We've heard the term many times: "billionaire" Donald Trump Donald John TrumpBubba Wallace to be driver of Michael Jordan, Denny Hamlin NASCAR team Graham: GOP will confirm Trump's Supreme Court nominee before the election Southwest Airlines, unions call for six-month extension of government aid MORE. In fact, practically every time he's introduced, that adjective is applied. But it shouldn't be.

ADVERTISEMENT

First off, we don't know if Trump, the GOP nominee, is at all a billionaire. In 2006, Trump took journalist Timothy O'Brien to court after O'Brien, in his book "TrumpNation: The Art of Being The Donald," posited that Trump was worth considerably less than he's claimed, pegging his wealth to be within the $150 million to $250 million range. Basically, no more than what his father left to his children. Trump lost that suit, unable to prove that O'Brien was wrong.

Moreover, Trump himself has never proven his wealth with any reasonable yardstick. During the trial, he stated that he bases his estimates, in part, on his "feelings" — or, in other words, on nothing but pure fancy.

We also now know, from the work of David Fahrenthold of The Washington Post, that Trump used $258,000 from his "charity" to settle legal disputes. Doesn't sound like something a billionaire would do. And The New York Times recently reported that Trump submitted $916 million in losses to the IRS in 1995. Pretty heavy losses for a "billionaire." They would've probably allowed him to not pay taxes for many years afterwards — a notion he seemed to confirm at the debate when he stated that he was "smart" for not paying any federal taxes.

Trump is no brilliant investor. His real talent comes in his ability to convince people of his ridiculous exaggerations. Despite his claims about his supposedly brilliant business savvy, the candidate has overseen six bankruptcies and has left his creditors on the hook time and time again. He's also stiffed contractors, illegally imported Polish workers and underpaid them (after trying to stiff them as well), and has received a massive amount of special privileges that you or I could never dream of, such as tax breaks, use of eminent domain and court-ordered loan extensions.

Trump is winning the war of words for the general election campaign in many ways. He's gotten the media to now insert the word "temporary" in front of his proposed ban on Muslims entering the country, even though, when he proposed it, he indicated that it would not end "until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."

In other words, possibly never.

His campaign has also gotten the media to embrace the word "pivot" when they should be using words like "lie" or "contradiction." And, perhaps most importantly, he's charmed the inept (such as Jimmy Fallon, whose interview was nothing short of atrocious) into normalizing his candidacy.

But the word "billionaire" is an especially egregious appellation, considering Trump's refusal to supply the public with his tax records.

Most of Trump's income comes from licensing, not from construction. Yet he's consistently made out to be a "real estate mogul." I could just as easily argue that I'm a "billionaire." Sometimes I "feel" like a billionaire. Can't I, then, like Trump, claim to be one?

Of course, why would Trump release his returns when so many in the media have blindly swallowed — and dished out to the public — his claims about being "very rich"? You can be sure that, had Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonJoe Biden looks to expand election battleground into Trump country Biden leads Trump by 12 points among Catholic voters: poll The Hill's Campaign Report: Biden goes on offense MORE refused to release her returns, it would've fed into the narrative of her being secretive and would've been endless fodder for discussion. There would've been constant pressure for her to release the returns. Well, she's released 39 years’ worth, and has gotten little credit for doing so, while Trump's released nothing and still gets to be called a "billionaire" — the double standard at its worst.

Without the returns, and without his being able to prove in any reasonable way that he's a "billionaire," the media should refuse to continue using the term. And any journalist worth their weight should hit him on those returns, again and again and again. Or should we have to wait until after Trump is sworn in to find out he's worth 73 cents?

Rosenfeld is an educator and historian who has done work for Scribner, Macmillan and Newsweek.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.