05/21/2012 06:02 pm ET Updated Jul 21, 2012

Why Is Romney So Casual About the JPMorgan Chase $3 Billion Loss?

Why is Romney so seemingly casual about JPMorgan Chase Bank's recent loss of $3 billion? Immediately, 10 percent was shaved off the stock price and bank analysts were talking about the mega-bank possibly cutting its quarterly dividend if losses continue to mount? In the best spirit of laissez faire capitalism, Mitt Romney said:

The leadership of that company will be held accountable for this trading loss, but we don't want to punish companies, he told NBC's "Today" program. "There was no taxpayer money at risk. All of the losses went to investors, which is how it works in a public market.

The New York Daily News reported "'the $2 billion JPMorgan lost, someone else gained,' Romney told conservative blogger Ed Morrissey."

Romney has called for the repeal of Dodd-Frank. In return, bankers have deserted President Obama donating instead to the Romney campaign. According to The Huffington Post, "Wall Street dollars now favor Republican candidates over the president by more than a 5 to 1 margin, with the majority going to Mitt Romney, whose ties to the financial sector date back to his time at private equity powerhouse Bain Capital."

It can be argued Dodd-Frank helps small businesses. For example, it includes a provision that forced banks to cut the fees they collect from merchants whenever a customer swipes a debit card.

Curiously, Romney seems to be a passive observer of events. Romney supported TARP and therefore, given his deregulatory stance, seems to think the taxpayer should always be willing to bail out his friends, the plutocrats, whenever they speculate with customer deposits and lose. Not sharing Romney's feline contentment, many are concerned that the Volcker Rule, which forbids banks from speculating with customer's funds and is not yet implemented, would not have prevented this huge loss. The way the bill was written, the financial industry still has too much influence over the final language of the rule as it is being written by regulators. To his credit, Romney does call for oversight and transparency of the derivatives market.

Of course, Chase was in a good position to shoulder the loss, as it is projected to earn $4 billion after taxes despite the huge one-time loss. But what if it had been made by a bank in a weaker financial position? Again, taxpayers to the rescue!

Romney's support of tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations is consistent with his general attitude that the wealthy are the drivers of the economy. If the wealthy get tax cuts, won't they just look for the best possible return given the risk no matter where it may be in the world? I mean, the wealthy are not necessarily job creators. After all, weren't Google and Apple both started in a garage? Was Mark Zuckerberg rich when he had the idea for Facebook or just an undergraduate content with having enough money for pizza on the weekend? Of course, no longer!

But the founders of these famous companies with world-changing technologies only became wealthy after the business was begun and not before. It is a very aristocratic view to think that only the rich start businesses or that the rich will not hire with slightly higher tax rates when it is demand that controls business expansion and not tax rates.

If cutting taxes for the wealthy created jobs, we would have seen much greater job creation during the Bush years, instead of the 600,000 private sector jobs lost during Bush's two terms. The idea that the wealthy create all the jobs is antiquated and patrician and the mega-banks have already proven that they can not police themselves, as even Alan Greenspan admitted to.

Why place our bets on Romney when his election may open the door to a return of the days of excessive risk taking and taxpayer funded bailouts? Why spin the wheel again arguing that this time Wall Street will bet correctly?

Governing a nation is much different than making investors wealthy and Romney seems to fail the leadership test.

Bill Schneider's opinion for Politico noted: "Actually, there's a good reason you can't run government like a business: Business is not a democracy. If business were a democracy -- if, say, workers got to vote on the boss -- it would be unproductive, wasteful and hopelessly gridlocked."

Romney may just govern the nation as he ran the businesses acquired by Bain Capital by loading us up with debt, declaring bankruptcy, and selling off the pieces for profit!

While Romney argues that corporations are people, are corporations really just immature teens driven by their hormones who want to borrow daddy's car again immediately after wrecking it? After all, where banks are productive to the nation's economy is by doing traditional lending to mom and pop businesses, students to pursue higher education, and families to buy homes instead of excessive, reckless gambling. Mitt Romney is again dangling the keys to the family car in front of them!