The term carpetbaggers was used in the South after the Civil War to describe Northerners who came to the South during Reconstruction to make money off of the defeated and disadvantaged populace.

Southerners regarded them as interlopers who were just passing through because of the carpetbags in which they carried their possessions (hence the name carpetbaggers).

The majority of the carpetbaggers planned on settling down in the South and taking advantage of the war-ravaged South and the commercial opportunities that itsa Reconstruction offered.

History has made the term carpetbagger synonymous with corruption in political affairs.

Unfortunately, America now has a new group of carpetbaggers profiting from our national misery.

For example, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) increased her net worth by 62 percent last year, basking in the glow of her status as one of Congress’ wealthiest members.

According to a financial disclosure report released Wednesday, the former Majority Leader (Thank you, Lord) was worth at least $35.2 million in 2010. She publically claimed at least $43.4 million in assets and around $8.2 milion in liabilities.

In 2009, Pelosi’s minimum net worth was $21.7 million.

Forms disclosing the assets and liabilities of lawmakers for the 2010 calendar year were released Wednesday. The forms give a good estimate of lawmaker wealth, though they show ranges and not precise values for stocks, pension plans, vacation homes and other assets of lawmakers.

Pelosi’s enormous gain in personal riches was due to some stock gains and real estate investments made by her husband, Paul.

Paul Pelosi’s acquired stock in Apple Corporation rose from at around $500,000 in 2009 to $1 million in 2010. And, if that’s not enough, Nancy’s main squeeze’s investment in Matthews International Capital Management was worth at least $5 million last year, as compared to $1 million in 2009.

Paul Pelosi also scored big with his investment in some undeveloped residential real estate in Sacramento, Calif., which rose to at least $5 million in value.

And, just for fun, Paul Pelosi also dabbles in the United Football League, holding a $1 million partnership interest in the Jacksonville, Fla., franchise and a $5 million partnership interest in the Sacramento Lions.

However, San Fran Nan is not the only one who doesn’t have to worry about getting a new job when they lose this one.  On August 31, 2010, foxnews.com published the following list of the Top 10 Wealthiest members of Congress, which includes 7 Democrats (8, if you include Pelosi) and 3 Republicans:

1. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.): $188.6 million

2. Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.): $160.1 million

3. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.): $152.3 million

4. Sen. Jay Rockefeller ( D-W.Va.): $83.7 million

5. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas): $73.8 million

6. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.); $70.2 million

7. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.): $56.5 million

8. Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.): $53.5 million

9. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.): $49.7 million

10. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.): $46.1 million

And, while, our erstwhile public servants were lining their pockets, washington times.com reported, as of April 13, 2010, that:

Real personal income for Americans – excluding government payouts such as Social Security – has fallen by 3.2 percent since President Obama took office in January 2009, according to the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis.

For comparison, real personal income during the first 15 months in office for President George W. Bush, who inherited a milder recession from his predecessor, dropped 0.4 percent. Income excluding government payouts increased 12.7 percent during Mr. Bush’s eight years in office.

“This is hardly surprising,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an economist and former director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. “Under President Obama, only federal spending is going up; jobs, business startups, and incomes are all down. It is proof that the government can’t spend its way to prosperity.”

According to the bureau’s statistics, per capita income dropped during 2009 in 47 states, with only modest gains in the other states, West Virginia, Maine and Maryland. But most of those increases were attributed to rising income from the government, such as Medicare and unemployment benefits.

With America in such a horrible economic recession last year, what did Congress spend our money on? On October 13, 2010 wsj.com reported the following:

Spending rolled in for the year that ended September 30 at $3.45 trillion, second only to 2009’s $3.52 trillion in the record books. But don’t think this means Washington was relatively less spendthrift. CBO reports that the modest overall spending decline results from three one-time events.

The costs of TARP declined by $262 billion from 2009 as banks repaid their bailout cash, payments to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were $51 billion lower (though still a $40 billion net loser for the taxpayer), and deposit insurance payments fell by $55 billion year over year. “Excluding those three programs, spending rose by about 9 percent in 2010, somewhat faster than in recent years,” CBO says.

Somewhat faster. You’ve got to laugh, or cry, when a 9% annual increase qualifies as only “somewhat faster” than normal.

What did Washington spend more money on? Well, despite two wars, defense spending rose by 4.7% to $667 billion, down from an annual average increase of 8% from 2005 to 2009.

Once again domestic accounts far and away led the increases. Medicaid rose by 8.7%, and unemployment benefits by an astonishing 34.3%—to $160 billion. The costs of jobless insurance have tripled in two years. CBO adds that if you take out the savings for deposit insurance, funding for all “other activities” of government—education, transportation, foreign aid, housing, and so on—rose by 13% in 2010.

Don’t get me wrong.  I am a Capitalist.  However, in the following Congressional Oath of Office, I don’t see a Growth of Personal Wealth Clause, do you?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter:  So help me God.

Perhaps, especially for our Democrat Congresscritters, we should add the following phrase to the end of the oath:

Now…Show me the money!