Obviously Barack Obama was right in criticizing Mitt Romney's stewardship of Bain Capital. How else to evaluate the business experience that Romney has made a central tenet of his campaign?
As Obama put it all too accurately: "My opponent, Governor Romney -- his main calling card for why he thinks he should be president is his business experience. He's not going out there touting his experience in Massachusetts. He's saying: 'I'm a business guy. I know how to fix it.'"
And the fixing of the beleaguered companies acquired under Romney's leadership at Bain Capital involved the very practices that have led to the loss of good American jobs to ensure the outrageous rewards that made Romney so wealthy.
Although Romney presents his activities as a form of venture capitalist investment, giving life to new enterprises, his practice has been quite the opposite. Ninety percent of Bain Capital's deals by the end of his tenure involved dismembering once-thriving enterprises and selling off the parts, along with the jobs connected to them. "He made his money mainly through leveraged buyouts," the New York Times reported five years ago in a detailed survey of Bain Capital's practices under Romney, "mortgaging companies to take them over in the hope of reselling them at big profits in just a few years."
Those immense profits were taxed at the capital gains rate of 15 percent instead of the 35 percent that income earners at that level were otherwise required to fork over. "The amounts of money are so vast that it is truly a matter of time before the taxation of private equity is front and center of the public agenda," noted James E. Post, an expert on such matters at Boston University. He added,"Increasingly, this world of private equity looks like a world of robber barons, and Romney comes out of that world."
Those comments were made back in 2007, when Romney was gearing up for an ultimately failed run at the Republican presidential nomination. But the expected outrage over the pirate practices of the hedge fund hustlers never much materialized, and the Romneys of the world have sailed through the subsequent years of economic implosion free of any serious accountability. The money they are able to dispense to politicians is that good.
Take the case of Newark Mayor Cory Booker, whose comments about being nauseated by Obama's Bain Capital remarks were quickly exploited in Republican ads. What is truly nauseating is that Booker did not reveal that his own rise to power was floated by contributions from Bain and other leading financial hustlers.
As Josh Israel wrote on ThinkProgress, an "examination of New Jersey finance records for Booker's first run for mayor -- back in 2002 -- suggests a possible reason for his unease with attacks on Bain Capital and venture capital. They were among his earliest and most generous backers."
Indeed, what is surprising is not that Democrats like Booker are on the take from the hedge funds, as Obama himself has been, but rather that the president has dared to criticize those who have been so supportive of his campaigns.
Although Obama is to be applauded for questioning Romney's legacy, his motives seem to be as opportunistic as those of Romney's opponents in the Republican primaries who took the same tack. After all, Obama has had three years to regulate the unbridled power of private equity funds and he has done nothing in that regard. The president chose as his key economic adviser Lawrence Summers, who was paid $5.2 million as a consultant to the D.E. Shaw hedge fund while counseling then-candidate Obama.
Then there's Rahm Emanuel, who was appointed Obama's chief of staff despite the fact that his rise to power as an Illinois congressman was financed by Magnetar Capital, a hedge fund that had trafficked in subprime mortgage-backed securities. Emanuel's replacement as chief of staff was no improvement. William M. Daley was paid $5 million a year by JPMorgan Chase -- not a hedge fund, but a financial institution that has proved to be no less reckless and exploitative in its banking practices.
The point is not that the Democrats are virtuous -- they are not. The power of finance capital has corrupted both parties ever since Bill Clinton collaborated with the Republicans in Congress to reverse the New Deal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the last truly great president of either party. The difference is that the Democrats must still respond to the demands of the party's base for a modicum of economic justice for those who are hurting most. With the selection of hedge fund grifter Romney, the Republicans are now irredeemably defined as the party of the rapacious plutocrats.
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Molly Ivins was speaking of the Texas lege, but it should be true of all politicians. I believe it's true of Obama.
Until/unless campaign finance reform is enacted, Dems would be stupid to "take the high road." Unfortunately for now, it takes lots of money to win elections.
Mr Scheer, if you think that Romney’s private equity experience at Bain is relevant then you must be really appalled at Obama’s poor PUBLIC EQUITY experience and all the failure, waste, special-interest payola and losses he has forced the taxpayer to endure. Just take a look at a few of the classic fails that Obama has forced on his unwilling investors: Solyndra, Raser, ECOtality, Nevada Geothermal Power, First Solar, Abound Solar, Beacon Power, Sun Power, Bright Source, Solyndra, …not to mention the epic fail at GM that was accomplished by firing people, subverting bankruptcy laws and creditor rights, and using spurious accounting to move obligations into a ‘good bank, bad bank’ type of structure.
If anything, please keep talking about Bain and private equity…all it does is put into high relief how much better it is relative to PUBLIC EQUITY and how much better Romney is at business, job creation, and keeping companies efficient. And if there is anything that America needs, it is a more efficient government.
Kai
It's mission is NOT to make a profit.
It is to provide ESSENTIAL infrastructure, regulation, protections and services to ALL its citizens, period.
So it provides for essentials like: Laws, Courts, Police, Defense, Clean Air and Water, Sewers, Roads and Transportation systems, Education and Health Care. A good government also encourages personal freedoms and economic growth to improve the lot of as many citizens as it can.
All of these things should be done as efficiently and cost effectively as possible, and are generally financed by citizens individual and corporate, via fair and equitable taxes and fees.
This is NOT what a CEO does or is even supposed to do.
They are simply supposed to maximize profit to their owners/investors.
They do not necessarily act in the best interests of customers, partners, employees, the public, the nation, the environment as that usually reduces profit and their own remuneration.
That is why many corporations outsource jobs to countries with minimal : labor laws, wages, regulations, health and safety requirements, and environmental protections.
The Republican strategies include:
- trickle down economics.
- eliminating unions, worker rights and minimum wages.
- perpetual excessive military expenditures, requiring more wars.
- privatization of all infrastructure and services, including education and the military.
- minimize regulation and oversight of critical sectors like Finance.
- extreme social conservatism: wars on the poor, women, immigrants, gays, non-Christians.
These are NOT good government.
Under Clinton & Gore, Democrats, Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' for us -- you may be interested in the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democrat controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democrat Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democrat Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democrat Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democrat Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security
Social Security Cards, issued in 1934, and up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and that card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.
When Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
No longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65% on the first $90,000
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program.
Under Johnson, another Democrat, the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent
Yup, It's a choice between 'could be better' and 'couldn't be worse'
..is freighted with hedge-fund managers from CITIGROUP and BLACKSTONE...