Attacks against Mitt Romney and his private equity background with Bain Capital continue and are likely to be a cornerstone of the Democratic and media dialogue during the remainder of the campaign. President Obama lamented that at Bain, Romney worked to "maximize profits" for investors, not to benefit communities. As a high school history teacher of mine used to say, "Do you walk to school or bring your lunch?"; the comparison is as relevant as comparing apples and oranges.
In evaluating the merits of a leader and his success, shouldn't the relevant benchmark in that evaluation be the job that he was hired to do, not other extraneous factors that weren't the focus of that job? If so, how do we evaluate Mitt Romney's -- or anybody else's -- track record? We base it on whether he did the job for the people who depended on him in that position. That record is nearly impossible to dispute.
The leadership of any a private equity firm works for the benefit of their stakeholders. Yes, they are investors taking their hard-earned money and handing it over to other people to put it to work, but their objective isn't particularly relevant other than to find out if such an objective was met by their leader. Under Mitt Romney's leadership at Bain, his stakeholders, based on industry expectations, were well taken care of. Romney and his team not only did the job the stakeholders asked, but one would surmise, based on the returns that he generated, that he exceeded their expectations.
Plus, there is another group of stakeholders in the private equity equation. Those are the management teams and companies with which the private equity firms partner when an investment is made. If a private equity firm doesn't do right by its partners, their reputation becomes tarnished, making it difficult for the firm to find other companies to invest in down the road. Bain Capital has a stellar reputation in the financial community and has so for a long while because of its treatment of those stakeholders.
Romney's track record for his stakeholders is not just strong at Bain, but also within the other leadership positions he took on. When he was appointed to take the helm of a struggling and expected to fail Salt Lake City Olympics, Mitt Romney turned it from a loss to a profit, doing the job he was asked to do. Romney demonstrated a similar track record as the Governor of Massachusetts, where again, he took a projected deficit and created a surplus, amongst other successes.
So, each time Mitt Romney was put in a position of substantial leadership, he did the job that was expected of him and was effective as a leader. That is how he should be evaluated.
Three and a half years ago, Barack Obama was granted a position of leadership by the citizens of the United States. We are his stakeholders and should judge him on the job that he was elected to do as well. Under his tenure, the government has spent the taxpayers' money each and every year -- and then some. That "then some" amount has left us with $16 trillion in debt that we, as taxpayers and stakeholders, are on the hook for. Not to mention that when interest rates rise, which is inevitable, we will start owing some very hefty interest payments on top of that $16 trillion amount. That is hardly emblematic of the vision of "hope and change" that was promised by President Obama during his last campaign.
President Obama, in a jab at Romney said, "If your message is, 'I knew how to make a lot of money for investors,' then you're missing what this job is about." I think the clear message is that a leader gets done what he sets out to do, and does it well, for the benefit of those stakeholders who granted that position of leadership.
I think the track record of Mitt Romney as a leader has been very clear. I also think that President Obama's is as well. Perhaps it's our current president who doesn't understand what the "job" of president "is about."
Follow Carol Roth on Twitter: www.twitter.com/caroljsroth
Leo Hindery, Jr.: A More Honest Assessment of Private Equity
Steve Lombardo: Election Monitor: Romney Decides the Best Defense Is a Good Offense
And thank you for the obligatory distortion on Obama's runaway spending. As I'm sure you simply just forgot, Congress approves spending, not the President. Republicans passed on a deal to cut $4T in spending from the budget because they promised to some really rich guy they wouldn't raise his taxes.
For 20-years, under Reagan and the Bushes, the national debt increased compared to GDP every single year. In most other years it decreased.
Conservatives are quite embarrassed by this performance, so they have invented a cover story: The Democratic Congress did it. Nice try. But for 12 of the 20 years the Congress was not Democratic. Also, presidents can veto, and when it was Democratic, Congress passed smaller budgets on average than the Republican Presidents asked for.
To create the worst economic disaster in 80 years and then admonish the administration who inherited the disaster for providing relief is beyond the pale. Yet that is exactly what Republicans are doing.
The CBO estimated deficits totaling 8 trillion over 10 years when Bush left office based on his own unpaid for policies. That's almost a trillion a year estimated BEFORE Obama took office.
Measured in growth, the American economy outperformed those of Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan - every Group of 7 developed nation except Canada. Corporate profits are at their highest since 1960 with corporations sitting on the largest stockpile of cash in US history.
By the first quarter of 2011, unemployment had the steepest drop over a three-month span since 1983. In March after 18 months of solid growth the jobless rate fell from 9.1% to 8.8% with the best jobs report in three years (now at 8.6%), an average of 220,000 jobs created in each of the previous three months, GDP grew 1.3%, the economy expanded 0.4% and Gross Domestic Income rose 2.4%.
Manufacturing reached the highest reading since May 2004 with expansion for 19 straight months - the employment index topped 60 for only the third time in a decade with jobs created at the highest rate in 38 years - the highest reading since January 2004.
Total tax revenues of states returned to pre-recession levels in the 2011 third quarter. This is Obama's economic policy.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42911
Oh and, by the way, the President runs a democracy...where he must work within the frame work of two other co-equal branches that act to limit his authority.
A corporate CEO is the head of an authoritarian organization where everyone else must follow his orders (or seek other employment)...and where he is only answerable to shareholders (most of whom are only short-term stakeholders who aren't interested in rocking the boat) and to a Board of Directors (most of whose members he or she gets to pick).
So...apples and oranges you say?
1. The only reason that Bain is an issue in this campaign is that Romney made it an issue. Citing it as his primary credential for deserving the keys to the Oval Office, and insisting that it shows that he "understands the economy and how to create jobs." Which is NOT what private equity does...except by accident. Private equity creates wealth for share holders...not jobs for workers..or benefit for communities.
2. Between 80-90% of the deficit that this President was left to contend with was structural...and put in place by the excesses of the previous Administration. One of the biggest series of tax cuts in our history. Two unfunded wars. An unfunded entitlement (Medicare D)...and the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression.
Not to mention a Republican party that simply will not raise taxes or close tax loopholes, despte the math clearly showing there there is NO way to balance the budget without BOTH spending cuts and tax increases.
Then to add insult to injury, you have Romney giving his full-throated support to a budget plan that will massively INCREASE the deficit by taking a hatchet to social safety-net while (again) slashing taxes on those who require it the least.
2) And as a result of this structural deficit, this country squandered a golden opportunity from the late 1990s. We were barely running a deficit. The economy was growing. As a result, the debt relative to the size of the economy was shrinking. In 2001 we had a fantastic opportunity to keep our budget under control while still making the investments in infrastructure, education, science and technology that would keep us economically strong. But we gave it all up for tax cuts and unpaid wars and out of control financial markets. On our current trajectory, we will not stay number one in science and technology nor will we remain the dominant economy. China is getting close in scientific output and as China economically unleashes their growing middle class I am afraid that they will overtake us there too.
In America's struggle to pull out of the Great Recession President Obama has focused on Americans. To ensure success he has invested in citizens by providing tax breaks, jobs and success. America is coming back because of the President.
Given this Congress, Obama has done well. The only similar job Romney has taken on is Governor of MA. Even with a much more co-operative legislature, his one-term record as a governor is not one he is running on.
OK, so a business has to be profitable, that's a given. But Bains "investors" were getting a 50% return on investment, at the same time that over 1/5 of the companies they managed were driven into bankruptcy. Tens of thousands were given the sack.
If some of that money had been reinvested into the struggling companies, they might have survived and produced an even greater profit over the long term.
IMPO..This is the kind of short term quick buck thinking that is destroying America and it's economy.
A GOOD manager, improves his company and guides his employees into a position of making a profit, even through the bad times.
Romney didn't do that.
Nope, he took the quick and dirty route, gut the companies, declare bankruptcy, take the money and run........laughing, all the way to the bank.
and he hasn't changed since Bain either. His tax proposals are for MORE tax cuts for the wealthy, and a 60% INCREASE in taxes on those making less than $20,000 a year.
Will 1/5 of Americans be forced into bankruptcy if Romney is elected?
Based on his "experience" I wouldn't doubt that, one bit.
Of course, it is Mitt himslef that's PUTTING this false dichotomy out there- claiming that BECAUSE he made money for his investors he's got what it takes to do it for the whole country.
Shame that your "analysis" of Mr. Obama's record is so demonstrably partisan and false, while ignoring the Republican efforts to undermine him at every step.
The government isn't Bain Capital where Mr. Obama could fire all those recalcitrant unhelpful "workers" in Congress, you know the ones- they got in his way of making the country a better, less indebted place.