
Mark Halperin with Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney sat down with Time's Mark Halperin yesterday for a pretty long interview, and we learned a few interesting things. For example, for all the Republican hatred of Keynesian economics, the Republican candidate said if he cut a trillion dollars out of the budget in his first year, he'd be "throwing us into recession or depression."
The former governor also said he can improve the economy through his very existence -- "entrepreneurs" will start investing simply by virtue of Romney being in office -- and though he wants to increase Pentagon spending and approve tax breaks, we can't afford PBS.
But Halperin, to his credit, also asked some worthwhile questions about Romney's controversial private-sector background. "I know you think that working in the private sector in and of itself gives you insight into how the economy works," the reporter said, "but what specific skills or policies did you learn at Bain that would help you create an environment where jobs would be created?" The presumptive GOP nominee replied:
"Well that's a bit of a question like saying, 'What have you learned in life that would help you lead?' My whole life has been learning to lead, from my parents, to my education, to the experience I had in the private sector, to helping run the Olympics, and then of course helping guide a state. Those experiences in totality have given me an understanding of how America works and how the economy works.
"Twenty five years in business, including business with other nations, competing with companies across the world, has given me an understanding of what it is that makes America a good place to grow and add jobs, and why jobs leave America -- why businesses decide to locate here, and why they decide to locate somewhere else. What outsourcing causes -- what it's caused by, rather. I understand, for instance, how to read a balance sheet. I happen to believe that having been in the private sector for twenty-five years gives me a perspective on how jobs are created -- that someone who's never spent a day in the private sector, like President Obama, simply doesn't understand."
Reading the transcript, it was at this point when it occurred to me that Mitt Romney is basing his campaign on his private-sector work, but he hasn't the foggiest idea how that business experience relates to the responsibilities of a president.
Jon Chait argued that Romney's response to Halperin's question "is pure incoherence.... Basically Romney is just repeating his premise over and over again. He doesn't say why his experience as a rich business guy better enables him to craft pro-growth policies."
It's because there is no good answer to the question. The premise of Romney's campaign is burdened by a flaw: it doesn't make sense.
Let's say for the sake of conversation that Romney was great at running a private-equity firm. Let's even assume he was the greatest private-equity investor in the country. Hell, let's say he was the single greatest private-equity investor in the history of the world.
The question that Halperin, who hardly leans to the left, was getting at is simple enough: So?
Chait added, "Romney insists that his Job Creator experience taught him that energy is part of the cost of a business, so it's bad to pursue policies that result in high energy costs. But obviously this isn't some special knowledge that you need to be in the private sector in order to acquire. If you're the president, businesspeople will be happy to tell you this."
Romney's pitch to voters is fairly straightforward: "I'd be a good president because I made wise private-equity investments and generated enormous profits." There is, however, a disconnect between one and the other: presidents aren't called upon to make wise private-equity investments and generate enormous profits, making the pitch rather irrelevant.
President Obama had a compelling take on this the other day:
"[M]y view of private equity is that it is set up to maximize profits. And that's a healthy part of the free market. That's part of the role of a lot of business people. That's not unique to private equity. And as I think my representatives have said repeatedly, and I will say today, I think there are folks who do good work in that area. And there are times where they identify the capacity for the economy to create new jobs or new industries, but understand that their priority is to maximize profits. And that's not always going to be good for communities or businesses or workers.
"And the reason this is relevant to the campaign is because my opponent, Governor Romney, his main calling card for why he thinks he should be President is his business expertise. He is not going out there touting his experience in Massachusetts. He is saying, I'm a business guy and I know how to fix it, and this is his business.
"And when you're President, as opposed to the head of a private equity firm, then your job is not simply to maximize profits. Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot. Your job is to think about those workers who got laid off and how are we paying for their retraining. Your job is to think about how those communities can start creating new clusters so that they can attract new businesses. Your job as President is to think about how do we set up a equitable tax system so that everybody is paying their fair share that allows us then to invest in science and technology and infrastructure, all of which are going to help us grow.
"And so, if your main argument for how to grow the economy is I knew how to make a lot of money for investors, then you're missing what this job is about. It doesn't mean you weren't good at private equity, but that's not what my job is as President."
The whole argument of late about Bain Capital has been off track. The political world has been debating whether the criticisms represent "character assassination," whether they're an attack on "free enterprise," whether the president is "anti-Wall Street," etc.
The better argument is less convoluted: what did Romney learn at Bain that would help him in the White House? I don't know the answer to that, and yesterday, Romney didn't either.





I would like to see Romney talk more about his experience in "business with other nations".
Of course Romney has all the skills to be president. I mean after all, our last MBA president did such a great job that we'll still be digging out of the hole he made for us for the next decade. Romney's going to prove he can do even more to the country.
Republicans: The Borrow and Spend Party.
Character...Truth! Romney has and will say anything to be POTUS, he wants his "presious." A A man that has no shame about his lies about President Obama, changing his positions over and over in this medium that records everything. His past positions can be found easily with a simple google search. What kind of 'Bizarro World" is he living in. Ethics and morality mormons do have this I'm sure. Is this how he wants to be remembered. I could not look my children in the eyes after what he has done and said. As parents we teach with our words and deeds. Is he teaching to his children It's ok to lie if you want to be President? A man who would lie so much witnessed by his children is not a man. He is a souless example to his children and to the world...no shame...no character...no soul. Romney, what do you see when your children look back at you? Is it pride or something else?
ask: If Bain Capital created more net jobs, were they American jobs? Give Sarah Palin credit for that one.
If BC created any jobs, were they higher or lower pang than those eliminated?
Romney stated that 80% of companies "increased revenue". His team had to dig deep to find that one.
Besides Staples and Dominos, how many other companies are doing as well after "leaving" BC? Haven't heard of any yet. Two out of 500 or so?
Romney denies being involved in Kansa City's GST Steel because he got out of BC two years before they went bankrupt. Did BC change its methods and operations markedly after he left?
How much government money was used to bail out his "failed" companies?
Could Romney himself withstand the Bain treatment?
How would you stand up after BC bought you, took your cash, borrow on your assets, stick you with the bill?
Gov. Romney, I would like some accurate answers.
While I enjoy watching Rachel skewer Romney as much as the next guy, her lead story tonight disappointed. Comparing a simple comment about his neice's wild hair cut to the story of his terrorizing a kid in school was weak and the bit about his alliterating about dogs was pointless. As a simpe aside, these two things may have been worth a couple of minutes on another show. But as a lead commentary taking several minutes on TRMS, not worth it. She is better than this.
The answer is very apparent. There is nothing in Romney's tenure at Bain that would speak to his qualifications for President. There is precious little in his service as Governor that would lend credibility to his presidential aspiration either. When I think of Mitt Romney and other plutocrats, I am reminded of this quote from Leo Tolstoy,
“I sit on a man’s back, choking him, and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by any means possible, except getting off his back.”
My husband said it best... " the best way to explain Romney's position at Bain is to compare him with the character Richard Gere played in Pretty Woman, they did the same job. Bought companies chopped them up and sold them off for profit" and it took a prostitute to bring Gere's character around. What's it gonna take for Romney??
Why doesn't Romney go more in detail about how to solve problems? If he has made mistakes in the past everyone makes them.Some people are good talkers and some people are doers,he has done good things that he hasn't been given credit for and blamed for things not his fault.He is fully capable of leading this country in the right direction. God bless America!
Read this link
www.foreignpolicy.com/.../how_america_can_lead_the_global_econ...
How America Can Lead the Global Economy - By Edward Conard ...
Mr Conrad worked at Bain Capital. If I understand him correctly, what America needs to do is focus on innovation and let the rest of the world worry about manufacturing. This he claims is one of the main things he learned at Bain. I may have been missing something but Mr. Romney seems to be saying something entirely different when he addresses energy as a major input for production and appears to be saying that we have to boost manufacturing.
Interestingly, neither mention funding for education - for high schools to train children to find math and science sexy. The Japanese taught basic practical science to their children - how to fix stuff in the house; how electricity works how things actually work and how to fix them yourself. They understand the engineering that supports their economy.
But beating the innovation drum is nothing new. I seem to recall that the decision to focus on innovation was made during the Clinton administration and specific policies were put in place to make sure that American companies could go offshore for cheap labour. One of the policy makers responsible for this has since admitted that the policy was wrongheaded.
But here is Mr. Conrad beating the drum for implementing a 'democratic' failed policy. Perhaps one day someone will actually force Mr. Romney to face up to the fact that making money is not a primary requirement for the White House - thinking is.
another link on the importance of manufacturing which lives and dies on ideas and innovation.
http://www.itif.org/media/interview-rob-atkinson-american-manufacturing
ideas by themselves without adding value is not innovation; just ideas.