhoden vs. Doeden)

Emerson

Rhoden 62, Doeden 32

 

Rhoden+30

 

2026 Pennsylvania Governor - Garrity vs. Shapiro

Quinnipiac

Shapiro 53, Garrity 40

 

Shapiro+13

 

President Trump Job Approval

Echelon Insights**

Approve 38, Disapprove 61

 

Disapprove+23

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Echelon Insights**

Democrats 50, Republicans 44

 

Democrats+6

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

RMG Research**

Democrats 47, Republicans 45

 

Democrats+2

 

2028 Democratic Presidential Nomination

Echelon Insights**

Harris 21, Newsom 14, Buttigieg 13, Ocasio-Cortez 9, Shapiro 7, Kelly 4, Ossoff 3, Pritzker 3, Beshear 3, Booker 2

 

Harris+7

 

2028 Republican Presidential Nomination

Echelon Insights**

Vance 38, Rubio 15, Trump Jr. 8, DeSantis 9, Kennedy Jr. 3, Haley , Cruz 2, Ramaswamy 3, Carlson 2

 

Vance+23

 

2028 Michigan Democratic Presidential Primary

Detroit News/Glengariff

Harris 25, Buttigieg 19, Ocasio-Cortez 12, Newsom 10, Kelly 8, Shapiro 4, Pritzker 2, Moore 2

 

Harris+6

 

Tuesday, July 14

2026 Michigan Senate - Democratic Primary

Detroit News/Glengariff

El-Sayed 41, Stevens 48

 

Stevens+7

 

President Trump Job Approval

Harvard-Harris

Approve 42, Disapprove 54

 

Disapprove+12

 

President Trump Job Approval

Morning Consult

Approve 45, Disapprove 52

 

Disapprove+7

 

·          

·          

Latest Polls

Name of Race

Race

Poll

Results

Spread

Tuesday, July 14

President Trump Job Approval

Economist/ YouGov

Approve 40Disapprove 58

 

Disapprove+18

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Economist/YouGov

Democrats 46Republicans 42

 

Democrats+4

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Morning Consult

Democrats 46Republicans 43

 

Democrats+3

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Harvard-Harris

Democrats 51Republicans 49

 

Democrats+2

 

Direction of Country

Harvard-Harris

Right Direction 35Wrong Track 55

 

Wrong Track+20

 

Direction of Country

Economist/ YouGov

Right Direction 32Wrong Track 62

 

Wrong Track+30

 

President Trump Job Approval - Iran

Economist/ YouGov

Approve 36Disapprove 59

 

Disapprove+23

 

President Trump Job Approval - Iran

Harvard-Harris

Approve 49Disapprove 51

 

Disapprove+2

 

2028 Democratic Presidential Nomination

Harvard-Harris

Harris 37Newsom 24, Buttigieg 10, Ocasio-Cortez 9, Shapiro 9, Kelly , Ossoff , Pritzker 5, Beshear , Booker

 

Harris+13

 

2028 Republican Presidential Nomination

Harvard-Harris

Vance 42Rubio 22, Trump Jr. 18, DeSantis 0, Kennedy Jr. 6, Haley 6, Cruz , Ramaswamy , Carlson 3

 

Vance+20

 

Monday, July 13

2026 North Carolina Senate - Whatley vs. Cooper

PPP

Cooper 48Whatley 44

 

Cooper+4

 

Direction of Country

Rasmussen Reports

Right Direction 39Wrong Track 55

 

Wrong Track+16

 

Saturday, July 11

President Trump Job Approval

2Way/HarrisX

Approve 45Disapprove 54

 

Disapprove+9

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

2Way/HarrisX

Democrats 51Republicans 49

 

Democrats+2

 

Direction of Country

2Way/HarrisX

Right Direction 35Wrong Track 57

 

Wrong Track+22

 

Friday, July 10

2028 Republican Presidential Nomination

Daily Mail

Vance 51Rubio 15, Trump Jr. , DeSantis 9, Kennedy Jr. , Haley 2, Cruz 6, Ramaswamy 2, Carlson

 

Vance+36

 

Wednesday, July 8

2026 Georgia Senate - Collins vs. Ossoff

Wick**

Ossoff 47Collins 43

 

Ossoff+4

 

2026 Georgia Governor - Jackson vs. Lance Bottoms

Wick**

Lance Bottoms 43Jackson 43

 

Tie

 

President Trump Job Approval

2Way/HarrisX

Approve 43Disapprove 54

 

Disapprove+11

 

President Trump Job Approval

Quantus Insights

Approve 43Disapprove 55

 

Disapprove+12

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Quantus Insights

Democrats 47Republicans 42

 

Democrats+5

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Cygnal

Democrats 50Republicans 44

 

Democrats+6

 

Direction of Country

Cygnal

Right Direction 36Wrong Track 60

 

Wrong Track+24

 

Direction of Country

Quantus Insights

Right Direction 38Wrong Track 62

 

Wrong Track+24

 

2028 Republican Presidential Nomination

Quantus Insights

Vance 42Rubio 26, Trump Jr. , DeSantis 9, Kennedy Jr. , Haley 3, Cruz 4, Ramaswamy , Carlson

 

Vance+16

 

2028 Democratic Presidential Nomination

Quantus Insights

Harris 35Newsom 18, Buttigieg 13, Ocasio-Cortez 11, Shapiro 7, Kelly , Ossoff , Pritzker , Beshear , Booker

 

Harris+17

 

2028 Democratic Presidential Nomination

Daily Mail

Harris 29Newsom 15, Buttigieg 11, Ocasio-Cortez 6, Shapiro 4, Kelly 5, Ossoff 2, Pritzker 3, Beshear 3, Booker 4

 

Harris+14

 

Tuesday, July 7

2026 Arizona Governor - Republican Primary

Noble Predictive Insights

Biggs 60Schweikert 10, Neely 2, Miceli 1

 

Biggs+50

 

President Trump Job Approval

Morning Consult

Approve 45Disapprove 53

 

Disapprove+8

 

President Trump Job Approval

Economist/YouGov

Approve 40Disapprove 58

 

Disapprove+18

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Economist/YouGov

Democrats 46Republicans 43

 

Democrats+3

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Morning Consult

Democrats 45Republicans 42

 

Democrats+3

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Rasmussen Reports

Democrats 46Republicans 42

 

Democrats+4

 

Direction of Country

Rasmussen Reports

Right Direction 33Wrong Track 60

 

Wrong Track+27

 

Direction of Country

Economist/ YouGov

Right Direction 32Wrong Track 61

 

Wrong Track+29

 

Monday, July 6

President Trump Job Approval

I&I/TIPP

Approve 38Disapprove 54

 

Disapprove+16

 

President Trump Job Approval

Financial Times

Approve 36Disapprove 56

 

Disapprove+20

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Financial Times

Democrats 49Republicans 42

 

Democrats+7

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Daily Mail

Democrats 50Republicans 42

 

Democrats+8

 

2028 Democratic Presidential Nomination

Financial Times

Harris 33Newsom 15, Buttigieg 8, Ocasio-Cortez 9, Shapiro 7, Kelly 5, Ossoff 2, Pritzker 3, Beshear 2, Booker

 

Harris+18

 

 

 

 

 

 

POLLING DATA from REAL CLEAR POLITICS

 

Race

Poll

Results

Spread

Thursday, July 30

 

2026 Texas Senate - Paxton vs. Talarico

FOX News

Talarico 51, Paxton 48

 

Talarico+3

 

2026 Texas Governor - Abbott vs. Hinojosa

FOX News

Abbott 50, Hinojosa 49

 

Abbott+1

 

2026 Michigan Senate - Democratic Primary

Emerson

El-Sayed 54, Stevens 39

 

El-Sayed+15

 

2026 Michigan Senate - Democratic Primary

Mitchell Research

El-Sayed 52, Stevens 38

 

El-Sayed+14

 

South Carolina Senate Republican Special Primary

Emerson

Norman 22, Graham Nordone 19, Fry 12, Sanford 11, Lynch 7, Evette , Mace

 

Norman+3

 

2026 Michigan Governor - Republican Primary

Emerson

James 40, Johnson 32, Cox 9, Nesbitt 3

 

James+8

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Big Data Poll

Democrats 50, Republicans 39

 

Democrats+11

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

CNN

Democrats 47, Republicans 39

 

Democrats+8

 

2026 Texas Senate - Paxton vs. Talarico

FOX News

Talarico 51, Paxton 48

 

Talarico+3

 

 

 

 

 

Wednesday, July 29

2026 Michigan Senate - Democratic Primary

Tavern Research**

El-Sayed 46, Stevens 36

 

El-Sayed+10

 

2026 Wisconsin Governor - Democratic Primary

Marquette

Hong 38, Barnes 16, Crowley 7, Roys 2, Brennan 2

 

Hong+22

 

2026 Pennsylvania Governor - Garrity vs. Shapiro

PennLive

Shapiro 53, Garrity 28

 

Shapiro+25

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Quinnipiac

Democrats 48, Republicans 41

 

Democrats+7

 

President Trump Job Approval

Quinnipiac

Approve 32, Disapprove 58

 

Disapprove+26

 

President Trump Job Approval

CNN

Approve 35, Disapprove 65

 

Disapprove+30

 

President Trump Job Approval

Rasmussen Reports

Approve 44, Disapprove 55

 

Disapprove+11

 

President Trump Job Approval - Iran

Quinnipiac

Approve 28, Disapprove 66

 

Disapprove+38

 

President Trump Job Approval - Iran

CNN

Approve 30, Disapprove 70

 

Disapprove+40

 

Tuesday, July 28

2028 Democratic Presidential Nomination

Morning Consult

Harris 26, Newsom 20, Buttigieg 10, Ocasio-Cortez 7, Shapiro , Kelly , Ossoff , Pritzker , Beshear , Booker 2

 

Harris+6

 

2028 Republican Presidential Nomination

Morning Consult

Vance 32, Rubio 14, Trump Jr. 22, DeSantis 8, Kennedy Jr. , Haley , Cruz , Ramaswamy , Carlson

 

Vance+10

 

President Trump Job Approval

Economist/YouGov

Approve 39, Disapprove 59

 

Disapprove+20

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Economist/YouGov

Democrats 46, Republicans 42

 

Democrats+4

 

Direction of Country

Economist/YouGov

Right Direction 31, Wrong Track 62

 

Wrong Track+31

 

Monday, July 27

2028 Democratic Presidential Nomination

Daily Mail

Harris 31, Newsom 14, Buttigieg 9, Ocasio-Cortez 7, Shapiro 5, Kelly , Ossoff 4, Pritzker , Beshear , Booker

 

Harris+17

 

2028 Republican Presidential Nomination

Daily Mail

Vance 48, Rubio 18, Trump Jr. , DeSantis 12, Kennedy Jr. , Haley 2, Cruz 5, Ramaswamy 2, Carlson

 

Vance+30

 

2028 Republican Presidential Nomination

Rasmussen Reports

Vance 39, Rubio 27, Trump Jr. 9, DeSantis 7, Kennedy Jr. 3, Haley 4, Cruz 2, Ramaswamy , Carlson

 

Vance+12

 

President Trump Job Approval

Morning Consult

Approve 45, Disapprove 52

 

Disapprove+7

 

President Trump Job Approval

Reuters/Ipsos

Approve 39, Disapprove 60

 

Disapprove+21

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Reuters/Ipsos

Democrats 40, Republicans 38

 

Democrats+2

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Morning Consult

Democrats 46, Republicans 43

 

Democrats+3

 

Direction of Country

Rasmussen Reports

Right Direction 38, Wrong Track 57

 

Wrong Track+19

 

Sunday, July 26

South Carolina Senate Republican Special Primary

Resonance Media **

Graham Nordone 21, Norman 17, Evette 10, Fry 7, Lynch 7, Sanford 7, Mace 3

 

Graham Nordone+4

 

President Trump Job Approval

CBS News

Approve 39, Disapprove 61

 

Disapprove+22

 

Friday, July 24

President Trump Job Approval

RMG Research*

Approve 46, Disapprove 52

 

Disapprove+6

 

President Trump Job Approval - Iran

RMG Research*

Approve 41, Disapprove 52

 

Disapprove+11

 

Thursday, July 23

2026 Georgia Senate - Collins vs. Ossoff

Fabrizio/Anzalone

Ossoff 52, Collins 43

 

Ossoff+9

 

2026 Georgia Governor - Jackson vs. Lance Bottoms

Fabrizio/Anzalone

Lance Bottoms 48, Jackson 46

 

Lance Bottoms+2

 

President Trump Job Approval

Daily Mail

Approve 44, Disapprove 56

 

Disapprove+12

 

President Trump Job Approval

Pew Research

Approve 34, Disapprove 64

 

Disapprove+30

 

President Trump Job Approval

Emerson

Approve 39, Disapprove 57

 

Disapprove+18

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Emerson

Democrats 53, Republicans 42

 

Democrats+11

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Daily Mail

Democrats 50, Republicans 41

 

Democrats+9

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Pew Research

Democrats 43, Republicans 37

 

Democrats+6

 

2028 Democratic Presidential Nomination

Emerson

Harris 8, Newsom 17, Buttigieg 19, Ocasio-Cortez 13, Shapiro 5, Kelly , Ossoff 13, Pritzker 3, Beshear 7, Booker

 

Buttigieg+2

 

2028 Republican Presidential Nomination

Emerson

Vance 39, Rubio 38, Trump Jr. 5, DeSantis 5, Kennedy Jr. 0, Haley 1, Cruz 2, Ramaswamy , Carlson 1

 

Vance+1

 

Wednesday, July 22

2028 New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary

UNH

Buttigieg 21, Ocasio-Cortez 22, Newsom 8, Kelly 9, Sanders 6, Harris 5, Pritzker 1, Shapiro 2, Beshear 1, Klobuchar 1

 

Ocasio-Cortez+1

 

2028 New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary

UNH

Vance 36, Rubio 26, Haley 8, Paul 8, DeSantis 6, Gabbard 4, Kennedy , Cruz 0, Youngkin 0, Ramaswamy

 

Vance+10

 

2026 Minnesota Senate - Democratic Primary

KSTP/SurveyUSA

Flanagan 40, Craig 40

 

Tie

 

2026 Minnesota Senate - Republican Primary

KSTP/SurveyUSA

Tafoya 41, White 10, Weiler 7, Schwarze 5

 

Tafoya+31

 

 

 

Race

Poll

Results

Spread

Wednesday, July 22

2026 Minnesota Governor - Republican Primary

KSTP/SurveyUSA

Lindell 35, Demuth 26, Qualls 11

 

Lindell+9

 

2026 Wisconsin Governor - Democratic Primary

Marquette

Hong 26, Barnes 15, Crowley , Roys 1, Brennan 2

 

Hong+11

 

2026 Wisconsin Governor - Tiffany vs. Hong

Marquette

Tiffany 43, Hong 40

 

Tiffany+3

 

2026 Wisconsin Governor - Tiffany vs. Barnes

Marquette

Barnes 44, Tiffany 40

 

Barnes+4

 

President Trump Job Approval

FOX News

Approve 39, Disapprove 61

 

Disapprove+22

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

FOX News

Democrats 53, Republicans 46

 

Democrats+7

 

President Trump Job Approval - Iran

FOX News

Approve 34, Disapprove 66

 

Disapprove+32

 

Tuesday, July 21

2026 Maine Senate - Collins vs. Jackson

UNH

Jackson 49, Collins 46

 

Jackson+3

 

2026 Maine Governor - Charles vs. Pingree vs. Bennett

UNH

Pingree 49, Charles 35, Bennett 6

 

Pingree+14

 

President Trump Job Approval

Economist/YouGov

Approve 40, Disapprove 58

 

Disapprove+18

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Economist/YouGov

Democrats 46, Republicans 41

 

Democrats+5

 

Direction of Country

Economist/YouGov

Right Direction 30, Wrong Track 63

 

Wrong Track+33

 

Monday, July 20

2026 Florida Governor - Donalds vs. Jolly

Univ. of North Florida

Donalds 46, Jolly 41

 

Donalds+5

 

2026 Florida Senate Special Election - Moody vs. Vindman

Univ. of North Florida

Moody 50, Vindman 40

 

Moody+10

 

2026 Florida Senate Special Election - Moody vs. Nixon

Univ. of North Florida

Moody 50, Nixon 42

 

Moody+8

 

2026 Florida Governor - Republican Primary

Cygnal

Donalds 43, Fishback 12, Collins 11, Renner 2

 

Donalds+31

 

President Trump Job Approval

Morning Consult

Approve 44, Disapprove 53

 

Disapprove+9

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Morning Consult

Democrats 46, Republicans 43

 

Democrats+3

 

Direction of Country

Rasmussen Reports

Right Direction 36, Wrong Track 58

 

Wrong Track+22

 

Saturday, July 18

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Wash Post/Ipsos

Democrats 48, Republicans 45

 

Democrats+3

 

President Trump Job Approval - Iran

RMG Research*

Approve 40, Disapprove 53

 

Disapprove+13

 

Friday, July 17

President Trump Job Approval

RMG Research*

Approve 44, Disapprove 53

 

Disapprove+9

 

President Trump Job Approval

CNBC

Approve 40, Disapprove 59

 

Disapprove+19

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

CNBC

Democrats 49, Republicans 45

 

Democrats+4

 

Thursday, July 16

2026 Michigan Senate - Democratic Primary

Data for Progress (D)**

El-Sayed 54, Stevens 41

 

El-Sayed+13

 

South Carolina Senate Republican Special Primary

Emerson

Graham Nordone 6, Norman 16, Evette 10, Fry 9, Lynch 13, Sanford 5, Mace 10

 

Norman+3

 

2026 California Governor - Hilton vs. Becerra

PPIC

Becerra 61, Hilton 36

 

Becerra+25

 

President Trump Job Approval

Wash Post/Ipsos

Approve 40, Disapprove 59

 

Disapprove+19

 

President Trump Job Approval - Iran

Wash Post/Ipsos

Approve 32, Disapprove 67

 

Disapprove+35

 

Wednesday, July 15

2026 South Dakota Governor - GOP Runoff (Rhoden vs. Doeden)

Emerson

Rhoden 62, Doeden 32

 

Rhoden+30

 

2026 Pennsylvania Governor - Garrity vs. Shapiro

Quinnipiac

Shapiro 53, Garrity 40

 

Shapiro+13

 

President Trump Job Approval

Echelon Insights**

Approve 38, Disapprove 61

 

Disapprove+23

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Echelon Insights**

Democrats 50, Republicans 44

 

Democrats+6

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

RMG Research**

Democrats 47, Republicans 45

 

Democrats+2

 

2028 Democratic Presidential Nomination

Echelon Insights**

Harris 21, Newsom 14, Buttigieg 13, Ocasio-Cortez 9, Shapiro 7, Kelly 4, Ossoff 3, Pritzker 3, Beshear 3, Booker 2

 

Harris+7

 

2028 Republican Presidential Nomination

Echelon Insights**

Vance 38, Rubio 15, Trump Jr. 8, DeSantis 9, Kennedy Jr. 3, Haley , Cruz 2, Ramaswamy 3, Carlson 2

 

Vance+23

 

2028 Michigan Democratic Presidential Primary

Detroit News/Glengariff

Harris 25, Buttigieg 19, Ocasio-Cortez 12, Newsom 10, Kelly 8, Shapiro 4, Pritzker 2, Moore 2

 

Harris+6

 

Tuesday, July 14

2026 Michigan Senate - Democratic Primary

Detroit News/Glengariff

El-Sayed 41, Stevens 48

 

Stevens+7

 

President Trump Job Approval

Harvard-Harris

Approve 42, Disapprove 54

 

Disapprove+12

 

President Trump Job Approval

Morning Consult

Approve 45, Disapprove 52

 

Disapprove+7

 

·          

·          

Latest Polls

Name of Race

Race

Poll

Results

Spread

Tuesday, July 14

President Trump Job Approval

Economist/ YouGov

Approve 40Disapprove 58

 

Disapprove+18

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Economist/YouGov

Democrats 46Republicans 42

 

Democrats+4

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Morning Consult

Democrats 46Republicans 43

 

Democrats+3

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Harvard-Harris

Democrats 51Republicans 49

 

Democrats+2

 

Direction of Country

Harvard-Harris

Right Direction 35Wrong Track 55

 

Wrong Track+20

 

Direction of Country

Economist/ YouGov

Right Direction 32Wrong Track 62

 

Wrong Track+30

 

President Trump Job Approval - Iran

Economist/ YouGov

Approve 36Disapprove 59

 

Disapprove+23

 

President Trump Job Approval - Iran

Harvard-Harris

Approve 49Disapprove 51

 

Disapprove+2

 

2028 Democratic Presidential Nomination

Harvard-Harris

Harris 37Newsom 24, Buttigieg 10, Ocasio-Cortez 9, Shapiro 9, Kelly , Ossoff , Pritzker 5, Beshear , Booker

 

Harris+13

 

2028 Republican Presidential Nomination

Harvard-Harris

Vance 42Rubio 22, Trump Jr. 18, DeSantis 0, Kennedy Jr. 6, Haley 6, Cruz , Ramaswamy , Carlson 3

 

Vance+20

 

Monday, July 13

2026 North Carolina Senate - Whatley vs. Cooper

PPP

Cooper 48Whatley 44

 

Cooper+4

 

Direction of Country

Rasmussen Reports

Right Direction 39Wrong Track 55

 

Wrong Track+16

 

Saturday, July 11

President Trump Job Approval

2Way/HarrisX

Approve 45Disapprove 54

 

Disapprove+9

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

2Way/HarrisX

Democrats 51Republicans 49

 

Democrats+2

 

Direction of Country

2Way/HarrisX

Right Direction 35Wrong Track 57

 

Wrong Track+22

 

Friday, July 10

2028 Republican Presidential Nomination

Daily Mail

Vance 51Rubio 15, Trump Jr. , DeSantis 9, Kennedy Jr. , Haley 2, Cruz 6, Ramaswamy 2, Carlson

 

Vance+36

 

Wednesday, July 8

2026 Georgia Senate - Collins vs. Ossoff

Wick**

Ossoff 47Collins 43

 

Ossoff+4

 

2026 Georgia Governor - Jackson vs. Lance Bottoms

Wick**

Lance Bottoms 43Jackson 43

 

Tie

 

President Trump Job Approval

2Way/HarrisX

Approve 43Disapprove 54

 

Disapprove+11

 

President Trump Job Approval

Quantus Insights

Approve 43Disapprove 55

 

Disapprove+12

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Quantus Insights

Democrats 47Republicans 42

 

Democrats+5

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Cygnal

Democrats 50Republicans 44

 

Democrats+6

 

Direction of Country

Cygnal

Right Direction 36Wrong Track 60

 

Wrong Track+24

 

Direction of Country

Quantus Insights

Right Direction 38Wrong Track 62

 

Wrong Track+24

 

2028 Republican Presidential Nomination

Quantus Insights

Vance 42Rubio 26, Trump Jr. , DeSantis 9, Kennedy Jr. , Haley 3, Cruz 4, Ramaswamy , Carlson

 

Vance+16

 

2028 Democratic Presidential Nomination

Quantus Insights

Harris 35Newsom 18, Buttigieg 13, Ocasio-Cortez 11, Shapiro 7, Kelly , Ossoff , Pritzker , Beshear , Booker

 

Harris+17

 

2028 Democratic Presidential Nomination

Daily Mail

Harris 29Newsom 15, Buttigieg 11, Ocasio-Cortez 6, Shapiro 4, Kelly 5, Ossoff 2, Pritzker 3, Beshear 3, Booker 4

 

Harris+14

 

Tuesday, July 7

2026 Arizona Governor - Republican Primary

Noble Predictive Insights

Biggs 60Schweikert 10, Neely 2, Miceli 1

 

Biggs+50

 

President Trump Job Approval

Morning Consult

Approve 45Disapprove 53

 

Disapprove+8

 

President Trump Job Approval

Economist/YouGov

Approve 40Disapprove 58

 

Disapprove+18

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Economist/YouGov

Democrats 46Republicans 43

 

Democrats+3

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Morning Consult

Democrats 45Republicans 42

 

Democrats+3

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Rasmussen Reports

Democrats 46Republicans 42

 

Democrats+4

 

Direction of Country

Rasmussen Reports

Right Direction 33Wrong Track 60

 

Wrong Track+27

 

Direction of Country

Economist/ YouGov

Right Direction 32Wrong Track 61

 

Wrong Track+29

 

Monday, July 6

President Trump Job Approval

I&I/TIPP

Approve 38Disapprove 54

 

Disapprove+16

 

President Trump Job Approval

Financial Times

Approve 36Disapprove 56

 

Disapprove+20

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Financial Times

Democrats 49Republicans 42

 

Democrats+7

 

2026 Generic Congressional Vote

Daily Mail

Democrats 50Republicans 42

 

Democrats+8

 

2028 Democratic Presidential Nomination

Financial Times

Harris 33Newsom 15, Buttigieg 8, Ocasio-Cortez 9, Shapiro 7, Kelly 5, Ossoff 2, Pritzker 3, Beshear 2, Booker

 

Harris+18

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORRECTIONS to DJI (7/24)

ATTACHMENTS FIFTEEN to TWENTY TWO

 

“The impact of AI is also being felt around the world.  India, the most populous nation and a rising economic power, has a unique problem... too many young people who want to get ahead via higher education colliding with an antiquated and restricted university system that exludes millions from necessary professions and consigns them to, at best, low-paid tech support positions for American and other richer countries’ corporations.

“Revolution has occurred, but not the sort of Bastille, Marxist or even Venezuelan total overhaul of the political and economic establishment but, rather a specified demand – “the education minister's resignation following repeated leaks of a medical entrance exam that millions of students see as determining their futures” (1440, ATTACHMENT FIFTEEN)

Like other revolutions, however, it has also engendered violence and mass actions – and, with half its 1.5 billion people under age thirty, more than 2 million students compete annually for roughly 130,000 medical school spots. Families borrow money or even sell land to pay for years of private tutoring, while the competitive exam culture has also raised concerns about students' mental health.

After India's chief justice compared unemployed young people to "parasites" and "cockroaches" during a Supreme Court hearing, the de-enrolled students adopted the namesake Cockroach Janta Party and security forces “used tear gas and batons to disperse tens of thousands of people marching on the Parliament in one of the largest protests against Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government in years.”  (New York Times, July 20, ATTACHMENT 15.A)

“By day’s end, the police crackdown, in which protesters were beaten up, appeared to have dispersed much of the crowd. The exact number of protesters injured was not clear, but Indian medireported that over 100 people had been brought to two hospitals in Delhi.

“Police officials told Indian news outlets that at least 50 of their personnel were also injured.

“Over 60 protesters were arrested, according to lawyers who were rallying legal help for them,” according to the Times.

Public anger over the exam scandal had been simmering since May, when more than two million students who took India’s biggest entrance exam for medical school found out that the results would be scrapped because the questions had been leaked and that they would have to retake the test.

“Such leaks have become a frequent problem in recent years, and news reports in India that some students have died by suicide because of the stress have intensified the outrage. The movement has since grown into broader discontent over the failings of the Indian education system and the lack of accountability in governance,” and police forcibly removed Sonam Wangchuk, a prominent activist who had been on hunger strike at the protest site to a hospital for court-ordered essential medical care, despite opposition from his family and fellow protesters.

“Seeing the brutality with which peacefully protesting youth are being dealt with, I have decided to continue my fast,” Mr. Wangchuk, who has been held at a hospital against his will, said in a statement.

Amit Malviya, who is in charge of the ruling party’s social media wing, tried to downplay the scale of the protest.

“This hardly looks like a protest that enjoys support beyond professional agitators and ideological groups,” he said on X.

And the mob adopted its name after Indian Chief Justice Surya Kant called the medical student wannabees “cockroaches, who don't get any employment and don't have any place in the profession. Some of them become media, some of them become social media, some of them become RTI activists, some of them become other activists, and they start attacking everyone." (“X” ATTACHMENT FIFTEEN.B)

By Monday afternoon, a senior member of PM Narendra Modi’s cabinet, J.P. Nadda, met with representatives of the movement, the first such outreach since the protests began. The movement’s leaders have issued three specific demands: the immediate resignation of the education minister, Dharmendra Pradhan; the discharge from the hospital of Mr. Wangchuk; and compensation for the families those students who died by suicide.

Mr. Pradhan is seen as close to Mr. Modi, having played an important role in recent victories by his Bharatiya Janata Party, or B.J.P., in key state elections. The education minister has previously brushed the protesters aside, calling them “the B-team of terrorists.”

          The outcome?  See DJI of July 31st.

 

Israeli influencers at Calcalistech.com (July 15, ATTACHMENT SIXTEEN) interviewed techsperts like Dr. Eldad Rom (an organizational psychologist and partner at Team8, who works primarily with founders and senior executives) who warned the workers of the world that: "AI will not necessarily replace you, but you may be replaced by someone in your profession who knows how to use AI platforms better."

Perhaps fortunately for India’s cockroach students and Americans dismayed by the skyrocketing costs of higher education, Efrat Shapira, Senior Vice President of Human Resources at @Ness, now believes that a person “does not necessarily need a bachelor's degree for me to recruit them for a development role if they have learned independently and can demonstrate the required abilities."

 

SO WHAT SHOULD PEOPLE STUDY?

"What you love," Shapira says. "The world is changing."

Rom said one of the most important skills in the AI era is the ability to remain comfortable without immediate answers and that AI can create false confidence.

"AI provides answers with a great deal of confidence, but confidence does not necessarily mean correctness."

"Humans have always struggled with ambiguity and uncertainty, which is why we create anchors. But today we live in a world where every question appears to have an answer within seconds. The ability to remain with an open question long enough for something meaningful to emerge is becoming extremely valuable."

"Many executives and board members still view the AI revolution primarily as a technological revolution. But that is only half the story," said Ayalla Reuven-Lelong, CEO of global consulting firm EQ.el.

"Within a few years, AI will become a basic workplace tool, just like computers, the internet and smartphones. The question will no longer be who uses AI, but who knows how to create more value with it."

And with more AI coming and necessitating more devices that necessitate even higher torrents of electrical power, President Trump has done another of his famous pivots and now supports legislation that answers widespread public hostility to the AI data centers by ostensibly shielding households from electricity costs tied to the AI boom, as he pushes to make the United States the global leader in artificial intelligence.  (Reuters, July 22, ATTACHMENT SEVENTEEN)

Despite corporate accusations of NIMBYhood, data center opposition has gone bipartisan.  "Today’s electricity system forces almost everyone, from homeowners to hyperscale data centers, to depend on the same network," Travis Fisher, director of energy and environmental policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, recently wrote.

"That one-size-fits-all model increasingly does not serve either group well. Large customers may wait a decade or longer for service, while ordinary ratepayers worry that expanding the grid for massive new industrial loads will ultimately increase their own bills."

Reuters added that the White House its pledge, “which is nonbinding”, will now cover 80% of all the power delivered to U.S. homes and businesses.

And the nonbindinatory status has failed to quell opposition from local activists, homeowners and ratepayers.

KPNX TV in Arizona, via MSN (ATTACHMENT EIGHTEEN) found Phoenicians calling the prospect of higher utility rates as oppressive as the desert heat indices of late as another data center is under construction in suburban Ahwatukee near 48th Street and Chandler Boulevard.

“Lots of people don’t like the idea of a new data center coming to Ahwatukee,” opined KPNX, “sharing concerns about the noise, and how much water and power this project would demand.”

"With the Ratepayer Protection Pledge, we're creating a fair deal for everybody," President Trump has said. "This is how we'll grow our economy, lower the cost of living, protect American consumers and lead the world in AI, and high tech all at the same time. We want to lead the world.”

But while the White House pushes this new pledge, people in Ahwatukee told WPNX they don’t trust him, and “plan to continue protesting the construction of a new data center in the area.”

Stoking the heat index of data center protests, CNN found environmentalists contending that the facilities are not only gulping down power that has to be paid for by human neighbors, but “are creating “heat islands,” warming the land around them by up to 16 degrees Fahrenheit, and making life hotter for more than 340 million people.”

For example, with Phoenix routinely hitting 116° over the past weeks, the actual temperature in their vicinity would be 132° and the heat indices... despite the dry, Southwest climate, sometime approaching

 

@get data on life threatening HEAT

 

Andrea Marinoni, associate professor with the Earth Observation group at the U.K.’s University of Cambridge, and an author of the study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, told CNN that “surface temperatures increased by an average of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit after a data center started operations” while in “extreme cases”, nearby temperatures shot up to the aforementioned 16.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Citing climate data from Mexico, Spain and other locations where data centers are now already operating, the scientists called their findings “particularly alarming” because AI data centers “are set to boom over the next few years, and these temperature rises come as planet-warming pollution is already making heat waves more extreme around the world.”

The planned scale up of data centers “could have dramatic impacts on society” in terms of the environment, people’s welfare and the economy, Marinoni told CNN.

Deborah Andrews, emeritus professor of design for sustainability and circularity at London South Bank University, who was not involved in the research, said there are plenty of concerns over the impacts of data centers but this was the first paper she’d seen focusing specifically on the heat islands they produce.

“The ‘rush for AI-gold’ appears to be overriding good practice and systemic thinking,” she said, “and is developing far more rapidly than any broader, more sustainable systems.”

 

A glaring example of corporate stupidy was on display from no other than Larry Ellison, whom the DJI calls the “most evil human being in America.”

Add to that – most stupid.

Ellison, who empire includes tech hippo Oracle and worker surveillance Taleo emerged as a major supplier of AI computing capacity after reportedly signing a $300 billion contract with OpenAI requiring a huge new data center in Wisconsin, but the data centers needed to fulfill that agreement have contributed to a cash crunch. Oracle, being the Oracle that it is, subsequently pursued thousands of job cuts as it looked for ways to fund its expansion, Reuters reported in March.  (Yahoo Finance, July 22, ATTACHMENT TWENTY)  By the end of its 2026 fiscal year, Oracle's workforce had fallen by approximately 21,000 employees, or 13%, from 162,000 to 141,000.

Under We Energies' "very large customer" tariff, data center operators with an S&P credit rating below A- must provide collateral covering the power plants and transmission infrastructure constructed to serve them.

Oracle was rated BBB, two notches below the threshold, when the requirements were considered. S&P subsequently downgraded the company to BBB-, leaving it one notch above junk status.

Joined by Amazon, Microsoft and META in firing human beings to feed their AI robots, Oracle's dispute in Wisconsin showed that cutting payroll and raising money may not be enough.  “As data centers consume more power and require billions of dollars in new electrical infrastructure, companies must also convince utilities and regulators that their AI bets are financially sound,” Reuters concluded.

And TV capitalist Mark Cuban told Business Insider that AI efficiency gains could lead to obsolete data centers “being turned over to pickleball fans” long before they recoup their costs.  (ATTACHMENT TWENTY ONE)

A less jocular take on the tech... in fact, inferring that AI could cause a new Great Depression... was postulated by Douglas McIntyre of 247WallSt.com.(July 20, ATTACHMENT TWENTY TWO)

The bad news, McIntyre wrote, is that AI generated unemployment will shatter the US tax base falls apart.  “Tax revenue from individuals is 80% of the income collected by the IRS and Social Security. The $7 trillion needed to run the federal government takes a hit that is beyond imagination. Social security falls apart as payouts become a fraction of what they are today. The US’s inability to pay off its debt triggers a default. US borrowing costs soar.”

There will be some jobs around, but only for a few high priced clerks and coders – more of the downsized will have to work in service jobs, such as medical personnel, athletes, and musicians... at best... more likely as minwage fry guys, Door Dash drivers and, filling the ICE expulsion deportations, grass cutters, dog walkers, senior nursing home bedpan emptiers and those guys who hold up signs on highway construction projects.

A 15% unemployment rate is halfway between the peak 10% level of the Great Recession and the Great Depression’s peak of 24.9% in 1933. At 15%, both the stock market and housing market suffer. “The core of American individual net worth gets damaged.”

The US federal government deficit “will be about $2 trillion this year,” McIntyre wrote.  (DJI/Debt Clock indices for the first seven months this year are running about half that)  “If the government deficit rises very rapidly and much higher than that, the financial strain starts to become unimaginable.”

Perhaps a way to sop up the surplus will be find more wars to start... boots on the ground in Iran?  Greenland?  Canada?... draft the unemployed and send them out to do their patriotic duty and worry about VA expenses later.

RETURN to ORIGINAL