Cooking The Books On Bain

[Conan71]

In absence of any substantive economic accomplishments of his own and ignoring the truth about stimulus and TARP program dollars going to create jobs in foreign countries, the Obama campaign has restarted to distortions and outright lies about Mitt Romney's time at Bain Capital.  No less than President Clinton said impugning Romney and Bain was a mistake.

Fact checking Obama and Romney on Bain Capitol

By Dennis Byrne, today at 7:56 am
Most candidates — Republican, Democrat or Independent — inevitably say things during their campaigns that are wrong, stupid or deceptive.

President Barack Obama, I'm sure, wishes that he could take back his boast during his 2008 run that he had campaigned in "57 states." Former Vice President Dan Quayle's "potatoe" misspelling plagued him the rest of his political life.

Much of that can be forgiven or overlooked as proof that the candidate is human. But when the candidate repeats the same gaffe or deception over and over again, it's grounds for questioning his qualification for public office.

Which brings us to Republican Mitt Romney's oft-repeated claim that he had left Bain Capital in 1999 and thus couldn't be saddled with the firm's job-killing or outsourcing actions. Obama's team has made the claim a centerpiece of its campaign to demonstrate that the multimillionaire Romney doesn't care about American workers or the middle class. But Romney repeats the claim over and over again, making everyone wonder about his veracity.

Romney does so in the face of evidence published by the Boston Globe that "government documents filed by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital say Romney remained chief executive and chairman of the firm three years beyond the date he said he ceded control, even creating five new investment partnerships during that time."

So why does Romney keep denying it, even demanding over and again that Obama apologize for deception?

Because Romney is right and Obama is wrong. It's Obama who is repeating the same deceit to the point of making him look like a fool or a liar.

I'll let the "fact checkers" explain why they gave Obama a shellacking.

Dan Primack, a Fortune magazine senior editor, responded to the Globe "revelations" by finding other documents showing that while Romney didn't give up formal Bain titles until 2002, "actual investment and management decisions were being made by others." He concluded: "The contemporaneous Bain documents show that Romney was indeed telling the truth about no longer having operational input at Bain ..."

The (Minneapolis) Star Tribune fact checker wrote: "But the weight of evidence suggests that Romney did in fact end active management of Bain in 1999. He stated that in a federal disclosure form he signed, under threat of criminal penalties. He said he was a 'former employee' in a state disclosure form. A state commission concluded 10 years ago that he did, indeed, leave Bain in 1999. And investors were told he was not part of the management team."

The Columbia Journalism Review rapped the Obama campaign for an anti-Romney ad that "distorts the facts in a Washington Post story to implicate Mitt Romney in outsourcing by firms that received funds from Bain Capital."

FactCheck.org concluded, "The president's campaign fails to back up its claims that Romney 'shipped jobs' overseas."

The Des Moines Register's Jennifer Jacobs noted: "Independent fact checkers have debunked President Barack Obama's previous allegations that Mitt Romney was responsible for outsourcing jobs, but the Democrat will soon air his third TV ad in Iowa going after his Republican rival on the same claim."

Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post's fact checker, grievously offended the paper's liberal readers by concluding that the Obama campaign is "blowing smoke." That drew a "roasting" of 5,000 responses, but after revisiting the issue, Kessler concluded: "So far, I have not seen enough evidence that (Romney) was actively managing Bain and its investments during this period. Thus I am standing with my assessment that Romney essentially left Bain in 1999."

Kessler awarded Obama three (out of four) Pinocchios in his ranking system, which rates untruths the way film critics rate movies — the higher the number, the more dishonest the fib.

As for the charge that Romney committed a felony by lying to federal regulators about his post-1999 role in Bain, Kessler suggested that the Obama campaign should "put its money where its mouth is" by filing a federal complaint about Romney's financial disclosure form, rather than trying "to mislead people about potential violations in relatively unimportant (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) documents."

All this doesn't excuse Romney for all the campaign Pinocchios he has garnered from Kessler. But Obama can't escape blame for trying to divert attention from the lousy economy by stubbornly sticking to one of the most feckless and deceptive campaign strategies in memory

http://www.chicagonow.com/dennis-byrnes-barbershop/2012/07/fact-checking-obama-and-romney-on-bain-capitol/

Democratic bundler and Obama's former "car czar" Steven Rattner offers his assessment:

It's a stretch to say Bain "drowned" these companies in debt, as though the firm purposely drove them toward insolvency or just engaged in unmitigated borrowing sprees. Here's an analysis of Bain's investment record from Democratic fundraiser and former Obama administration car czar Steven Rattner:

"Bain had less than its share of bankruptcies, but it had a few — it appears four — that are particularly troubling. In all those cases, when the portfolio companies initially showed signs of promise, Bain took advantage of their progress to borrow more money, which it took out as a dividend. Later, the fortunes of each company turned down, ultimately into insolvency.

"When Bain 'releveraged' those companies and took the cash out, the investment managers of course had no idea that the companies would later falter. But with the benefit of hindsight, taking a more conservative approach and refraining from squeezing these dividends out of the companies would certainly have been more prudent.

"Let's be sure to keep these few problem children in perspective. During the Romney years, Bain made 77 significant investments — and a number of smaller ones. It made billions for worthy investors and, yes, doubtless created some incalculable number of net new jobs for the U.S. economy."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/more-tenuous-claims-about-romneys-bain-capital-record/2012/07/10/gJQAZmKDbW_blog.html

[Gaspar]

It's all they got now that the dog thing didn't have much impact.

[nathanm]

So what you're saying is that other successes means that (what I see as) unethical behavior is somehow excused? I was unaware that business acumen somehow releases one from liability from fraudulent behavior.

Also, factcheck's fact checking on this particular issue has pretty much been a parroting of the Romney camp's points. They haven't really dealt with any of the SEC filings that indicate that Romney was in fact involved in Bain (or at least some of its portfolio companies) after 1999. Also, where can I find a $100,000 a year no-show job? I would like one as well, please.

[Gaspar]

Also, where can I find a $100,000 a year no-show job? I would like one as well, please.

Build up a multi-billion dollar company.  Step down, but retain a majority stake.  Devote your time with no salary to a favorite charity or organization.  It's easy, but you'd have to stop whining about everything first.

[Red Arrow]

Also, where can I find a $100,000 a year no-show job? I would like one as well, please.

Only one?  I want at least two or three.

[nathanm]

I think Mr. Stewart manages, once again, to explain the issue.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-16-2012/democalypse-2012---bain-damage---romney-s-blind-trust

[Gaspar]

Well of course he does.  Perhaps Jersey Shore will do a special on it too?  That way the left can reach all of their constituents.

[Conan71]

I think Mr. Stewart manages, once again, to explain the issue.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-16-2012/democalypse-2012---bain-damage---romney-s-blind-trust

I don't trust Stewart.  I'm waiting to hear it from Maher.

[Gaspar]

I don't trust Stewart.  I'm waiting to hear it from Maher.

What does Matthews have to say on the subject? 

[heironymouspasparagus]

Build up a multi-billion dollar company.  Step down, but retain a majority stake.  Devote your time with no salary to a favorite charity or organization.  It's easy, but you'd have to stop whining about everything first.

Or better yet, just inherit, then use that 'seed money' to gain preferential treatment from rich buddies, then buy the Congress you want...why go through all that messy "work" part??

[heironymouspasparagus]

Just gotta love it...spin it to be "unimportant"....
I guess it is only a "casual" felony to improperly sign those things??  Minor felony?  there's gotta be some spin phrase for it...




relatively unimportant (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) documents

[Conan71]

If Romney were truly a felon and tax cheat, don't you think the SEC and IRS would be firmly implanted in his donkey right now?

Personally, I think it's reprehensible for a sitting president to think it necessary to insinuate his opponent is a felon.  If it didn't originate with President Obama, he needs to repudiate the accusation.  Being a law professor, he should understand better than anyone about libel and slander.

[Gaspar]

If Romney were truly a felon and tax cheat, don't you think the SEC and IRS would be firmly implanted in his donkey right now?

Either that, or they'd make him Treasury Secretary.

[nathanm]

If Romney were truly a felon and tax cheat, don't you think the SEC and IRS would be firmly implanted in his donkey right now?

No. They are woefully underfunded to the point that, at least in the IRS' case, very few returns at the top of the income scale are audited. David Cay Johnston has some hard figures, but it's a tiny number. It's not surprising when you consider the Republicans' 30 year war on the IRS.

Again, consider the example of former President Bush. He made something around $80 million when he and his partners sold the Rangers. (great return, he put in around $40,000 and convinced the government to put in tens of millions) He improperly classified that income as a long term capital gain. If you're not a private equity manager with carried interest, you don't get to do that (legally). Was the IRS all up in his donkey? Nope. Instead, he got what amounts to a $16 million gift from the Treasury department and 8 years as President.