Despite what the Obama campaign might want voters to believe, Mitt Romney’s record as a businessman is stellar. The tax returns he has not released and the multimillion-dollar bank accounts Romney holds (including the recently closed Swiss account) do not tarnish his success; they simply prove it.
A good executive in the private sector turns a profit for his company—period. Mitt Romney did just that for Bain Capital, whether he left in 1999 or 2002, and he was handsomely compensated for his work. There is controversy as to whether laying off thousands of workers and outsourcing labor to foreign countries led to Bain’s fortunes during Romney’s reign, but in the world of private equity, these practices are both common and well within the government regulations that Romney now ironically claims are so problematic to a successful American economy.
Considering his accomplishments, American voters should not be surprised that the Republicans’ blue-blooded, white collared nominee is running on his business record alone. It is understandable that he does not cite his actual governing experience–where he successfully implemented a health care mandate and created fewer jobs than 46 other states. Instead, Mitt Romney (the business opportunist) has been relegated to preaching that America’s negative balance sheet offers him a chance to do what he does best: financial engineering, the euphemistic term for what was once known as hostile takeover.
But there is a major crack in Mitt Romney’s foundational premise: America is not a business, and even if it were, it would be the kind of struggling business that corporate executive Romney chopped up and sold for spare parts—or worse, declared bankrupt. These are not options for America the country, and that is why CEO Romney is not the right man for the job of President. Maybe Governor Romney can still give it a shot.
Jer Clifton said:
Good point.
AE said:
Speaking of Gov. Romney’s credentials in the business world, I call your attention to this article on CNN’s website: http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/08/opinion/canellos-kleinbard-romney-taxes/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
We’re enjoying your posts! Keep them coming!
J. Palmer said:
Thanks for reading, AE.
I just read the Romney article, and while I find his entire business background to be indicative of what’s wrong with our country, I find it even more pathetic that he continues to hide from his past decisions.
There is an easy way for him to deal with things like tax shelters, tax returns, and other shady business dealings. Own up to it. Imagine Romney saying something like this:
“I did create tax shelters for my money in other countries. I did not invest all of my money in America. Like so many other wealthy people in the United States, I made the financially wise decision to have my money work for me elsewhere because the incentives to invest in America are broken or non-existent. And this is exactly why I am running for President, so I can fix the corporate tax issues that make people legally do the exact same things I did.”
This strategy still wouldn’t earn him my vote, but it would at least earn him some of my respect.
vincentmudd said:
I believe the public sector is not a business. Our constitution has created tasks and responsibilities for our government and many of those tasks are non-revenue generating. National Defense, Justice System, Protect and Serve, Veterans Affairs, Three branches of government, voting – none of these functions are business functions. Now, we do have Treasury, Commerce and Trade responsibilities that are business focused yet even they are designed to benefit all citizens as their primary mission goal by maintaining a stable system.
Contrary to popular belief, government already consists of some of the brightest, most capable Americans in the world. There is no difference between the quality of our professionals in the private sector or the public sector. Business people serve in our government every day so it is methodology for anyone to somehow believe the best and brightest are not already serving our country. Business people do their best work when they understand government conducts business but is not a private sector for profit business. What government needs most from budiness is for people to help add effective business principles
Unfortunately for many private-sector enthuiasists like myself, government is inherently a social welfare, safety and security function with a clear understanding that economic opportunity is integral, in other words, government is not a profit-driven business so it still needs people that will care for the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of 314 million citizens … First. Believe me, i hate admitting that government is a social welfare operation but it is specifically because we have an effective risk taking private sector that fills in the gaps government misses. We just need the private sector to do really well.
There were over 1 million private-sector bankruptcies in 2011. Some business people have the Midas touch and some suck. Business people are free to take risks but unfortunately when life, liberty and the pursuit are in play, risk is simply not negotiable.
Some business people think just because they can cut cost easily, they can do the same once they get in government. I believe we can do a lot to help government work well. However, what governement needs most from business people is their vast experience in efficiency and how to maximize asset performance. Yet I keep seeing some business people run for government under the premise that they hate government – “we-the-people are our government just in case you forgot. What in the hell are they talking about? How do you run for a job that you hate, while still taking a paycheck from that very employer you think sucks. Why would you hire someone that gets into government claiming to actually destroy government – wreck it using the model of creative destruction. Phrases like : “… government is the problem”, do not inspire confidence that that person is going to actually take care of the other key responsibilities of governance -to build a more perfect union.
I like Mitt Romney having met him in San Diego 4 years ago. It is entirely possible that Mr. Romney’s core professional experience may make him the best choice for Treasury Secretary or Commerce Secy. During his time as Gov, he did in fact develop social welfare structures that worked well but unfortunately he seems to be claiming that what he did during that time would not be something he would do for the entire country. Since he was Gov for 4 years and a private-sector investment and M&A person for 25 years, he is clearly more interested in the financial aspects of our system. I see nothing in his demeanor over the last 4 years that tells me he really is driven to government because he wants to do the social stuff, national security, criminal justice, or parks and recreation responsibilities of governance. I can see his focus on economics which is a large part of government yet not the only piece. If this is true I truly believe he will make an awesome a Treasury Secy because his skill set seem very good and it feels like that is where he wants to focus all of his attention.
J. Palmer said:
Thanks for lending your expertise.
I too scratch my head when candidates running for office spend time telling voters how awful government is. It comes off to me as one of the worst types of pandering.
I think if Romney wasn’t so bound by the extremist Republican minority and Fox News, his true colors as a moderate would show. It is just conjecture, but I bet he actually would like to do some of the social stuff; he is just to cowardly to say anything the Tea Party would disapprove of.
vincentmudd said:
I do not think of him a cowardly, it’s just as he ad-lib’d to reporter a month ago – he needs 50.1% of the vote and he will do whatever he needs to do to get it. We live in a great country and it deserve tremendous respect from all of us. It is much more respectful to tell the public your specific tactics not strategy. I say this because the generic phrases are not strategy but they sell. It’s the tactical plan the people deserve to see. How many things are you adding/cutting? What is the demonstrable measurable benefit? What roadblock stands in your way and what is you plan for removing it? What happens if you are wrong and what will be your recovery plan if your protections do not pan out?
Any challenger has a very good chance if they are more tactical. However, what I am saying flies in the face of any advice given by political consultants. The reason politicians seem to avoid being exactly who they really are is because they believe the general public will be turned off by the details or their details will be successfully challenged. Crazy talk since it is clear that the voter apathy demonstrated by the weak voter turnout is specifically tied to the fact than “blah, blah, blah, sound-bite, blah, blah is not a plan that motivates the majority of Americans.
The incumbent is either loved or hated -you can’t fall off a dime. The incumbent has the easier challenge because he only needs to keep his voters from staying at home because he already won once. It is the challenger that has to work harder, change minds, and present a solid plan specifically and demonstrably better than the incumbent.
Here is my prediction. This election will NOT be decided on the economy. The contrasts are too great between the direction of the country and there are serious differences that will make for excellent debate. 8.2% unemployment sucks but my gut feeling tells me this is not the issue for the 91.8% of those working. Yes they are nervous about keeping their job but even they realize that anyone that is President of the whole country will never purposely destroy their job. I know both sides claim that as a fact but history only says that if you focus on building the middle , you grow the lower (I hate the word lower) and the upper -regardless of party
This election is going to turn on “Which one of these people cares about your life and your circumstances and what specifically are they going to do to improve it?”. This question is so much more than the economy; it’s life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Heady stuff. Intimately personal. Impactful. Neighborly. Telling people they are on their own is good tough love but is not going to reasonate to that kind of voter.
I know this sounds like something outbof the “age of Aqarious” but it is true. 11 fathers died when the BP oil rig blew up. 46 US soldiers were killed in Afgsnistan last month. The drinking water near a well was contaminated and set 5 people to the hospital in the Midwest. It’s so hot and dry that people are dying. 23 people were murdered in on US city in one week. A domestic terrorist shot up a movie theatre, a Sihk place of worship, and mudered an ex-wife/girlfriend – all in 2 week period. Too many people are put of work. Children with 4.0 grade-point averages can not afford to attend college. I can’t open my business because I can get a loan? Some stupid regulation forced me out of business. That was just this month.
As you can see, the issues are broad and each of these issues may be facing each voter. A successful candidate needs to start caring about how our world is impacting the lives our our citizens and focus on developing specific plans to improve. Otherwise Americans will continue to opt-out of engagement and lose any voice. I will not stand for that because I think we have a history of fighting for what is right and I see no reason we should relent and be so frustrated that we quit. Regardless of what the ads tell us, I could care less about generalizations – I want/demand specifics.
Whichever candidate figures this out wins by 5 points.
J. Palmer said:
Great analysis, VM.
At this point, I still find it hard to specify what a President Romney would do for me personally. The latest study on his tax policy says that he will increase my taxes (as I am middle class). I might be okay with that if I knew what the increase would go towards, but with the recent naming of Paul Ryan as his VP, I doubt Romney has any plans to spend middle class taxpayer’s money on helping those that truly need it.
vincentmudd said:
I have read Rep. Ryan’s budget. There is zero increased spending outside of normal rates of growth for any programmed considered specified as social services. He even proposes a new voucher program for medicare with a specified voucher amount even though there is no such health insurance product available that over 65 and over – only supplemental products that exist because there is a such think as medicare psid by taxpayers. Many of his cuts make some sense for the devoted real hawks but oddly enough there is increased spending budgeted for tax cuts while have the effect of increasing the deficit. No hall would agree with this strategy. It is odd for a deficit hawk to feel the need to reduce revenue from taxpayers in the hope that economic growth will be achieved just because it’s supposed to happen. It is not how deficit hawks act. A real hawk woud cut spending first – social and non-social right now. They would not sprinkle pixie dust and pretend growth will happen while you cut 4 trillion in spending in the economy. They would accecpt the premise that deficit reduction is more important. The deficits would go down immediatly and THEN you they might propose returning any surplus back to taxpayers.
Rep. Ryan’s plan is a contradiction that will finally be openly debated specifically because if you are looking for a safety net to continue, this budget trapeze act is going to be done without a net.
hughcurtler said:
We are in love with the business model in this country. But it doesn’t work in government any more than it works in, say, education — where it is all the rage. Thanks for the good blog!