The presidency and money

Mitt Romney's immense fortune -- at least $200 million and perhaps more -- understandably is an issue in the Republican presidential primaries. If he is his party's nominee, that wealth should be a relevant subject for debate, as well. Presidents and their money, after all, are topics that have engaged and sometimes enraged Americans since the earliest days of the nation.

Romney, to be fair, earned his fortune. There's no suggestion of illegality, nor should their be, on that point. What is fair game, though, are questions about how his wealth colors his political outlook; i.e., is he comfortable with legislation that protects those of vast wealth from the tax burdens borne by those with modest incomes, or will he push for a more equitable system?

The inequities of current tax laws are a worthy subject of discussion in contemporary presidential politics. No candidate in any party should be allowed to avoid the topic, though some no doubt would prefer to do so.

Romney -- his worth is higher than that of 99.9 percent of Americans -- is not an anomaly when it comes to would-be or elected presidents. Romney's major primary opponents -- Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul -- are millionaires, though not in Romney's league. President Barack Obama, is a millionaire, too. Presidential politics clearly is a rich person's game.

Still, Romney' holdings put him in a special category. If he were to be elected in the fall -- hardly a sure thing at the moment -- he likely would the be the wealthiest occupant of the office save one. According to a study done by 24/7 Wall St., only George Washington, whose fortune would be valued at about $525 million in today's dollars, was wealthier. But great wealth is not limited to a few in the pantheon of U.S. presidents.

Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt were worth more than $100 million in today's dollars. Not all kept their money -- Jefferson and Jackson, for example, had significant debt when they died -- but, historically, a rich U.S. president is more the rule than the exception.

Still, there are exceptions to the rule. James Buchanan, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes and James A. Garfield had little money. A couple of presidents, in fact, died almost penniless.

Fortunately, wealth or the lack of it is no indicator of presidential greatness. Franklin D. Roosevelt, one of the wealthiest presidents and Abraham Lincoln, one of the poorest, are rightfully regarded as two of the nation's greatest leaders. The proper measure of a president, then, is not money, but how well he or she serves while in office.

Romney may or may not get a chance to serve, but his wealth and how voters view its impact on matters vital to them will play a role in determining the fate of his candidacy. That's a fair measuring stick.