Romney, a famous and very successful American CEO, refused a bonus of $100,000, saying that no executive needed to make more than $225,000, his salary at the time. Oh - that was George Romney in 1960, whose son Mitt was 13 at the time and who one might have hoped was listening. But, it seems that Mitt either didn’t hear his father, or disagrees with him.

The $225,000 that George Romney was making in 1960 is equivalent to $1.4 million today.  Everyone knows that CEOs who used to make 12 times the average worker’s salary now make 300 times, or more.  Many try to say that a CEOs job is much more complex in today’s global age. But it’s not just CEOs, musicians, athletes, etc., along with law-firm partners, university presidents, television news anchors, and so on are experiencing this same type of income inflation. Yet, is compensation really tied to job performance?  Walter Cronkite, who almost always led the ratings, never made more than $1 million a year (that would be $2.6 million today). Katie Couric, who rarely led the ratings, made $15 million a year.

Creators and inventors have earned it their wages. Professional athletes and actors are, assumably, the best in their fields.  Overpaid, maybe, but both these classes have, nevertheless, done something creative or inventive to benefit society and/or inspire people. Now we turn to Romney. Private equity isn’t creative or inventive or beneficial for society. Yes, they do help some, but it’s mostly about making more money for the investor class—very much including Romney himself.

Romney believes that questions about his business background are examples of “bitter politics of envy.” I’m not envious of Romney’s fortune or how he earned it, I’m more concerned about civic responsibility, virtue, and decency.  Shouldn’t our President exude such? Or are we simply looking for someone who can make a lot of money, maybe at our expense?