Mitt’s wealth

If enormous wealth (“obscene” is a word one hears occasionally) is a disqualifier for presidential office, this nation has a lot of rethinking to do about its history.

Mitt Romney’s tax returns have been center stage in recent days. People seem to be gawking at them the way they might gawk at a rare painting in a museum, only without the aesthetic appreciation. It’s one of those strange, abstract things that might prompt complaints to the curator.

Slate.com got into the fun this week with this calculator. Just plug in your own yearly income and it will tell you how long it takes Mitt to earn the same and, conversely, how long it would take you, at your current pitiful salary, to equal his yearly take. (Without revealing my own income, I could have started at today’s salary when George Washington was leading the revolution and would just now be coming up on one year of Mitt’s earnings.)

Careful now, folks. Do we really want to go down this road with politicians? If so, Democrats will have to explain how two of their most revered presidents, John F. Kennedy and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, were able to govern and connect with the people despite being obscenely wealthy.

Kennedy got most of his wealth from Daddy, who earned much of it through – gasp! – investments. Roosevelt was seen as capable of leading the nation through its darkest economic days despite a lifestyle that was a Grand Canyon-sized gulf away from what the average person was experiencing at the time.

Is it just a difference in political philosophy that distinguishes them from Romney?

Romney’s returns show he gives millions to charity each year. This is a remarkable revelation that ought to be getting more attention.