Is
it just me, or have some of our GOP candidates let their closet
anti-capitalist out? Specifically, I'm referring to attacks on Mitt
Romney in regards to recent statements, claims that a CEO or manager
would be a poor president, and his record as a venture capitalist at
Bain Capital.
Romney
the Terminator
Some
of the candidates have taken some of Mitt's comments out of context
when speaking about health care companies. This seems like a lame
attack done in poor taste.
“I
want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the
insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also
means if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like
being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if
someone doesn’t give me a good service that I need, I want to say
I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.”
What
the other candidates claimed Romney said was: “I like being able to
fire people.”
When
I first heard the comment, I was reminded of a chick flick that I
watched once that starred a guy who's job was to fire people. He was
a real-life terminator. Rick Perry's witty, albeit petty attempt to
create
a ringtone out of the phrase deserves points for merit, but
Huntsman telling people that the guy who headed a firm that owns a
huge chunk of his daddy's company is unelectable
for the comments falls short. Incidentally, could the reason that
Huntsman Sr hasn't written kiddo's campaign a giant check be the fact
that he's a business partner with a firm closely associated with an
opponent?
As
you can see, they took less than a sentence out of an entire
paragraph spoken specifically about a relationship with an
unsatisfactory service provider out of context and applied it in
general principle to paint the man as the evil job-cutting equivalent
of It's a Wonderful Life's
Mr. Potter.
Obviously,
the other candidates were hoping to take the image of Romney as a
Wall Street fat cat that OWS has painted for him and run with it. If
they can make him seem out of touch or ruthless, then they feel they
might be able to detract some votes from him.
Unfortunately,
I feel that this particular attack is petty and poorly formulated.
I'm not surprised that Romney's words were taken out of context.
These are politicians that we're working with. They all do it, all
the time. Romney
did it, too in an attack ad on President Obama. The issue that I
take with the comments is not so much that they're out of context,
but that they're fruitless. They don't do any real damage. In fact,
they might help Romney.
First,
a guy who “likes to fire people” in the private sector really
isn't a threat to me in public office. The president doesn't own my
company. It's not like he'll call on America's job creators and tell
them to stop. At worst, he'll fire his own staff repeatedly, which
will in the grand scheme of things have little effect on someone
detached from the President's
Palace.
Second,
even if we take the “like to fire people” comments and run with
them further, I think that many people would celebrate the
possibility that Romney would fire regulators at the EPA or
stay-at-home IRS code-writers.
Additionally,
someone could take him saying, “I like to be able to
fire people” as a union busting comment. After all, it's harder to
fire a union worker than a non-union one. I don't think many
conservatives would balk at that.
At
the weakest, this argument implies that Romney would be a
cost-cutter. He'd trim the fat. Doesn't break my heart.
A
Manager Doesn't Belong in the White House
At
last Saturday night's GOP
primary debate in New Hampshire, Rick Santorum defended remarks
he made, claiming that a “manager” would make a poor president.
He claims that what America needs is a leader,
not a manager. A weak argument, if you ask me. In most cases, the
words leader and manager can be used interchangeably. Isn't a good
leader a good manager? Isn't a good manager a good leader?
At
the debate, Romney seized on the weakness of the argument and
promptly threw the comments back in Santorum's face by saying he's
out of touch with the leadership qualities that a guy who “managed”
the 2002 Olympics back to success must possess and painted Santorum
as a government guy who has no idea what the private sector really
needs.
Mitt
the Job-Cutter
I'm
having a hard time wrapping my brain around a group of supposed
"free-market conservatives" who attack a venture-capital
firm. After all, isn't venture-capitalism the charged, bold,
high-risk / high-reward essence of the American capitalist idea?
Of
course a company that focuses on leveraged buyouts, takeovers, and
start-ups will see bankruptcies, restructurings and downsizing over
the course of their operations. They invest in at-risk companies -
the companies that typical banks and financiers won't touch. Of course guy who ran a company that has invested in over 250 businesses,
many of which were considered risky or failing, will have
to fire people. Of course some businesses will file for bankruptcy,
and of course some pay-cuts will probably occur.
I had a
close experience with a buy-out recently. I sell building products.
Two of my closest competitors recently received investments from
venture-capital firms. One company ended up filing for bankruptcy,
but after some restructuring, they came out solvent after shedding
losing divisions of their company. The other business eventually
failed entirely.
Without
the assistance of their financiers, neither company would have had a
shot at regaining success. Unfortunately, one company failed outright. That
doesn't mean that the idea of venture-capitalism is a failure, but
that its risky. It is possible, albeit difficult to turn a troubled
asset around.
Romney
should get ahead of this topic and tout it as a claim to fame. He helped found the company that directed startup, purchase, restructuring, and profitability of
companies like Staples, Dominos, Burger King, Huntsman Corporation,
Toys'R'us, and more. He should use this record to help his campaign
image as a reformer, organizer, the savior of distressed
organizations. The guy who has what it takes to fix Washington's
financial problems.
The
Real Issues
Romney's
record as a venture-capitalist is not his issue. His inconsistent
political record is. He's a flip-flopper, he's shaky on abortion,
he's shaky on gay marriage, he instituted what was used as a basis
for Obama-care. He's got as much baggage as any of the candidates,
but his opponents seem to focus on his free-market loving,
venture-capitalist record, which makes them seem anti-capitalist. And
last time I checked, republicans, especially conservative republicans
aren't anti-capitalist.