MA Democrat Rep. Ayanna Pressley Joins Fellow ‘Squad’ Member Ilhan Omar in the Millionaire Club
“Ayanna Pressley is a hypocrite who preaches socialism while pocketing millions”
Last week, we learned that Minnesota Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar is worth millions, despite her dedication to the Bernie Sanders school of claiming to hate wealthy people.
Now it is being revealed that Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Ayanna Pressley is also worth more than a million. And Pressley, who has often been critical of landlords, is making her money in real estate. How nice for her.
According to this report, Pressley also owns a property on Martha’s Vineyard. What is it with Democrats and the Vineyard, anyway?
From the New York Post:
Squad’s Ayanna Pressley reaps windfall as Boston landlord, joining Omar in millionaire club: ‘hypocrite’
Lefty Rep. Ayanna Pressley – who once camped out on the Capitol steps for taxpayer-funded rent relief — reaped a windfall as a Boston landlord last year, The Post has learned.
Pressley (D-Mass) and her ex-con hubby, management consultant Conan Harris raked in up to a staggering $350,000 in profit last year from a property sale and rental income that includes a decidedly capitalist pad on Martha’s Vineyard, Pressley’s 2024 annual financial disclosure reveals.
Financial disclosures show Pressley — who disclosed as much as $8 million in assets, the first time she’s declared over $1 million — now joins Squad comrade Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Mich.) in the millionaire’s club, a far cry from the working-class warrior image she tries to project.
“Ayanna Pressley is a hypocrite who preaches socialism while pocketing millions,” Republican National Committee spokeswoman Kiersten Pels told The Post.
“She tells everyday Americans they must be forced to defund the police and live with sky-high crime in their communities while indulging in private security. Pressley is a fraud – just like the rest of the Squad.”
Pressley’s good fortune is a massive jump from the $15,000 the Democrat lawmaker declared in rental income back in 2020, when she owned just one property – the couple’s gated home in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Boston they converted to a multi-family building for extra cash, disclosures show.
Pressley’s real estate investments have been known for a while. Back in 2021, she was joining other Democrats in a campaign aimed at landlords, which sought to cancel rents.
The Foundation for Economic Education reported at the time:
“Landlord” has become a dirty word in progressive politics. From the #CancelRent movement to support for the CDC’s unlawful “eviction moratorium,” prominent left-wing politicians want the government to back the “good guys,” renters, at the expense of the “bad guys,” landlords. So, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley may have some explaining to do.
The Massachusetts Democrat and #CancelRent advocate has apparently been a landlord for several years now, according to new investigative reporting. She has reportedly earned tens of thousands of dollars in rental income from a Boston property.
Pressley was tweeting about it.
Keeping families housed is a matter of public health.
We must cancel rent, extend eviction and foreclosure moratoriums, provide rental assistance, and offer legal representation for those at risk of eviction. This is a public health emergency.https://t.co/jmHEmfVjVa
— Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (@RepPressley) December 1, 2020
America needs us to cancel rent. https://t.co/74EvaooJ05
— Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (@RepPressley) August 10, 2020
Have you noticed that all of these so-called Democratic Socialists are curiously wealthy? AOC, Omar, Pressley, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Zohran Mamdani. Rich elitists, every one of them.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The Marxist, racist human “milk dud” and her felonious husband. What a pair.
Today I break down and admit my kitchen floor needs waxing.
Bankrupt people like Pressley scream power to the people as they line their own pockets through public service.
“Power to the people” inevitably means power to the people who scream “power to the people”, not actually power to the people.
One in six households in the US is a millionaire household.
This is mostly due to the increase in property values. Should the housing market tank again, their “wealth” will disappear.
Better question is how many in Congress are, especially before and after their service. Others that generate their wealth privately, no issue.
Most of Congress is older, and has therefore probably accumulated enough wealth to own their home.
And most of Congress generates its wealth privately, since reports are for the member and their spouse and dependent children. The spouse, of course, is engaged full time in earning a living however it is they earn it.
So what? If you want to shield information for some lame contrarian need, that’s on you. Biden pretended to be a poor man. There is no harm whatsoever in transparency regarding public servants, people that are paid with tax dollars. And since you really don’t know, it’s pure speculation disguised as knowledge.
Who said anything about shielding information? The question was how congressmen are getting rich, and the answer is that it’s not surprising, and they’re generating their wealth privately.
However, since you bring up transparency, while public servants are paid with tax dollars, their spouses are not. So the fact that we do make them report their assets and income, which is how we get these sensational stories in the first place, shows that we’re getting more information than we really have any valid claim to. The reporting requirements are an infringement on the spouses’ rights; and they have done nothing to forfeit those rights. They didn’t choose for their spouse to run for office, and it’s unfair to demand that they divorce their spouse if they don’t want to give up their privacy. However, that is how things are now.
The average congressional campaign spending is $3 million.
The salary of a House member is $174k per year
The term of a House member is 2 years.
The math show that “however it is they earn it” points to only one thing: the seat is more important for their prosperity than the paycheck.
No, it doesn’t. A candidate doesn’t usually pay for their own campaign. People who want to see them elected help them with that. That’s not a benefit to the candidate but to the donor and the general public.
By the time someone is elected they usually own a house, which increases in value while they’re in office. They often have a business which continues to run and give them some income. And their spouse usually has an income of their own. You’re ignoring all that and supposing that the net total value of the couple should increase by only $175K a year, minus the cost of living.
Again, so what? It’s on you if you completetly misinterpret the matter, which you did, to offer useless information that diverts and, yes, obscures, the point that looking at Congress would be a good way to see who is making a buck off public service. Maybe next time, just be quiet!
Your “point” makes no sense. I don’t know what you mean by “looking at Congress”. If you mean looking at the financial disclosures, they don’t tell you who is making a buck off public service. In many or most cases any increase in their family’s economic position has no connection to their public service.
My own take was that if she lives in Massachusetts, and owns rental property on the Vineyard, if she wasn’t a millionaire by now, she would have to be a total vegetable.
Americans have got to take the garbage out and clean up for sale government
So tired of being gang mugged and robbed
This is why the left had a “no more billionaires” protest on Labor day. Way too many of their so-called leaders had joined the millionaire club and they at least had enough self awareness to understand it would be hypocritical to continue to protest themselves.
Sure, I’ll go along with “cancel the rent” when she stops charging rent on her properties.
even the left knows their people are hypocrites
but as long as they destroy the wht patriarchy
they will support the garbage
Just another Dhimmi-crat apparatchik hypocrite and piece of excrement.
Vilifying the wealthy (most of whom actually earned their money, rather than obtaining it by grift/hustling), while reaping obscene and undeserved lucre.
The same shuck-and-jive hustle as practiced by Sharpton, narcissist-incompetent-dunce, Obama, Comrade Sanders and too many Dhimmi-crat subversives “of color” and otherwise.
No, she isn’t. Her husband claims that his businesses are worth millions. We don’t know whether that’s actually true, but that’s what they filed. But her own worth hasn’t changed. Her husband’s money is not hers.
At least in Pressley’s case the properties appear to be jointly owned.
Beware of that “up to”, and “as much as”. Disclosures are in a range. For instance, Omar’s husband’s assets were declared to be between $6M and $30M; we have no way of knowing where in the range they’re supposed to lie (assuming the report is even accurate). When a news story cites only the top of the range and not the bottom, be suspicious.
Same thing. Stop being a tool with stupid arguments like that in your haste to prove everyone wrong. MN is not a community property state but it does treat all wealth including real estate and businesses acquired during marriage as equitable property for division if a divorce happens. In other words, the husband and wife are joint owners. There is no question her and her husbands sudden wealth occurred after they got married. Strange is just so happened to occur during the hundreds of millions in grafter the Somali’s in MN stole from the government. Hell, one of the main characters now on his way to jail is a good friend of hers.
No, it didn’t.
Oh, look. The angry bald black lady has adopted the giant plastic ironic glasses look. Makes me totally forget what a vile racist woman she is.
She should get a wig from Maxine.
To be fair, she’s not really being hypocritical.
It’s not capitalism when senior apparatchiks get rich by selling political favors, accepting…um…donations…and nepotism.
That’s pretty much the trademark of socialist societies.
“From each according to how much we can squeeze out of them, to each according to our standing in the Party.”