Editorials and Opinions

David Post • May 3, 2012

Tax reform is like birthdays. They come around every year with the promises of money and gifts.
The current flavor of the week is 9-9-9; a plain pizza with no toppings.

Herman Cain, the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, proposed this catch phrase as his idea for tax reform, and it vaulted him to the top of the polls of Republican presidential candidates.

His proposal is to toss out the entire tax code, repeal the 16th Amendment and replace it with a simple new system that reduces the personal income tax rate to 9 percent, reduces the corporate tax rate to 9 percent, and imposes a new 9 percent sales tax on all “new” goods.

Like all new and bold ideas, it has pros and cons. But, like our nation’s problems, they are not simple.
Reforming the tax code is different than eliminating the 16th Amendment. Beginning with the Civil War, Congress adopted several income tax laws which touched only the rich and usually expired after the need – usually a war – passed.

When Congress passed a peacetime income tax in 1894, the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional because it was not a “direct” tax requiring each state to pay its share based on its population. For example, suppose the federal government needed $100 million and California had 10 percent of the population. It would then owe $10 million, and if California had 1 million people, each person would owe $10 which clearly could not work. The 16th Amendment, passed in 1913, fixed that, and thus began the taxation of income and what are now millions of words of law and regulations.
All tax systems have three common elements: a taxpayer, a tax rate, and a tax base. For example, individuals and corporations are income taxpayers while partnerships and non-profits are not and pay no tax.

Tax rates are easy. Just move them up or down.

The big trouble lies in defining the tax base, that is, what the taxpayer pays tax on. Mr. Cain defines individual income as “gross income minus charitable deductions” though gross income doesn’t include capital gains. His idea is to exchange sacred cows such as the mortgage interest deduction and the exemptions for children for a lower rate.

Mr. Cain’s definition of business income is gross income minus purchases from U.S.-located businesses, capital investment, and net exports. So, if Ford builds a car and uses parts that it manufactures overseas, those parts aren’t deductible, but if it exports the car, that is deductible as is the cost of the new plant that will last 40 years.

Sales taxes are regressive, so lower income taxpayers will pay more tax and higher income taxpayers will pay less. Mr. Cain argues that it may not penalize lower income people since this tax only applies to “new” goods. They can avoid the tax by buying “used” goods. Move over Walmart. Here comes Goodwill. Every new car and new house will cost 9 percent more, so those industries may be mired in the doldrums for another decade. Accountants will surely have plenty of work keeping track of all this.

But, since Mr. Cain proposes eliminating the IRS, the calculations would be completely voluntary anyway.

To be fair, Mr. Cain’s underlying theory has serous merit because he is trying to wring tax incentives out of tax policy so that taxpayers make economic decisions without weighing tax consequences.
The U.S. tax code has become a vehicle for encouraging certain economic activities and discouraging others. Because the tax base is net income rather than gross income, taxpayers are rewarded with lower taxes by reducing net income. At the same time, taxpayers have little incentive to decrease gross income.

The most popular income reduction “loophole” is the home mortgage deduction. Theoretically, it encourages people to buy houses, but a larger percentage of people own homes Canada and Germany which have no mortgage interest tax incentive (and no lobbyists to protect it).

Corporate incentives are enormous. Last year, GE earned billions and paid no tax. In 2010, U.S. corporations generated about $30 trillion in revenues and paid $227 billion in tax, or less than 1 percent of total revenues. In other words, a 1 percent gross receipts tax would raise more revenue than the byzantine game of computing net income. A gross receipts tax would also dramatically reduce complexity and the cost of compliance. States, for example, spend substantially less collecting sales tax than they do collecting income tax.

Sales taxes, the source of most state government revenues, rarely impact consumer behavior. As much as consumers enjoy tax-free weekends and buying online to save sales tax, few go to the store and think, “I’m not going to buy that because the sales tax is too high.”

Mr. Cain knows that our tax code looks like pizza all the way. So, flawed as his idea is, and it is by no means simple, he knows how consumers behave and may be on the right track.

Deklan •

When I signed up for a PR/Marketing & Studio Art degree, I knew that I’d either become a master marketer or a starving artist. Which is all the more reason why I should get behind the Occupy Wall Street protests, but I just can’t. You see, when the housing market collapsed my company went down with it, I was left stuck in Pensacola, Fla. with no home, no job, and no hope of starting over. So I did what any self-respecting artist would do… I sold everything and went on tour.

I traveled mostly around the South East. Altanta, New Orleans, Chicago, Washington D.C., Pensacola twice and then finally I ended up in the Destin area of Florida. I was in my late 20’s with a degree and a skill-set and I would sell my talents to whoever would pay for them. If I wasn’t taking pictures of performing artists and rock bands I was working one-on-one with small business owners developing cost effective marketing strategies or orchestrating elaborate art parties as fundraisers for non-profits.

The biggest obstacle was my network. It’s true that it’s not what you know it’s who you know. After leaving seven years of networking in Pensacola, I found myself starting over again in Destin. Things were going great at first. The tourism market was the strongest it had been in years and I was living on the beach managing a seafood market in the morning and working as a food artist at night for a trendy restaurant, all the while shooting anyone I could with a camera in my free time…and then came the oil spill.

Fast forward through three months of “WTF do I do now?” I managed to work out a deal with the COO of a franchise based in the D.C. area. In exchange for watching the house, taking care of the cats, helping her pack, and some admin/office work I could stay rent-free for six months until she relocated to Colorado. I had six months to start over….again.

One year later, after spending the first six months barely surviving on $10/hour (through a staffing agency), I secured a full-time position as the Creative Director and Executive Assistant to a prominent D.C. psychotherapist and lecturer. Come December, my boss will retire to Florida and I’ll be looking for another similar position. My resume is exquisite, my references are mind-blowing, yet I’m confident that it will still take months to find a perfect match. In the meantime, instead of collecting unemployment, you’ll find me hustlin’ somewhere; selling art, doing photoshoots, writing for various D.C. papers and mags and organizing more art parties.

Whatever happened to that entrepreneurial character that America used to be so proud of? In the panhandle of Florida—where the rednecks and the private money meet on the shores of paradise—there are hundreds of independently owned businesses. I should also add that the commercial rent on the seafood market I used to manage is less than the rent for my studio in Mt. Pleasant.

Taking into account that prices in D.C. are much higher than Florida and that the majority of people who seem to own any of the shops that we visit on a daily basis (coffee shops, dry cleaning, grocery, gas, food/restaurant) are all immigrants, I’m left confused on a level I can’t really even put into words. Explain to me how an immigrant couple can immigrate to the United States, open and operate a business (often unable to communicate efficiently in English), have enough money to feed themselves and their families, and yet there are thousands of home-grown Americans losing their homes, their savings, and their minds?

I understand that not everyone can just create a business out of scratch and make it be successful, but many of us could. And in doing so, we could hire those who can’t do it all on their own. I understand the OWS argument. But if you want them to stop trashing your money, then stop giving it to them! Vote better. Raise your voices in opposition to fraud. But if you’re upset that you can’t “find” a job, then maybe you should take a page from the book of Starving Artists and find better way to create your own income rather than waiting for someone else to give it to you.

Deklan is a writer and photographer living in D.C. by way of the BP oil spill.

Sonya Bernhardt •

I often say this is not only the nation’s capital, but the fundraising capital of the world. With every advocacy group and association represented in some capacity here, it may at times be difficult to garner recognition for each individual cause. But some causes and people have touched our hearts more than others. For me, one such person Michele Conley, founder of Living in Pink. Michele, a two-time breast cancer survivor, mother of five, successful business owner, health enthusiast and advocate for cancer research, generated $50,000 for Georgetown University Hospital through Living in Pink. I feel privileged to be a part of this noble contribution to combat a disease that has affected so many of us in this day and age. Thank you, Michele.

Gary Tischler •

The weekly scramble that is the Republican Party’s race to the presidential candidate nomination is as muddled as ever, with yet another new face leading in at least one poll.

That would be Herman Cain, the African American pizza company executive, who leads the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll with a nifty 27 percent of Republican voters favoring his candidacy. Mitt Romney, steady as a shy but relentless suitor, was at 23 percent, although he led in another poll.
What all this means is anybody’s guess, so I’ll take one: even though the first primary (Florida, can you believe it?) isn’t until Jan. 31, and the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary, the traditional bellwethers of any presidential political season, are even further off, is it possible to think that the race is already over?

Mind you, there’s only been a few debates, a handful of round-table discussions, a couple of straw votes and likely some undisclosed arguments in an Iowa cornfield. But much has happened, most of it not pretty. Some people never showed up, others dropped out, some jumped in and got toasted and others, like Newt Gingrich, plugged on, unmindful that nobody was talking about them, let alone casting them any sort of vote.

This GOP presidential nomination race isn’t so much a competition as it is a circus or reality show, resembling the old Abbott and Costello routine “Who’s On First?”

Well, who is on first this week? Cain and his 9-9-9 plan for reinventing the tax code appear to have caught fire in certain quarters, but is he really on first, and can he round the bases as the first semi-serious national African American Republican candidate of any sort? 

So who’s on first? Well, for just a little while it was good old Rick Perry, who had never lost at anything in his political life, being a three-term governor of Texas. He was largely credited for the miracle in Texas, which, it is often asserted, sailed through the Great Recession almost unscathed thanks to conservative economic policies. He also OK’d a record number of executions. Perry, seeing Michele Bachmann win the Iowa straw poll followed by Ron Paul, and thinking he was at least as smart as his predecessor, probably figured he could take the whole enchilada, being a big, strapping fellow from Texas who looked like a guy that could lead a country, by God—and a prayer meeting too.

On his way to mortal combat with Mitt Romney, Perry tripped on a rock that hadn’t been quite painted over enough to hide the “N” word it sported on a piece of his property. Perry got caught in a messy routine of having to perpetually explain whatever he said the night before, like a sailor coming back from shore leave.

So now Perry is a fading, a distant third, and his taillights are fading from view.

So, who’s on first? Well, how about Sarah Palin? Palin understands that first base is a lonely place, an exposed area where people will take pot shots at you.  Better to wait for the next season of “Dancing with the Stars,” or pontificate at Tea Party rallies, or have nasty books written about you. Or write one yourself and sing a few rounds of “Money, Money, Money.”

How about Chris Christie, a tea party favorite and the governor of New Jersey, rich in charisma and a few extra pounds. You wish. People in the media practically cried when he finally said a final and resounding “No,” even after GOP stalwarts effectively got on their knees and begged him to run. Christie said it was not his time. But it just might be time for him to be a vice-president—and therefore president in waiting—given his grand and gushing endorsement of Romney.

How about Mr. Pawlenty, the early dropout. Now I imagine he wishes he hadn’t.

There are, of course, others: Ron Paul, who actually says more outrageous things than Rick Perry, but nobody complains because, truthfully, nobody cares. There is also Rick Santorum, a social and every-other-kind-of conservative who somehow comes across as a whiner.

There’s Bachmann and her zealots and her straw poll win in Iowa, which lasted for all the time it took Perry to make up his mind to run. There is John Huntsman, the second Mormon in the race and former governor of Utah. But then he said that he might be happy to take the VP spot on a Bachmann ticket. That’s not going to happen. I mean the Bachmann ticket.

What’s most notable about this race is who decided not to run: the budget whiz kid Paul Ryan; the aforementioned Chris Christie; Mike Huckabee, the very Christian right former governor of Arkansas who ran nobly in the last competition; Bobby Jindal, a GOP star for one shining moment until he gave a rebuttal address to a State of the Union speech by Obama; Palin, of course.

There is also Virginia’s rising star governor Bob McDowell; the hot, hot, tea party senator from Florida, Marco Rubio; and, lest we forget, Donald Trump, who Trumped himself before voters had the chance.

To end the baseball analogy: game over. Romney has been there before and appears to have won the race simply because nobody has really been able to knock him off his steady-as-he-goes performances in the debates. He’s a terrific debater, mildly humorous, not too mean but mean enough, good with the Obama knocks, a business man who knows something about economics, (so much that Perry practically conceded his smarts). He’s a guy who looks presidential—whatever that means—unruffled and unperturbed. He was governor of Massachusetts, and how many Republicans can say that, or even want to? He passed a version of a health care bill that much resembles Obama’s, the one that’s headed straight for the Supreme Court. When a Christian Evangelist preacher called Mormonism a cult, it gained sympathy for Romney.

Tea Party stalwarts don’t like Romney, which may yet be a problem. The Tea Party is a little like the Georgetowner slogan, “It’s influence far exceeds its size,” but not in a good way.

In any poll, Romney is by far the only GOP candidate who looks like he could win the general election and beat Obama. He’s close enough—two percentage points—to take a swipe at the president.

The questions remains: why not get rid of the primaries altogether this year and have the election early. The suspense is killing us.

Deklan •

In the battle over gay marriage and equality, the question everyone has an answer for but nobody can agree on is the Bible’s view on homosexuality. According to author Jonathan Dudley, we’ll never agree on an answer to that question because our interpretations of the Bible are founded on preexisting values and beliefs. Failure to acknowledge this fact has led many evangelical Christians to abuse the Bible in their war against homosexuality, abortion, evolution and environmentalism, the four topics Dudley talks about in his book, Broken Words: The Abuse Of Faith And Science In American Politics.

In his book, Dudley challenges many of the cases that Christians use against these issues. Wanting to get a better understanding of his argument that “opponents of gay marriage aren’t defending the Bible’s values, they’re using the Bible to defend their own,” I called Jonathan personally to better understand his view that although he believes gay marriage will ultimately win, it won’t win by arguing over what the Bible says.

D: You were raised an evangelical Christian and you went to Yale Divinity school, so what’s your position on gay marriage?

J: I definitely do support gay marriage. Those making arguments against it based on the Bible have assumptions about how the Bible works that aren’t true, with the idea that the Bible requires humans to adopt one position or another. What people think the Bible requires them to do reflects the beliefs they bring to the Bible…Humans should interpret the Bible guided by principles such as Augustine’s idea that if an interpretation of the Bible doesn’t promote love for other people then it’s not the right interpretation.

D: What do you believe the Bible ultimately says about homosexuality and to what degree should we interpret it versus follow it word for word?

J: We have to interpret it…I don’t think it’s even possible to not interpret it and just “take it for what it says.” When people say they’re doing that, they are just hiding the fact that what they think it “says” is actually an interpretation.

People on both sides—liberal or conservative—bring values and bring theology to the Bible that has a determining impact on how they read it. That fact itself undermines objections to gay marriage that say the Bible requires me to oppose it. It’s actually the Bible filtered through your values that requires you to do that. Of course, it also undermines arguments for gay marriage that the Bible requires us to accept it.

D: With so many lines drawn in the sand, will we ever meet on a middle ground?

J: I don’t think there will be a middle ground that we come to on the topic of gay-marriage but I do think the liberal side of this debate will ultimately win, at least in the broader American culture. People in my generation that were raised Evangelical are increasingly coming to support gay rights.

The Evangelical community tends to lag behind the broader culture on social issues, whether we’re talking the civil rights movement or feminism or environmentalism, which is unfortunate. It’s not really a progressive moral force, it’s something that holds the culture back and then changes its mind after the culture moves forward, apologizing all the while for holding things back, and I do think that will happen in many segments of the Evangelical community on gay marriage as well. In fact, it already is happening.

D: When does standing up for one’s religion become bullying?

J: I think a lot of conservative Evangelicals feel like they’ve been treated unfairly because they would say, “We don’t hate gay people, but there are moral rules and the loving thing to do is to hold people accountable to moral rules, not to just dismiss them.” If you honestly think that someone’s going to go to Hell for being in a homosexual relationship, then it does make sense, that the loving thing to do would be to try to prevent them from being in that relationship.

The problem with that is “love” is usually defined in the minds of Evangelicals as just –we have this given set of rules, we’re not gonna question that, we’re just gonna enforce it. But sometimes “love” means reevaluating the rules themselves in light of new evidence or arguments or experiences.

D: What can you tell gays about God’s love without making them feel persecuted?8

J: It would be a message that God loves you and that your sexual orientation is not evil. And that any reading of the Bible that projects a condemnation of your sexuality onto God is not motivated by love but by unacknowledged and (usually) unconscious prejudice.

D: What’s your message to the Christian community?

J: Christians need to be more attentive to how their preexisting values shape their interpretation of the Bible, whether it’s on homosexuality or the other topics I talk about in my book, like abortion or evolution, and stop pretending they’re “just taking the Bible for what it says.”

D: What’s your message to the Gay community?

J: Gay people who may be tempted to believe that God really does condemn their sexuality should realized that throughout history, rules that are portrayed as God’s Will have quite frequently been reflections of human prejudice…What a community takes to be moral rules can reflect prejudice and…submitting to those rules is ultimately submitting to the prejudice that formed those rules…So I would just say, don’t feel that submitting to the perspectives of conservative Christian leaders on what the Bible says about homosexuality is equivalent to submitting to the will of God.

Gary Tischler •

There’s a class war going on.

It’s not being waged where you might think it is—in presidential primary debates, or on the streets of Occupied America.

It’s being waged in movie theaters where the nearly century-old debate about who wrote Shakespeare’s plays is being engaged anew in trash-epic director Roland Emmerich’s “Anonymous,” whose subject and hero is one Edward De Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, who’s being presented as the aristocratic author of the plays most, if not all of us, believe to have been written by William Shakespeare, the Bard of Avon.

Shakespeare, in the movie, is a buffoonish, ambitious, drunken actor who declares himself to be the author of the plays. There’s also a lot of historical political intrigue centered around royal succession, Queen Elizabeth and the like.

I’m not here to argue the merits of the film, or the status of Mr. Emmerich as a director. He apparently sincerely believes that Oxford was indeed the author of the plays.

Good for him. He’s not the first person to think so. The authorship debate around Shakespeare’s plays has been debated for centuries, and the Oxford candidacy has attracted Supreme Court judges, learned scholars and not-so-learned scholars.

That’s where class comes in. The basic contention is that Shakespeare—with a minor education – was a would-be-actor from a small town who could not possibly have written the plays he did. He would be required to have an immense amount of knowledge, a superior education, an understanding of the ways of courts and geography.

That he probably didn’t—as is often pointed out he made big mistakes in geography and history. Here’s what Shakespeare did have a major understanding of—the human heart and mind, the psychology of being human. Just about all the plots are borrowed from other sources, including other plays, or ancient Roman texts, the bible, English history books. Shakespeare’s genius—that’s what it was—lies in his understanding of human nature, and his poetic abilities, his invention of free verse, his knowledge about how to put a play together.

A lot of the debate about authorship—the Queen herself, Francis Bacon, rival playwright Ben Johnson, have been held up as candidates—centers around a kind of intellectual snobbishness, an unwillingness to accept the idea that Shakespeare—a commoner, or son of the lower middle class at best, could be the greatest author who ever lived. If Oxford was the author, he hid it well. Trouble is that Shakespeare, too, hid himself, in some ways. Little, or not enough, is known about his life, although what we do know suggests that he was a man of the theater, a professional who kept books, ran a company, managed to know enough about the upper classes to become a favorite playwright of the queen.

Someone recently suggested to me that I can’t stand the idea that Shakespeare’s works might have been written by an aristocrat, by a member of the ruling class of England. I can stand the idea. What I can’t stand is the idea that the plays and the sonnets and the characters MUST have been written and created by an aristocrat.

The very definition of artistic genius is its mystery—it does not zero in on class, societal standing, education per se, or any other MUST factor other than it exists and it flowers in a particular person. Shrinks no doubt have had their say on this matter.

The plays of course contain many royal, aristocratic types—generals, kings and queens, lords and dukes and duchesses, even a few small business men and Shakespeare gave them speech that was understood by everyone. But he also created, to name one, Falstaff, a full-bodied man both vile and lecherous, outsized and full of bombast, a man who was more of a father to a prince than the king himself. He was the salt, and mud, and beer of the earth. It’s doubtful that Oxford would have imagined such a man, let alone hung out in bars with him. Aristocrats may have gone to the theater, but they did not admit going to the dogs.

I’m going to see the movie. Emmerich, if nothing else, makes movies that aren’t usually boring except when it’s “Godzilla” filmed entirely in grey rain, or so it seemed. His movies—“Independence Day”, “The Day After Tomorrow” and “The Patriot” among them are not exercises in nuance, and I don’t expect “Anonymous” to be that either.

Georgetowner •

By John Fenzel

On Wednesday, Dec. 7, Joseph E. Robert Jr., one of the Washington area’s great philanthropists, passed away after a battle with Glioblastoma, a form of brain cancer that also afflicted Senator Edward Kennedy. News of Robert’s death quickly spread throughout Washington’s circles in quiet, almost reverential tones among the many who knew him.

At Cafe Milano, Steve Delonga pointed at the table against the wall where Robert frequently dined. “Joe was a fighter, a businessman, and friend who left an enduring legacy. He was always busy, always grateful, and always surrounded by people. But across the room, he would see you, smile, and give you a ‘thumbs-up’ sign.”

Robert grew up in a Catholic, middle class family in Silver Spring, Md. And yet in 1970, his penchant for fistfights and ill-advised pranks at St. John’s College High School nearly caused him to drop out altogether. An accomplished athlete, Robert won a regional kickboxing championship in 1973. That same year, while attending Mount Saint Mary’s College, he came forcefully to the aid of a dog being abused, and was promptly expelled for fighting. “While college didn’t exactly work out for Joe,” a high school friend recalled, “the dog he saved stayed with him. That was pretty typical—Joe didn’t stop at ‘rescue.’”

“He always focused on the end game and didn’t get distracted by the tactics involved in getting there,” Michela English, the president and CEO of Robert’s foundation, Fight For Children, said. “He was even more passionate about his charitable causes than business.”

In 1981, Robert began canvassing banks to loan him money to purchase distressed real estate. Most turned him away.

“It was a hard sell, because it was the beginning of the S&L Crisis,” Yankel Ginzburg said. “When conventional wisdom was to stay out of the market, Joe had a different idea.”

Robert ultimately convinced Riggs Bank to agree to the loan.

His first condominiums were in the Beltsville, Md. area. “Joe would come by in person to pick up the rent checks,” Pamela Ginzburg, one of his first tenants, remembered. “He was involved in all aspects of his business. He had an unrivaled work ethic, and he never forgot his first tenants.”

In 1989, when the S&L crisis was at a critical stage, Congress appropriated billions to create the Resolution Trust Corporation. Recognizing an opportunity, Robert formed a parallel association to ensure a role for the private sector.

Several years later, Robert had begun a private equity real estate fund business that ultimately became known as JER Partners, managing assets around the world worth nearly $30 billion.

In 1990, channeling his love for boxing and his desire to help children, Robert started “Fight Night” to help disadvantaged youth. Leveraging his close personal friendships with Quincy Jones, Lionel Richie, Billy Dee Williams and others, Robert grew his Fight Night and the annual charity event came to attract world renowned boxers to the Washington Hilton Hotel and Towers. Boxing legends like Sugar Ray Leonard, Gerry Cooney, Roberto Duran and Joe Frazier could often be seen ringside with Robert—along with city mayors, Joint Chiefs of Staff, business leaders, and Hollywood celebrities.

The Fight Night event was a formal “men-only” event. Later, Robert began a separate “sister” women-only venue to fight domestic violence called “Knock Out Abuse” at the Ritz-Carlton in Washington. A tradition soon developed for the “Fight Night” men and the “Knock Out Abuse” ladies to convene immediately after the festivities.

“Fight Night” continues to be the premier event for Robert’s signature cause, “Fight For Children,” a foundation he established to improve education and health care opportunities for low income children in Washington, D.C. Since he founded the organization, Fight For Children has directly raised $100 million.

“He didn’t just write checks. He got personally involved so he could really make a difference,” English, said. “No matter how hard we have all tried to prepare for his passing, it is still very difficult to believe that he is no longer with us. It’s not an overstatement to say that tens of thousands of kids in D.C. are better off because of Joe.”

For those who knew him well, Joe Robert’s authenticity was a defining trait. As the chairman of Business Executives for National Security, he once left a White House luncheon for a visiting Chinese president early, so he could read to his son’s kindergarten class. “He had a great sense of humor and never took himself or anyone else too seriously,” English said.

Joe Robert will always be a hero to his family, his friends and to the children who benefited from his generous leadership and positive vision. In his final hours, Robert reportedly could not speak to those who came to see him at his home. “So he smiled and gave everyone a ‘thumbs up’ sign instead,” a close friend said.

John Fenzel is an Army Special Forces Officer stationed in Washington, D.C. [gallery ids="100426,114107,114125,114117" nav="thumbs"]

David Post •

How rich is Mitt Romney compared to other presidents?

His most recent tax return reported about $8 million in interest and dividend income. If he’s earning 3 percent on his investments, that means he’s worth a cool quarter billion.

So, where would that rank? He’d be behind only President George Washington, but, unlike Washington and most wealthy presidents, Romney didn’t inherit his wealth. He earned it.

No. 1 — George Washington

George Washington was not only “first in the hearts of his countrymen,” but he was also the richest president in our nation’s history.

How do we measure Washington’s wealth? Measuring across centuries has its challenges. One approach is to estimate the value of his property when he was alive and adjust for inflation. Another is to look at his wealth as a percentage of gross domestic product. A third is to compare his income to the national budget. Each approach leads to huge numbers.

For the first 100 years of our nation, wealth was measured mostly by land and slaves. Washington inherited ten slaves from his father at age eleven. He eventually owned more than 8,000 acres of prime farmland near what is now Washington, D.C., and more than 300 slaves. His wife, Martha, was also very wealthy, both from her dowry and inheritance from her first husband, one of the wealthiest men in Virginia. She inherited one-third of his 17,000 acres of land and 300 slaves as well as $129,650 in Colonial Virginia currency estimated by historians at Washington and Lee University to be worth $6 million in 1986.

At the time of his death, Washington’s land, slaves, house, horses and personal belongings were worth about $525,000, which has been estimated to be worth $525 million today.

In 1996, a study to calculate the 100 richest people ever in the U.S. ranked Washington 59th, the only president on the list. His net worth was estimated to be 1/777, or 0.13 percent, of GDP. By that measure, John D. Rockefeller was the wealthiest American ever. His wealth equaled 1.5 percent of GDP. Bill Gates worth about $60 billion, or about 0.4 percent of GDP, would be in the top ten.

Washington’s salary as president was 2 percent of the Federal budget in 1789, which would amount to $60 billion today. To be fair, the budget was different 225 years ago, when there was no income tax and most federal government spending was defense. Even so, 2 percent of today’s defense budget would be $2 billion per year.

For his time, Washington was incredibly wealthy, but he didn’t have air conditioning or toilets. He got strep throat riding his horse in the snow and died two days later. Today, a common antibiotic would have had him back on his horse within days.

No. 2 — Thomas Jefferson

Like Washington, Thomas Jefferson also inherited thousands of acres of land and dozens of slaves from his father. Jefferson eventually accumulated 5,000 acres of land near Charlottesville, Va., and owned hundreds of slaves. His net worth, in today’s dollars, reached an estimated $200 million. But land isn’t cash, and Jefferson had trouble maintaining his real estate late in his life. Like eight of our presidents, he was arguably bankrupt at the time of his death.

No. 3 — Theodore Roosevelt

The third wealthiest President, Theodore Roosevelt, was a trust-fund baby. Like so many lottery winners, he made some stupid investments and lost much of it. Even so, he still had his 235-acre estate, “Sagamore Hill,” located on some of the most valuable real estate on Long Island where land is worth approximately $1 million an acre.

No. 4 — John F. Kennedy

No. 4, a tough call, is probably John Kennedy, another trust fund baby. The Kennedy fortune was estimated to be worth at least $1 billion. His father Joe Kennedy’s estate was estimated to be worth $500 million when he died in 1969. Among his investments was the Chicago Merchandise Mart purchased in 1945 for $12.5 million and sold in 1998 for $625 million. JFK’s $75 million share of that one investment – worth about $100 million today – was divided between Caroline and John, Jr. In addition, the Kennedy family owned other valuable properties in Florida and Massachusetts.

Though JFK never had to file federal disclosure reports, his brother Ted Kennedy’s reports provides guidance. In 2008, Ted Kennedy reported a net worth between $50 and $150 million after parting with millions in his divorce. Caroline Kennedy is also reportedly worth $400 million, mostly from inheritances from her parents and brother. So, JFK was very wealthy.

No. 5 — Andrew Jackson

Andrew Jackson, the people’s president, was No. 5 with a net worth of about $120 million. An orphan and the first president to come from humble beginnings, Jackson married wealth and earned more. He joined the Continental Army at age 13. After the war, he studied law in Salisbury, N.C., and moved to Tennessee where he married a divorcee, whose father was wealthy and politically connected. Jackson became a gentleman, a general in the U.S. Army and a politician. After the War of 1812, Jackson “negotiated” the resettlement westward of various Indian tribes. Jackson made a fortune in the ensuing land grab. It raised ethical eyebrows, but the political climate of the times was far different than today.

Jackson’s wealth included his 1,000-acre homestead in Nashville, Tenn., “The Hermitage,” a cotton farm operated by slaves. He owned more than 500 slaves in his lifetime, including 150 at his death.

The Next Five

Rounding out the top ten wealthiest presidents are James Madison and Lyndon Johnson at about $100 million, Herbert Hoover at $75 million, Franklin Roosevelt at $60 million, and John Tyler at $50 million.

Like those of their generation, Madison and Tyler’s wealth was in land and slaves. Roosevelt, like his cousin, Teddy, inherited his wealth. Lyndon Johnson was a poor boy, but while in Congress, he and his wife, Lady Bird, purchased a small radio station in Austin, Texas. With a series of favorable rulings by the Federal Communications Commission, that radio station grew into a large regional broadcasting company that included radio, television and cable.

An orphan before age ten, Herbert Hoover was passed around between relatives. He teased that he was the first student at the newly established Stanford University where he studied geology, leading to a career and a fortune, in mining engineering. In today’s dollars, Hoover’s salary at one point reached $2.5 million. At approximately age 40, Hoover left the business world and dedicated his life to public service, where he refused any salary to avoid the appearance that he was seeking public office for money. As secretary of commerce and president, the law required Hoover to accept his salary. He gave it away, some to his political appointees whom he thought were underpaid and the rest to charity. (Kennedy was the only other president to donate his salary.)

That’s the top ten. If Mitt Romney wins the presidency, John Tyler would be bumped off.

Moving Up the List: Bill (and Hillary) Clinton

Bill Clinton left the White House millions in debt because of accumulated legal fees. Since leaving the presidency, however, he has earned a net worth that is estimated to be approaching $80 million. Hillary Clinton’s most recent public reports as secretary of state put her net worth at $30 to 35 million. Together, their net worth would put them in the top five, and their wealth is growing.

Moving the Clintons into the top ten would bump Franklin Roosevelt off the list.

A Century of Poor Presidents

As the national debate over slavery heated up, the wealth of presidents declined. For almost the next 100 years, from 1857 until 1952, the ten poorest presidents served. Other than the Roosevelts and Hoover, only one president, Grover Cleveland, accumulated any real wealth, about $25 million, from inheritance, law practice and an estate he purchased near Princeton.

Harry Truman almost went bankrupt as a haberdasher, a clothing salesman. Instead of declaring bankruptcy, he spent the rest of his life repaying those debts. When Truman returned home to Independence, Mo., after his presidency, he was 69 and unemployed. His only income was $112 per month from his U.S. Army Reserve pension. He had saved 20 to 25 percent of his presidential salary, about $150,000, over eight years. When federal retirement benefits were expanded during his term, he excluded the president.

Truman foreswore all attempts to “cash in” when he left the presidency and turned down several offers to serve on corporate boards, believing it would demean the Office of the Presidency. When Congress learned that Truman was paying for his own stamps and licking them without any administrative assistance, it passed the Former Presidents Act, providing an annual pension and gave it to him retroactively. President Hoover, who didn’t need the pension, accepted it to avoid embarrassing Truman.

In 1966, David Post bought a Volkswagen minivan for a camping trip across America with friends. They stopped at President Truman’s home in Independence, Mo. A big black car was parked on the street with about ten persons standing beside Truman’s white picket fence. They learned that Vice President Hubert Humphrey was visiting President Truman. When he left the home and came to the sidewalk, the vice president chatted with them. President Truman stood on the porch about 40 feet away and waved as if it were any other day. Other than Humphrey’s driver, there was no security detail. It was a different day.