Wattles are a-quiver on the editorial boards of liberal newspapers from coast-to-coast. Why Mitt Romney’s company, Bain Capital laid people off and closed factories when he was CEO in order to make — horrors — a profit. Oh the pain and the misery. Expect a flood of self-righteous anger written from the manicured fingers of the defenders of the working man.
The Boston Globe deigned in an editorial “Bain Capital is fair game, a key to Romney’s campaign.”
Why, thank you for granting Republicans permission to discuss an issue about a man the Boston Globe will never, ever endorse.
From the editorial:
Bain Capital developed an aggressive approach to buying and remaking firms. There are instances in which companies went on to become national names because of Bain Capital’s investment and managerial input. But sometimes Bain Capital’s business expertise and financial wizardry worked at cross purposes; there are several well-known instances when Bain Capital’s actions served to damage companies — not just costing workers their jobs but hampering the firms’ ability to compete in the marketplace.
The challenge for Romney, and one he should welcome, is to show that his “style of investment’’ was, on balance, helpful to all the stakeholders of a company, rather than, as his rivals claim, mainly to those who bought it and sought to make it more profitable.
From Paul Gillin on December 11, 2011: “Early 2009 was when publishers broke the back of the Newspaper Guild. At the Globe, the union bargaining position was so weak that the contract that members finally accepted was actually worse than management’s original offer three months earlier. The showdown at the Globe was a turning point for the US newspaper industry. The management victory in the labor negotiations was so complete that publishers across the country were effectively given carte blanche to fire people by the thousands. Which they did. The amazing Erica Smith counted nearly 15,000 newspaper layoffs in 2009 and another 6,700 in the two years since. And her count doesn’t include the many jobs that were eliminated or scaled back without public announcement.”
The main problem with Romney’s time at Bain was not how he operated, which is what Newt pointed to but rather his claim of creating 100k jobs. When he ran for the Senate he claimed 10k jobs creation. If Romney’s net job creation looks at those hired by companies Bain invested in, like Staples, which went on to hire and employ many thousands of workers you must also include the damage to lives including deaths of those who lost their jobs as a result of Bain’s acts. The director of an investment firm is not a platform to the Presidency.
Bain took on troubled companies. Some survived. Some did not. That happens everywhere. Up the street from me is a small restaurant. It does well. The owners created a local hangout. The previous owners of the property ran a horrible restaurant/jazz club. Food was awful, service terrible.
People support businesses that provide services they want at a reasonable price. Some companies can”t do that and eventually fail.
Government is not like that. I’d prefer to see a president willing and able to shed the redundant and useless in the government than one that would prop up and support continued useless behaviors.
Would you go to a welcoming hangout with good food, or one with snotty waiters and rusty lettuce?
Buggy whips and lousy restaurants have limited appeal.