Is Romney Too Rich to Be President?

Gage SkidmoreWould you not vote for someone because they were too wealthy? I could not find a word that means anti-wealthy. If there is no word for despising affluence, then it must not exist. In a capitalist society, where the ultimate goal is to make more than your neighbor, and the size of your bank account is equal to your worth in society, hating on the rich would be equated with hating your own dream. If anyone is tired of rich politicians, I think it is time for a word that means “anti-fat cat”.

With the release of Romney’s Money earlier this week, the furor and anger over his wealth was palpable. Most of the anger, from Republican candidate Newt Gingrich and Washington Democrats, was directed to the measly 15% in taxes that made up his 2010 and 2011 tax returns. Is this man, worth 200 million dollars, paying his fair share to our democratic country? How is it possible that he made 21 million dollars without out doing any work other than cashing dividends?  Are these tax returns so heinous that I would refuse my vote, even though he broke no US law or did any wrong to any American citizen, other than being super rich?

There is shallow nature to my inquiry. To dislike a man for his wealth is the same as disliking him for any other characteristic that he has little control over. I think myself too civilized to not vote for a person because of gender, race, or sexual orientation. And of course, I would not vote for a person just because they were too poor. So in this manner, if I do not consider Romney for President because he is too wealthy, I am discriminating and not basing my decision on logic and what is best for the nation. I voted for John Kerry, the richest man in Congress, and his net worth was 180 million.

But I do not like rich people and I certainly don’t trust their motives because I do not believe we even remotely share the same country.  

The distrust or essential nature for the wealthy in this nation has been cause for discussion right from the beginning of our democracy. John Adams “Natural and Actual Aristocracy” spoke to the idea that a wealthy group or nobles could help balance government. Adams believed that the aristocracy needed a place in government to help keep them in check. The fear is that they would use their influence in the other levels of government to overrun the checks and balances. He proposed that with a branch of their own, their usefulness could be exploited while their negative actions could be curtailed.

Thomas Jefferson, Adams political and philosophical sparing partner, also had similar ideas  on the aristocracy and what place, if any, the group had in government.  They both agreed that natural aristocracy [meritocracy – people who worked through education, industry, and culture to reach the apex of power and influence in society] was an invaluable aspect to our nation’s future success. They both despised the idea of artificial aristocracy [people who rose to the pinnacle through wealthy family connections] as a plague because of the empty influence of money to bend their voting populace. They decided to leave it alone and leave the aristocracy out of government hoping for the best.

It is no secret that the wealthy have a firm hold in this nation’s political structure.  Yet for two hundred years our democracy has survived and the values of industry and education remain the ideals of a good American. If Romney becomes president, he will be the wealthiest individual to hold the executive office, but I believe Adams and Jefferson would say he is part of the noble, natural aristocracy. They would have no problem listening to his logic and deciding if his platform would benefit America’s future.

But I am not Jefferson or Adams. I am someone who looks at a fat bank account and becomes skeptical. You only run for office to do two things: change the course of America or keep it the same. Romney has benefited greatly by America and one so blessed would not change anything. For me, I want America to change and fix the economic inequities that create poverty, injustice, and corruption.

There is no word for the dislike of the rich, but maybe Anti-Romnite might catch on.  

Comments

[Patrick Edmonds]

What is discrimination? You raise an interesting question and express and often held paradox of hating the rich, thus hating the American Dream, for many, at the same time. However, I think the resentment toward the rich exists within the artificial aristocracy, which knowing little about Romney, I don't know if he is. I believe he made his millions through legitimate business endeavors and is somewhat self-made.

However, back to the issue of discrimination of voting, I believe this is the most widely practiced manner of voting in our country. The polarization of American political parties and their patrons is scary. The idea that people have only ever voted for one particular party is absurd and anti-democratic. The discrimination of political affiliation is rampant in this country, in every skyrise in big cities and every tobacco saloon in small towns.

This type of discrimination is indoctrinated into children just as much racial, religious, and gender from as early an age. So although I appreciate the question raised, I see it as a moot point for the Presidency because most will merely continue to vote their true colors.

Thanks for the ideas!

[Knownothing]

6.2 million in taxes on money that he was already taxed... seems fair, how many more million do you want him to pay? Don't be a hater, thank god there's rich people out there to tax, otherwise this country would fall apart... Thank you Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and all you other obscene rich people for creating so many jobs and paying so much in taxes!

[James Dugan]

I admit -- I am hater. Thank God for the rich or we would never know we are so poor.Thank God for their inordinate greed and willingness to control all processes and eventually become the ultimate, monopoly.

Why does Romney need blind trusts? What is he hiding in these investments?

I truly believe everyone who makes 1 million or under in one year should be taxed at 15% --after that 1,000,000 it is excessive and should be taxed at 75%. That seems fair. A movie actor gets paid 15 million for a film? Romney does no work and makes 21 million?

There is excessive wealth that is just flauting and immoral when there is such poverty in the world.

[James Dugan]

I do think that people do not change their voting pattern because we vote for our jobs. A presidential election and all elections should be about money and taxes. Social issues get the news and makes people look like they are a one issue voters. But we must allow the judges to decide that. When the president chooses them, it murkies the water.

Mixing economy with morality is bad business for voters.

[Knownothing]

The problem isn't the how much the rich get taxed, but how much we as a nation spend. Taxing them at 100 percent won't close out our debt. What is immoral is the government taking money from one American, and wasting it on inefficient and ineffective programs. it's immoral for our generation to pass the buck to the next generation for our bills... It's immoral for our government to progressively make the common man more dependent on the government vice themselves.

I want rich to Do their job; make jobs, buy things to create other jobs, and donate their money to causes that they think is morally right vice what others think is mortally a good use of their money.

[Knownothing]

But what do I know, I can't even spell....

[Nick Carraway]

Correction to your post. There is a word for hating the rich, actually a phrase, it is class warfare. That's exactly what this post is. While I agree the tax system should be much fairer at flatter, and ideally less income based, you can't expect government to just confiscate people's money if their income surpasses an arbitrary dollar amount. That's called theft and it amounts to tyranny. It's why the American revolution was fought. Who are you, King George III, or anyone else to decide when to limit a person's pursuit of happiness if it is not infringing on your own? If we had taxation at the levels you suggest, wouldn't that remove people's incentive to make a better life for themselves, and their families?

Back to Romney though, you are right to liken him to John Kerry. They are men so rich as to be able to buy political power and personal celebrity. I'm not a hater of them for their wealth, but I do distrust them for the transparent opportunism. It's hard to think that Romney sincerely wants to do anything but maintain whatever status quo will keep the lobbyists happy and himself in office.

I hope somebody radically different from Romney or Gingrich comes out on top of the Republican nomination process, otherwise it is going to be a messy campaign...

[Lady Godiva]

First, are you warranting the obscene amount of money actors make? Are you honestly saying they are well paid when they make upwards of 20 MILLION A FILM? And yet, you blame Romney for our poverty? There are so many things wrong with this post. You can't applaud actors who make a disgusting amount of money and claim it's well deserved when half the time they are pathetically ill equipped for the role and are perhaps solely eye candy for the screen. The fact that they look good means they should be paid that much? Hollywood is incredibly corrupt and I can't understand how you can agree they are well paid. I just don't understand that argument at all.
Secondly, one solution to the tax issue is with regard to the millions who DO NOT PAY. Period. They SHOULD and they DON'T. Tax evasion. Illegal immigrants. Clergy. And other members of society who don't put in, so now I have to put in MORE. How fair is that? And who is the government to tell me how much MORE is fair? If I am a charitable person on my own time and I pay taxes and am a law abiding citizen, then why keep taking ME? I feel I pay enough already. Make those who DON'T pay and/or who have NEVER paid START paying. Obama said in his State of the Union that EVERYONE should be the same essentially. Well, if that's true, let him reach in his pockets. Let him fly 3rd class. Let him stay in Marriotts and Holiday Inns and not in luxury $3500 a NIGHT hotels in HI because he can. Because he can ONLY do that with MY MONEY. And I don't want my money spent like that. How much staff does a First Lady actually NEED? Versus how much she WANTS?

If you want to place blame, you better make sure ALL "guilty" parties are involved. Not just the obsenely rich whom you claim didn't work and so therefore, they don't deserve it. How about unemployment for 6+ years? Where's those people's incentives? They don't "work" either, but they still have their handouts. At least these alleged horrible rich people, who have the RIGHT and luxury to be rich ADD to the economy and not to the deficit.

Finally, everyone spends money foolishly. Everyone desires to make more. People invent things like blogs and websites for the sole purposes of getting rich. What's wrong with that?

[mr. jimmy neutron]

Is Hollywood corrupt? Really? When an actor, actress, writer or director is pulling in $, they make $. When they stop drawing in crowds, they don't make $ anymore. Is that corruption, or is it Capitalism 101? Same goes for professional athletes- when their skills are no longer in demand, they no longer make the same $. It's not corruption, it's commerce.

As for Romney, comparing his situation to that of the welfare state, illegal immigrants, the unemployed, etc. is beyond just apples and oranges. Through the wealth that he grew up with (and which, granted, he did increase through his work at Bain Capital), he has been able to so work the system that he basically pays 1/2 of the effective tax rate that most, if not all, of us Lunch Breakers pay. So, shouldn't he basically be entitled to 1/2 of the police and fire protection as we have? Shouldn't his school district be 1/2 as funded as ours? Of course, these things would never happen- we protect the rich as a treasured national resource. They are called "tax shelters" for a reason.

Poverty is not a rational choice, if it is a choice at all. Most of the recipients of government financial aid do in fact work- check the stats. Some manage to stay on unemployment for 6 years, somehow, maybe, but they are a radical minority. Do I think they should have a free ride? No. I don't think they should pay any less, % wise, then we do. I also don't think that Romney and the rest of the extremely wealthy should pay any less, % wise, then we do.

Steve Forbes has it right 8 years ago- a simple, flat tax would be best. Some will always find ways around it, but for the majority of law abiding, non-corrupt citizens, this would be the fairest, most pro-American way to ensure equality.

[James Dugan]

Lady Godiva -- I don't care how much actors make -- as long as they pay their taxes fairly and not allow blind trusts to garner millions of dollars while pretending they are the common man.I don't have to vote for actors -- I wasn't old enough for Reagan.

I do not like people who are rich --- just over all -- but when I get to know them personally, they are usually pretty nice.

Why is it so bad to discriminate and stereotype rich people? And why do so many middle and lower class people protect them. I think Neutron is right -- they are a national treasure. Oh no, what will happen when they all move?

Rich people are rich on the back of government and people. They have sold jobs and enviromental causes across seas to make a profit. They flaunt their wealth or they ignore the real poverty that causes violence and desperation for the majority of us. Then they run for President with blind trusts.

Carraway, maybe I am King George -- didn't the founders get rich on slavery, both north and south? Didn't they use the protection from his country to protect their homes and pay for the war? Didn't they use his safe seas to transport their goods and wasn't their main consumers in England? Didn't they want a place where they could hide their wealth and then called it freedom?

America didn't get better until much later when we learned to use the founders' words in the true spirit of democracy.

Great comments and thanks to all. I missed the spirited lunch table.

[Patrick Edmonds]

I appreciate all this debate, and find it interesting as I just read that Romney won Florida. I think questioning his finances amidst these troubled times is reasonable, and to conclude that he isn't a worthy candidate on account of his manipulation of tax laws and breaks for his own avarice, while not illegal is considered immoral and unethical, an issue we have taken up here as a failing of most modern politicians.

I appreciate Dugan's reflection of history and reminder that although we all like hearken back to this bygone era of the founding fathers, we can not forget their own human exploitation for financial gain. And while it isn't as severe today, there is certainly wage slavery being condoned and promoted by our political leaders on both sides. I sat in disgust as Obama referred to the idea of American innovators, like Steve Jobs, who have created jobs here, and how the camera panned to his wife in the audience, completely neglecting the reality that Apple has sent tens of thousands of jobs overseas in deplorable conditions. It's such lip service.

And realistically, I don't discriminate against Romney because although he might be the richest, all of his competitors, Republican and Democratic, are part of an elitist institution that's so disconnected from the average burdens of the rest of society. Whether it's their financial or political capital, these individuals are all part of a system of exploitation and greed, all benefiting from gross cronyism to the end of power and control and nothing else, which is something we should all be wise to discriminate against.

[CJScalazetti]

One of my favorite expressions is "They [insert businessman, rich person, actor, athlete, etc] grew up on 3rd base yet think they hit a triple." Donald Trump, Paris Hilton, The Offspring of Will Smoth/Jada Pinkett...these are all people who want you to think that they busted their tail and had nothing ever handed to them when in fact they were born with a lottery ticket in their mouth. Does not mean they did not take their good fortune and improve upon it with hard work...just means that they began rich and continued rich. Alot easier than beginning poor.

I tend to put Romney in that category. A priveleged sort who improved upon his current lot. That is not the reason I will not vote for him. The fact that he believes in a batsh#t crazy religion does frown me more. (Quick, ask any Mormon why up until 1978 they believed having balck skin was considered a sin. Then once the gov't threatned to pull their tax-exempt status for being discrimatory they magically decided that being black was no longer a crime against God. Lordy, it is a miracle! A glass of whole milk for all!).

I do not know why people are against having someone who was successful in the private sector in the office at a time when our economy is upside down. Call me a snob but I would rather vote for the man who was an entreprenuer to lead this nation than one with "the soul of a poet" who lived on Ramen Noodles for most of his life.

[James Dugan]

That is a great last line and much food for thought. But we poor and middle class call them Ooddles of Noodles.