Unsurprisingly, most presidential candidates are not the 99%

For a movement that's often criticized for not having a governing set of demands, Occupy Wall Street has effectively landed one phrase in the national discourse: "We are the 99%," a rallying cry against financial inequality (and a great Tumblr). And by getting it in the conversation, the movement has at least achieved something: presidential candidates in the 2012 election will inevitably have to address the issue of  income inequality. And at some point, the issue of their personal fortunes may be broached.

The New York Times is reporting today, that based on their most recent financial statements, most of the 2012 pack falls into the 1%: 

Mitt Romney, whose fortune, totaling as much as a quarter of a billion dollars, dwarfs those of his rivals; Jon M. Huntsman Jr., whose father owns a global chemical company; Newt Gingrich, a successful author; Herman Cain, a businessman who reports earnings of over $1.2 million; and Rick Santorum, the former senator, who took in over $700,000 last year, are all solidly in the 1 percent, as measured by assets, income or both.

Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul may not make the $700,000-a-year mark necessary for hitting the top 1% (though they're surely not far behind), and Rick Perry has not yet filed. Barack Obama is also squarely a 1%-er; he earns well over a million dollars a year from book royalties alone. 

Of course, there's nothing wrong with having a lot of money. What'll be interesting is how willing to acknowledge their own personal fortunes the candidates will be, and how much solidarity each will be willing to show with the 99%-ers.