I had a good year last year thanks to the business I founded, so I'm in this top 1% of taxpayers, but I have exactly the same political influence as everybody else. Less, since I can't even vote in this country. And instead of 'bankrupting the government', my cofounder and I worked hard and created some jobs in the middle of a recession.
The fact that you chose not to spend your money and use your connections for political gain doesn't make your ability to do so any less noteworthy.
There's a knife in a knife rack in my kitchen. By your logic I should be jailed for stabbing someone, since I clearly have the ability to do it.
For the sake of argument, let's accept your premise - that in America, the government is subverted by well-funded lobbyists and cash contributions to politicians. Instead of getting angry at the top 1% of taxpayers, some of whom have nothing to do with this subversion, why don't you focus your anger a little more, and restrict it to the people who actually back the lobbyists and contribute the cash?
I'm a little uncomfortable being on the receiving end of such anger, just because my startup did alright. I'm sure there's plenty of others in that top 1% of taxpayers who similarly have nothing to do with what you're actually angry at.
These are the people who have orchestrated public policy in this country directly and indirectly for at least 30 years.
Now the suggestion comes up that the gov't that they bankrupted might actually expect them to pay for it, and a slew of people, none of whom are actually part of this top 1% group, start whining about what's fair and unfair.