As if the public needed more reason to disdain Congress - its 83 percent disapproval rating is the worst Gallup has measured in more than 30 years of tracking congressional job performance - now comes a report that in the past quarter century, when the wealth of the average American family declined, the median net worth of a member of the House of Representatives more than doubled.

This disparity appears emblematic of a disconnect between citizens and elected representatives who more than ever seem to act in political self-interest rather than in the public benefit.

The report by The Washington Post Tuesday shows that between 1984 and 2009 the median net worth of a U.S. representative shot up from $280,000 to $725,000 in inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars, excluding home equity. At the same time the typical family net worth slid from $20,600 to $20,500, according to the Panel Study of Income Dynamics from the University of Michigan.

Analysts chose 1984 as a benchmark because it is the earliest year for which consistent wealth statistics are available.

As the New York Times noted in a separate report on the same University of Michigan study, "Congress has never been a place for paupers. From plantation owners in the pre-Civil War era to industrialists in the early 1900s to ex-Wall Street financiers and Internet executives today, it has long been populated with the rich, including scions of families like the Guggenheims, Hearsts, Kennedys and Rockefellers."

But because so many Americans today are out of work, behind on their mortgages, and deep in debt, the contemporary contrast seems starker and the large increase in congressional wealth over the last quarter-century more alarming.

Before tarring every rich member of Congress with the same brush, it is important to note that multi-million dollar representatives embrace a broad spectrum of political belief.

For instance, the wealthiest member of the House, Republican Darrell Issa of California, with a net worth of $448,125,017, is one of the most conservative, but the sixth-richest member, Democrat Nancy Pelosi of California, with a net worth of $101,123,032, is among the most liberal.

Here in Connecticut, the richest representative, Rosa L. DeLauro of the Third District, with a net worth of $16,626,008, also is one of the House's most progressive members.

Elsewhere in the state, which has an all-Democratic delegation, Jim Himes of the Fourth District is the only other member of the millionaires club, with a net worth of $4,324,025. The other representatives are of substantially lesser means: Joe Courtney, Second District, $364,010; John B. Larson, First District, $280,004 and Christopher S. Murphy, Third District, $90,503.

Though the Washington Post analysis focused on members of the House, it also listed the net worth of U.S. senators, showing that the first seven of the top 10 are liberal-minded Democrats, including the richest, John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, with $231,722,794; and the sixth wealthiest, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, $73,151,590.

Connecticut's other senator, Joe Lieberman, a longtime Democrat who now calls himself an independent, and who won't be seeking re-election next year, reports a relatively modest - by senatorial standards - net worth of $1,981,541.

This newspaper doesn't necessarily begrudge politicians for their prosperity - after all, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy were among the greatest and wealthiest presidents. We also don't automatically consider less well-to-do ones, such as Ulysses S. Grant or James Buchanan, to have been working-class heroes.

But when so many of the people's representatives depend on powerful special interests to fund their campaigns; when they themselves enjoy the privileges of both extreme wealth and political power, one has to wonder how well they can really appreciate the trials and tribulations of the common working person or the struggling small businessman.