Saturday, October 6, 2012

VIDEO: Paul Ryan's Version of "47 Percent"—the "Takers" vs. the "Makers"



| Fri Oct. 5, 2012 8:00 AM PDT
Mitt Romney's "47 percent," meet Paul Ryan's "takers."
Romney is finally backing off his controversial comments, but the theme that the nation is divided into makers and government-dependent takers is one of long standing for both Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan. The GOP vice presidential candidate has repeatedly made statements that suggest he sees America in Ayn Randian terms—that many citizens are just takers, parasites who leech off productive citizens, the makers. As this collection of rarely seen videos shows, this has been a recurrent talking point for Ryan in small gatherings for years.
"Right now about 60 percent of the American people get more benefits in dollar value from the federal government than they pay back in taxes," he said on the June 2010 edition ofWashington Watch. "So we're going to a majority of takers versus makers." By November 2011, in an address he gave at anAmerican Spectator event, Ryan put the number of takers at 30 percent. (That remark wasfirst reported by Ryan Grim of the Huffington Post.)
Ryan has also warned about President Barack Obama creating "more of a permanent class of government dependents"—language that echoes Romney's take on the "47 percent who are with [Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it."
As you can see in this series of charts, "government dependents" aren't who you necessarily think they are. Many people who don't pay federal income taxes are superrich or well off. Another 60 percent of Americans who don't pay income tax are working; they just don't make enough money to owe taxes. Most of the rest are retired folks, students, and members of the military serving in combat zones.
Full original videos posted by YouTube users (in order of clip appearance):

Romney on 47 Percent: Who's Sorry Now?


On Thursday night, Mitt Romney, taking something of a victory lap following the first presidential debate, appeared on Fox News(where else?) with Sean Hannity (who else?), and was asked what he would have said had President Barack Obama referred to Romney's 47 percent rant. The Republican presidential contender replied:
Well, clearly in a campaign with hundreds if not thousands of question and answer sessions, now and then you're going to say something that doesn't come out right. In this case I said something that's just completely wrong. And I absolutely believe however that my life has shown that I care about the 100 percent and that has been demonstrated throughout my life. This whole campaign is about the 100 percent. When I become president it'll be about helping the 100 percent.
This was quite different than what Romney said in that hastily called press conference afterMother Jones released the 47 percent video. At that point, Romney maintained that his comments had been inelegant, but he embraced the "message" he had been trying to convey at that private $50,000-a-plate fundraising dinner at a Boca Raton mansion. Nothing wrong with these comments, except for a certain clumsiness, said the candidate who wrote a book titled No Apology.
So he's changed his tune. Big surprise? Not really. This is an indication, though, that he and his strategists believed his 47 percent minute are still an important factor in the race and a profound problem for him. Romney wouldn't otherwise shift his response at this stage. Focus groups conducted by the Obama and Romney campaigns have indicated that his 47 percent remarks have alienated independent voters and even "weak Republican voters." Apparently, the 47 percent effect is not fading fast.
After the debate, Obama was much criticized by Democrats (and pundits) for a lackluster—to be polite—debate performance during which he never mentioned the 47 percent video, Romney's days at Bain Capital, or Romney's refusal to release tax returns of previous years. As I reported yesterday, an Obama campaign official explained,
Not that we won't talk about [the 47 percent video] again. We will. But [what's] most compelling [is] hearing it from Romney himself. We've got that on the air at a heavy dollar amount in key states. And it's sunk in. Ultimately the president's goal last night was to speak past the pundits and directly to the undecided voter tuning in for the first time about the economic choice and his plans to restore economic security.
Perhaps Obama had made a smart decision. Obviously, Romney and his aides calculated that he had to say something more contrite about his 47 percent tirade, and he was ready to make this nonapology apology at the debate in front of one of the biggest audiences he will have between now and Election Day. Purposefully or not, Obama ended up denying Romney a national platform for his reversal and forced Romney to play this move on Fox, where he wouldn't be speaking directly to millions of people ticked off by his comments.
As for Romney's actual explanation, it was thin. He didn't say what had been wrong about his comments. Was he merely wrong on the numbers by conflating Obama voters with people who don't earn enough to pay taxes and Americans who receive some form of government assistance or payment? Was he wrong to say that half the nation are moochers and victims who don't take personal responsibility for their lives? What does he really think about all this—and them? His explanation required a bit more explanation. Yet Hannity—don't be shocked—didn't challenge him. Which means this case is not closed, and Romney's 47 percent moment is not likely to remain in the past.

Unemployment Rate Drops to 7.8%, Lowest in Nearly Four Years


October 05,2012
Print Friendly
|   68 views




WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent last month, dropping below 8 percent for the first time in nearly four years and giving President Barack Obama a potential boost with the election a month away.
The rate declined from 8.1 percent because the number of people who said they were employed soared by 873,000 — an encouraging sign for an economy that’s been struggling to create enough jobs.
The number of unemployed Americans is now 12.1 million, the fewest since January 2009.
The Labor Department said employers added 114,000 jobs in September. It also said the economy created 86,000 more jobs in July and August than the department had initially estimated.
Wages rose in September. And more people started looking for work.
The revisions show employers added 146,000 jobs per month from July through September, up from 67,000 in the previous three months.
The 7.8 percent unemployment rate for September matches the rate in January 2009, when Obama took office. In the months after Obama’s inauguration, the rate rose sharply and had topped 8 percent for 43 straight months.

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

BUSINESS RECORD ROMNEY


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 Romney spent most of his business career as CEO of private equity firm Bain Capital – as of June 2007 he
maintained an investor’s stake in the company.
 Bain Capital has been criticized for relentless focus on bottom line at expense of workers and jobs.
 Romney describes himself as a “business legend” in his campaign ads and once said of himself: “I’m basically
in the investor’s Hall of Fame.”
 Bain Capital and Bain & Co. employees donated at least $171,000 to Romney’s presidential campaign in Q1
2007 and gave tens of thousands more in support of his previous political activities.
 Bain Capital financed 1988 buyout with junk bonds issued by Drexel Burnham – when SEC filed charges
against the firm and CEO Michael Milken, Bain Capital maintained their business relationship; Romney later
reminisced about “the glorious days of Drexel Burnham.”
 In 2004, Bain & Co. received a multi-million dollar contract from the National Iranian Oil Company.
 Romney sat on board of directors of Bain portfolio company Damon Clinical Laboratories, which in 1996 was
fined over $100 million for Medicare fraud committed during Romney’s tenure.
 Bain Capital owned company named Ampad that purchased an Indiana paper plant, fired its workers and
offered to bring them back at drastically reduced salary and benefits – the firings became an issue in the 1994
Senate race when workers blamed Romney for their situation and appeared in Kennedy campaign ads.
 After Romney became governor, Bain Capital teamed up with Chinese appliance maker Haier Group in 2005
in effort to purchase Newton, IA-based Maytag Corp. and send jobs overseas.
 At least two Bain Capital companies – Stream International and Modus Media – focused on outsourced
technical support services, expanding facilities abroad while contracting operations in the United States.
 Bain Capital operated steel company called GS Industries which went bankrupt in 2001 after years of labor
strife, closing a plant in Kansas City and laying off over 700 workers.
GENERAL BAIN OVERVIEW
Romney Remains An Investor In Bain Capital, The Private Equity Firm He Funded In 1984 – Partners
Running The Company Today Were Brought On Board During Romney’s Tenure
As Of June 2007, Romney “Remains An Investor In Bain Capital.” “Mr. Romney, who remains an investor in
Bain Capital, said he had not been involved in those decisions but acknowledged that such payments became
part of the buyout business ‘very early on.’” (David D. Kirkpatrick, “Romney’s Political Fortunes Tied To Riches He Gained In
Business,” The New York Times, 6/4/07)
“Romney Started Bain Capital In 1984, Made His Fortune There, And Ran It Before Moving Into The
Governor’s Office Four Years Ago.” (Brett Arends, “American Workers’ Bane,” Boston Herald, 6/22/05)
 Current Bain Capital Managing Partner Josh Bekenstein Founded Company With Romney In 1984.
“Mr. Bekenstein joined Bain Capital at its inception in 1984. He has been a Managing Director since 1986.
Prior to joining Bain Capital, Mr. Bekenstein spent several years at Bain & Company where he was involved
with companies in a variety of industries.” (Bain Capital Website, www.baincapital.com, Accessed 2/26/07)
Romney Ran Day-To-Day Operations At Bain Capital From Its Inception In 1984 Through Early 1999, When
He Left To Assume Control Of The Salt Lake Winter Games. “When Mr. Romney finally set up shop just
across the hall from Bain consulting in 1984, his initial plan centered on providing venture capital – seed money –
136
for ideas spun off by Bain consultants. … By the time Mr. Romney left the firm in 1999, the investments it had sold
off had made enough money to deliver an average annual return that amounted to as much as 100 percent before
fees, several of its investors said.” (David Kirkpatrick, “Romney Political Fortunes Tied To Riches He Gained In Business,” The New
York Times, 6/4/07)
Romney Served As CEO Of Bain Capital Through August 2001, Even Though He No Longer Ran Daily
Operations. “Although he gave up running day-to-day operations at the venture capital firm in order to head the
Salt Lake Winter Olympics, he remained CEO and held his financial interest in the company through August
2001.” (Stephanie Ebbert and Yvonne Abraham, “Camps Spar Over Romney Word Choice,” The Boston Globe, 10/31/02)
Bain Capital Is “Remains Romney’s Creation” As Over Three-Quarters Of Its Partners Came On Board
During Romney’s Tenure, Joining The “Corporate Culture … He Nurtured Over 17 Years.” “Bain Capital
remains Romney’s creation. The corporate culture is one he nurtured over 17 years. A Herald analysis of the
firm’s leadership shows that more than three quarters of the managing partners joined when he was the boss.”
(Brett Arends, “American Workers’ Bane,” Boston Herald, 6/22/05)
Romney: “I’m Basically In The Investors’ Hall Of Fame.” (John McElhenny, “Romney, O’Brien Spar At Gubernatorial
Debate,” The Associated Press, 10/25/02)
Romney Relies On Employees At Bain Capital And Bain & Co. For Sizeable Campaign Contributions
Employees At Bain Capital And Bain & Co. Donated Over $171,000 To Romney’s Campaign In The First
Three Months Of 2007. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, persons affiliated with Bain Capital
donated at least $99,800 to Romney’s campaign in the first quarter of 2007 and he received another $71,250 from
employees of Bain & Co. (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 6/15/07)
“Republican Mitt Romney Received Almost $100,000 From Staff At Bain Capital, The Private Equity Group
That The Former Governor Of Massachusetts Founded.” (Alex Barker, “New Tycoons Are Taking A Not Entirely Altruistic
Interest,” Financial Times, 5/30/07)
Bain Executives Also Donated Tens Of Thousands Of Dollars To Support Romney’s Pre-Presidential
Campaign Activities. “[R]ecords of Mr. Romney’s political action committees indicate that he also accumulated a
valuable Rolodex during his years at Bain. Executives of Bain Capital and its sister firm, Bain Consulting,
contributed more than $64,000 over the last two years to Mr. Romney’s federal political action committee,
Commonwealth PAC, and in 2002 they gave more than $14,000 to his campaign for governor.” (David D. Kirkpatrick,
“Romney Reaps $20 Million To Top G.O.P. Rivals,” The New York Times, 4/3/07)
Romney’s Background As CEO And Corporate Dealmaker Seen As Influence On His Political Tactics
Romney’s “Flip-Flops And Business Success” Are Connected Because “Abandoning Deeply Held
Attitudes And Reversing Positions Are Job Requirements” For CEOs. “So, how are Romney’s flip-flops and
business success connected? People suspect, perhaps correctly, that Romney really doesn’t believe all the things
he’s saying. … [S]uch hypocrisy, which turns off voters, is something like a job requirement for CEOs. In the
executive suite, abandoning deeply held attitudes and reversing positions are job requirements. How often have
you seen a CEO proclaim that a struggling unit is not for sale, only to put it on the block a few months later? A
CEO will praise a product to the skies one day and then cancel it the next. He’ll boast, sincerely, that his company
is No. 1 in the industry and then, when he quits the next day to run a rival, claim that the new firm is tops.” (Daniel
Gross, “The CEO Candidate,” Slate.com, 2/26/07)
“Good CEOs … Devise New Business Strategies And Business Plans To Cope With Changing Market
Conditions.” “These business flips are fine, because in the corporate world, people don’t confuse advocacy of a
company’s strategy or products and services with personal honor or integrity. … Good CEOs don’t simply stake
out public positions and stick to them for 20 years. They devise new business strategies and business plans to
cope with changing market conditions.” (Daniel Gross, “The CEO Candidate,” Slate.com, 2/26/07)
Romney “Doesn’t Run In Elections, He Competes In Markets.” “It is clear that Romney approaches politics
not as a crusade but as a business case study. He doesn’t run in elections, he competes in markets. In 1994, the
former management consultant knew his market. … Today, Romney correctly recognizes that what is appropriate
for one market (Massachusetts voters) clearly is not appropriate for another market (Republican-primary voters).”
(Daniel Gross, “The CEO Candidate,” Slate.com, 2/26/07)
137
Romney’s Business Acumen Was “Forged In The Often-Overheated 1980s.” “An examination of Romney’s
nearly 20-year business career in Boston – as a consultant, venture capitalist, entrepreneur and chief executive –
shows a man whose uncanny ability to smell a deal, take a risk and turn a profit was forged in the oftenoverheated
1980s.” (Mitchell Zuckoff and Ben Bradlee Jr., “Romney’s Business Record Gives Larger Picture,” The Boston Globe, 8/8/94)
As CEO, Romney “Insisted On Having Almost Dictatorial Powers. … That Was Essential.” “The Bostonbased
venture capitalist likes to be in control. ‘(At SLOC) I don’t have the kind of control I’m used to in the
business world,’ he said. ‘When I was involved in (the resurrection of the beleaguered international firm Bain
Consulting), I insisted on having almost dictatorial powers. … That was essential.’” (Lisa Riley Roche, “Mitt Exemplifies
The New Openness Sought For SLOC,” Deseret News, 2/12/99)
Former Business Colleague Said Romney Possessed “Ability To Identify People’s Insecurities And
Exploit Them To His Own Benefit.” “[S]ome colleagues found Romney to be manipulative. Romney had an
‘ability to identify people’s insecurities and exploit them to his own benefit,’ says a source who worked with
Romney but refused to be quoted for ‘fear of retribution.’ This source says that Romney would vary bonuses
among his partners just enough to put people on edge, giving $3.1 million to one, $3 million to another and $2.9
million to another.” (Evan Thomas et al, “Is Mitt Romney Ready For Prime-Time Politics?” Newsweek, 4/16/07)
Romney, On His Business Record: “I Won The Lottery … I Was Absolutely In The Right Place At The
Right Time.” “Romney said he can afford to do this because ‘I won the lottery. I got into something called venture
capital just when the stock market went from, I don’t know, a couple thousand to almost 10,000. I was absolutely
in the right place at the right time.’” (Lisa Riley Roche, “Mitt Exemplifies The New Openness Sought For SLOC,” Deseret News,
2/12/99)
Under Romney’s Leadership, Bain Capital Had History Of Relentless Focus On Bottom Line, Improving
Corporate Profits At Expense Of Local Workers
Under Romney’s Stewardship, “Bain Left Companies In Bankruptcy Or Near Collapse After Selling Off Its
Interests And Made Huge Profits.” “Romney was tremendously successful as CEO of Bain Capital and he
helped build many companies. But his work also involved controversial ventures … that resulted in downsizing or
layoffs. In some cases, Bain left companies in bankruptcy or near collapse after selling off its interests and made
huge profits. Some companies Bain invested in, such as American Pad & Paper of Dallas, Stage Stores of
Houston, and Dynamic Details (DDI) of Orange County, Calif., crashed after Bain went public with the company’s
stock, and then immediately sold its own interest.” (Frank Phillips, “Romney Profited On Firm Later Tied To Fraud,” The Boston
Globe, 10/10/02)
 Bain Culture: “Possessed By A Mission To Increase The ‘Total Economic Value’ Of Their Clients.”
“Notoriously secretive about itself and its work for clients, Bain has over the years been labeled the ‘KGB of
Consulting’ … Bain consultants seem possessed by a mission to increase the ‘total economic value’ of their
clients. Like religious zealots, they single-mindedly dedicate themselves to improving their customer’s
competitive position. Business is a holy war that the client must win and the competition must lose.” (Nancy
Perry, “A Consulting Firm Too Hot To Handle?” Fortune, 4/27/87)
“Bainies” Were Known For Company Songs And Secrecy, Compared To KGB. “Bain & Co. also was known
for the strict discipline, team spirit - including company songs - and relentless work ethic of its troops. With their
uniforms of white shirts and red power ties, the clean-cut Bain consultants were known as ‘Bainies,’ a knockoff of
the term ‘Moonies’ for followers of Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Bain & Co. also was known for its secrecy, earning
sobriquets like ‘the KGB of consulting.’” (Mitchell Zuckoff and Ben Bradlee Jr., “Romney’s Business Record Gives Larger Picture,”
The Boston Globe, 8/8/94)
 Code Names And More: “From the beginning, Bain cultivated a mystique around the secretive firm, which
was once dubbed ‘the KGB of consulting.’ Partners didn’t carry business cards and referred to clients by code
names. … And it inculcated in the recruits such a sense of mission that young consultants became known as
Bainies, a reference to the Unification Church’s Moonies.” (Paul Hemp, “Did Greed Destroy Bain & Co.?” The Boston
Globe, 2/26/91)
Bain Got “Their Hands Deep into The Trousers Of A Company,” According To One Executive. “How could
a respected, albeit highly aggressive, firm like Bain have left itself open to being tainted by the scandalous
behavior of a client? The answer may lie in Bain’s approach to business: ‘They get their hands deep into the
trousers of a company,’ says an executive who knows the firm well.” (Nancy Perry, “A Consulting Firm Too Hot To Handle?”
Fortune, 4/27/87)
138
 “Like Religious Zealots … Business Is A Holy War That The Client Must Win And The Competition
Must Lose.” “Notoriously secretive about itself and its work for clients, Bain has over the years been labeled
the ‘KGB of Consulting,’ or a ‘Moonie commune’ run by the ‘Reverend’ Bain. Bain consultants seem
possessed by a mission to increase the ‘total economic value’ of their clients. Like religious zealots, they
single-mindedly dedicate themselves to improving their customer’s competitive position. Business is a holy
war that the client must win and the competition must lose.” (Nancy Perry, “A Consulting Firm Too Hot To Handle?”
Fortune, 4/27/87)
 “Stand Aside, Asshole. Here We Come.” “The real problem for Bain & Co., though, may be the firm’s
tendency to alienate and weaken lower-level managers at the companies where it works. … Notes the
chairman of another management consulting firm: ‘Their product is brilliant. It’s the package that has been a
problem. Five million Bainies saying, ‘Stand aside, asshole. Here we come.’” (Nancy Perry, “A Consulting Firm Too
Hot To Handle?” Fortune, 4/27/87)
Romney “Often” Tapped Bain Partners For Management Roles In Bain Capital-Funded Companies,
Raking In Millions In Fees For Bain & Co. “Romney still works very closely with his old company, often hiring
Bain partners to take over management of the outfits he invests in. Last December Bain Capital Partners paid $2
million for a 40% stake in GS Roofing Products, a division of GenStar Inc., which lost in excess of $10 million in
1986. The company, under direction of majority stockholders Berkshire Partners, immediately hired – you
guessed it – Bain & Co. to try to stem the losses. Fees so far: close to $2 million.” (Laura Jereski, “Putting It On The Line,”
Forbes, 11/30/87)
Romney Blasted Critics Of Bain Management Style For “Naivete,” Claiming “There Is Nothing Wrong With
Companies … Trying To Make Money” And “This Is Not Fantasy Land.” “Romney said yesterday that layoffs
can be a part of doing business. ‘This is not fantasy land,’ said Romney. ‘This is the real world and in the real
world there is nothing wrong with companies trying to compete, trying to stay alive, trying to make money.’ …
‘Clearly there is a naivete which sometimes exists in people who have not been in the real world, working with
real businesses with real competition trying to keep jobs and businesses alive,’ Romney said. ‘They live in a
never-never land where not all businesses get better, not all businesses grow.’” (Frank Phillips, “Romney Firm Tied To
Labor Fight,” The Boston Globe, 9/23/94)
Romney Defended Layoffs At Bain Capital-Controlled Indiana Paper Plant In 1994. “In July 1994, Ampad [a
paper company Bain Capital controlled] bought an Indiana paper plant, fired the existing workers, and gave most
employees their jobs back at reduced wages and benefits. Even though Romney was on leave from Bain for the
campaign, the workers came to Massachusetts and dogged his campaign. Romney initially tried to justify the
layoffs, defending them as necessary in corporate restructuring.” (Stephanie Ebbert, “Romney Seeks High Office With
Confidence, Pedigree,” The Boston Globe, 8/14/02)
Bain Capital Called “Bully On The Block,” Blamed For Closing Of Kansas City Steel Plant In 2002. “Out-ofwork
steelworkers in Kansas City, for example, blame Romney and Bain Capital for decisions that led to last
year’s bankruptcy of a steel mill that opened its doors in 1888. Bain bought the operation, GST Steel Co., in 1993.
Workers said the new owners cleaned house and brought in an inexperienced management team. Dan Misel,
who worked at GST Steel for 35 years, said Bain came in ‘like the bully on the block,’ assuming its managers
knew how to run the operation better than anyone already in place. … In 1997, two years before Romney left Bain
to run the Winter Olympics, the Kansas City plant endured its first strike in four decades. After a 10-week walkout,
union officials said they offered to work with managers to improve the plant’s competitiveness, but that the Bainimposed
managers weren’t interested. … When the plant closed earlier this year, amid a generally gloomy climate
for US steel companies, workers lost severance packages and health insurance coverage.” (Thomas Farragher and
Scott Bernard Nelson, “Business Record Helps, Hinders Romney,” The Boston Globe, 10/24/02)
BAIN CAPITAL AND DREXEL BURNHAM
Romney Used Drexel Burnham Junk Bonds To Finance 1988 Leveraged Buyout, Right Around The Time
SEC Officials Were Taking Formal Action Against The Company
Bain Capital Financed Mid-1988 Deal With Junk Bonds Issued By Drexel Burnham And Notorious
Financier Michael Milken. “Sometimes, when Bain Capital was looking to make a deal, the bulk of the money
came not from its investors but from other sources, such as junk bonds. In 1988, for instance, Bain Capital
decided to buy two Texas department store chains, Bealls and Palais Royale, in a deal valued at $300 million. To
fund the purchase, Bain sought out Drexel Burnham corporate financiers, based in Boston, who were working
139
under junk bond impresario Michael Milken. Romney and the Bain Capital partner who oversaw the deal, Joshua
Bekenstein, said they never dealt with Milken.” (Mitchell Zuckoff and Ben Bradlee Jr., “Romney’s Business Record Gives Larger
Picture,” The Boston Globe, 8/8/94)
Two Months After Hiring Drexel, The SEC Filed Extensive Complaint Alleging Insider Trading And Market
Manipulation – Romney Defended The Decision To Keep Using Drexel In Transaction. “On Sept. 7, 1988 -
roughly two months after Bain Capital hired Drexel to issue junk bonds - the Securities and Exchange
Commission filed a 184-page complaint against Drexel, Milken and others alleging insider trading schemes,
manipulation of stock prices and other violations of federal securities laws. Bain Capital was put in the position of
trying to close a deal with junk bonds from a company being sued by the SEC. Romney and Bekenstein defended
their decision to hire Drexel before the SEC suit – at a time when rumors of the investigation were rife on Wall
Street – as well as after the suit was filed.” (Mitchell Zuckoff and Ben Bradlee Jr., “Romney’s Business Record Gives Larger
Picture,” The Boston Globe, 8/8/94)
 Romney: “We did not say, ‘Oh my goodness, Drexel has been accused of something, not been found guilty.
Should we basically stop the transaction and blow the whole thing up?’” (Mitchell Zuckoff and Ben Bradlee Jr.,
“Romney’s Business Record Gives Larger Picture,” The Boston Globe, 8/8/94)
Romney And Bain Capital Continued Using Drexel Burnham To Refinance Bonds Well After SEC Suit Was
Initiated. “Romney and Bekenstein said their main concern was whether the suit would damage Drexel so badly
that it would be unable to sell the bonds for Bain Capital. As it turned out, the bonds sold quickly. Bain Capital
then refinanced the bonds, also with Drexel, in mid-1989. Of 59 Bain Capital deals, only one involved Drexel.”
(Mitchell Zuckoff and Ben Bradlee Jr., “Romney’s Business Record Gives Larger Picture,” The Boston Globe, 8/8/94)
Romney Later Reminisced About “The Glorious Days Of Drexel Burnham,” Saying “It Was Fun While It
Lasted.” “The deal that jump-started Bain’s business came along in 1986, a $200 million buyout of Accuride
Corp., the wheel and rim manufacturing unit of Firestone Co., Phoenix. Bain financed the deal with just $5 million
of its own equity and borrowed the rest. Just 18 months later, Bain sold Accuride to Phelps Dodge Co. for $320
million. Its return on its investment: $130 million. ‘That was in the glorious days of Drexel Burnham,’ Mr. Romney
recalled. ‘It was fun while it lasted, but fortunately, it came to an end.’” (Jennifer Goldblatt, “Boston Buyout Firm Cashes In by
Adding Value,” The American Banker, 12/23/97)
BAIN & CO. AND IRAN
Bain & Company Was Hired By Iran’s National Oil Company In 2004 To Conduct Efficiency Study
In 2004, Bain & Co.’s Italian Branch Was Hired By National Iranian Oil Company To Conduct Study On
“How To Make The Bureaucratic State Company More Efficient.” “[A]s oil minister, Bijan Namdar Zanganeh,
an ally of powerful former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, in the late 1990s pushed through billions of
dollars in agreements with Shell, France’s Total, Italy’s Eni, Schlumberger and Ha

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Obama: GOP’s most hated


It's getting harder to deny that Republicans have ever hated a president more than they do Barack Obama


Obama: GOP's most hated
This article originally appeared on The American Prospect.
The widespread belief on the right that Barack Obama is a Muslim is one of the stranger features of this period in history. There are some of them who know that Obama says he’s a Christian but are sure that’s all an act designed to fool people, while he secretly prays to Allah. But there are probably a greater number who haven’t given it all that much thought; they just heard somewhere that he’s a Muslim, and it made perfect sense to them—after all, he’s kinda foreign, if you know what I mean. Rather remarkably, that belief has grown over time; as the latest poll from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life shows, fully 30 percent of Republicans, and 34 percent of conservative Republicans, now believe Obama is Muslim. These numbers are about double what they were four years ago.
You can bet there aren’t too many who think there’s nothing wrong with it if he were. For many of them, it’s just a shorthand for Obama being alien and threatening. So it leads me to ask: Can we say, finally, that no Democratic president has ever been hated by Republicans quite as much as Barack Obama?
In the past when this question has been asked, the sensible reply is to not forget history. After all, when Bill Clinton was president, one of the Republican Party’s most respected figures distributed videotapes of a documentary alleging that Clinton was the head of a drug ring and had murdered dozens of people. And they did impeach him the first chance they got. Republicans had a visceral hatred for Franklin Roosevelt, too.

But I really think we’ve reached a new height. What makes this different isn’t just the kind of venom you see among the party’s true-believing supporters but that the hate goes so far up, all the way to the top. The party’s candidate for president literally claims that Obama hates capitalism and is not really American (Mitt Romney recentlysaid, and not for the first time, that Obama has a “very strange, and in some respects foreign to the American experience type of philosophy”). Liberals look at conservatives claiming that Obama is a socialist or that he doesn’t really love America and think, “Those people are nuts.” But there is practically consensus in the GOP that these things are true. If a Republican candidate came out today and said, “Barack Obama is a good person who loves his country, but I just think he’s wrong about policy,” that candidate would probably get kicked out of the party.
This antipathy has multiple sources interacting together, so it’s overly simplistic to say that it’s just because of Obama’s race, or it’s just because of heightened partisanship. But it’s getting harder and harder to claim that there’s ever been a Democrat Republicans hated more.

Sunday, July 1, 2012

Republicans Deliberately Crash the US Economy


Be it ideology or stratagem, the GOP has blocked pro-growth policy and backed job-killing austerity - all while blaming Obama.

o why does the US economy stink?
Why has job creation in America slowed to a crawl? Why, after several months of economic hope, are things suddenly turning sour? The culprits might seem obvious - uncertainty in Europe, an uneven economic recovery, fiscal and monetary policymakers immobilized and incapable of acting. But increasingly, Democrats are making the argument that the real culprit for the country's economic woes lies in a more discrete location: with the Republican Party.
In recent days, Democrats have started coming out and saying publicly what many have been mumbling privately for years - Republicans are so intent on defeating President Obama for re-election that they are purposely sabotaging the country's economic recovery. These charges are now being levied by Democrats such as Senate majority leader Harry Reid and Obama's key political adviser, David Axelrod.
For Democrats, perhaps the most obvious piece of evidence of GOP premeditated malice is the 2010 quote from Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell:
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
Such words lead some to the conclusion that Republicans will do anything, including short-circuiting the economy, in order to hurt Obama politically. Considering that presidents - and rarely opposition parties - are held electorally responsible for economic calamity, it's not a bad political strategy.
Then again, it's a hard accusation to prove: after all, one person's economic sabotage is another person's principled anti-government conservatism.
Beyond McConnell's words, though, there is circumstantial evidence to make the case. Republicans have opposed a lion's share of stimulus measures that once they supported, such as a payroll tax break, which they grudgingly embraced earlier this year. Even unemployment insurance, a relatively uncontroversial tool for helping those in an economic downturn, has been consistently held up by Republicans or used as a bargaining chip for more tax cuts. Ten years ago, prominent conservatives were loudly making the case for fiscal stimulus to get the economy going; today, they treat such ideas like they're the plague.
Traditionally, during economic recessions, Republicans have been supportive of loose monetary policy. Not this time. Rather, Republicans have upbraided Ben Bernanke, head of the Federal Reserve, for even considering policies that focus on growing the economy and creating jobs.
And then, there is the fact that since the original stimulus bill passed in February of 2009, Republicans have made practically no effort to draft comprehensive job creation legislation. Instead, they continue to pursue austerity policies, which reams of historical data suggest harms economic recovery and does little to create jobs. In fact, since taking control of the House of Representatives in 2011, Republicans have proposed hardly a single major jobs bill that didn't revolve, in some way, around their one-stop solution for all the nation's economic problems: more tax cuts.
Still, one can certainly argue - and Republicans do - that these steps are all reflective of conservative ideology. If you view government as a fundamentally bad actor, then stopping government expansion is, on some level, consistent.
So, let's put aside the conspiracy theories for a moment, and look more closely at how the country is faring under the GOP's economic leadership.
As Paul Krugman wrote earlier this week, in the New York Times, while a Democrat rests his head each night in the White House, the United States is currently operating with a Republican economy. After winning the House of Representatives in 2010, the GOP brokered a deal to keep the Bush tax cuts in place, which has reduced the tax burden as a percentage of GDP to its lowest point since Harry Truman sat in the White House. At the insistence of the White House, Congress also agreed to extend unemployment benefits and enact a payroll tax cut - measures that provided a small but important stimulus to the economy, but above all, maintained the key GOP position that taxes must never go up.
But as Congress giveth, Congress also taketh. The GOP's zealotry on tax cuts is only matched by its zealotry in pursuing austerity policies. In the spring of 2011, federal spending cuts forced by Republican legislators took much-needed money out of the economy: combined with the 2012 budget, it has largelycounteracted the positive benefits provided by the 2009 stimulus.
Subsequently, the GOP's refusal to countenance legislation that would help states with their own fiscal crises (largely, the result of declining tax revenue) has led to massive public sector layoffs at the state and local level. In fact, since Obama took office, state and local governments have shed 611,000 jobs; and by some measures, if not for these jobs, cuts the unemployment rate today would be closer to 7%, not its current 8.2%. In 2010 and 2011, 457,00 public sector jobs were excised; not coincidentally, at the same time, much of the federal stimulus aid from 2009 ran out. And Republicans took over control of Congress.
These cuts have a larger societal impact. When teachers are laid off, for example (and nearly 200,000 have lost their jobs), it means larger class sizes, other teachers being overworked and after-school classes being cancelled. So, ironically, a policy that is intended to save "our children and grandchildren" from "crushing debt" is leaving them worse-prepared for the actual economic and social challenges they will face in the future. In addition, with states operating under tighter fiscal budgets - and getting no hope relief from Washington - it means less money for essential government services, like help for the elderly, the poor and the disabled.
This is the most obvious example of how austerity policies are not only harming America's present, but also imperilling its future. And these spending cuts on the state and local level are matched by a complete lack of fiscal expansion on the federal level. In fact, fiscal policy is now a drag on the recovery, which is the exact opposite of how it should work, given a sluggish economy.
This collection of more-harm-than-good policies must also include last summer's debt limit debacle, which House speaker John Boehner has threatened to renew this year. This was yet another GOP initiative that undermined the economic recovery. According to economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, "over the entire episode, confidence declined more than it did following the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc in 2008." Only after the crisis did the consumer confidence stabilize, but employers "held back on hiring, sapping momentum from a recovery that remains far too fragile." In addition, the debt limit deal also forced more unhelpful spending cuts on the country.
Since that national embarrassment, Republicans have refused to even allow votes on President Obama's jobs bill in the Senate; they dragged their feet on the aforementioned payroll tax and even now are holding up a transportation bill with poison-pill demands for the White House on environmental regulation.
Yet, with all these tales of economic ineptitude emanating from the GOP, it is Obama who is bearing most of the blame for the country's continued poor economic performance.
Whether you believe the Republicans are engaging in purposely destructive fiscal behavior or are simply fiscally incompetent, it almost doesn't matter. It most certainly is bad economic policy and that should be part of any national debate not only on who is to blame for the current economic mess, but also what steps should be taken to get out from underneath it.
But don't hold your breath on that happening. Presidents get blamed for a bad economy; and certainly, Republicans are unlikely to take responsibility for the country's economic woes. The obligation will be on Obama to make the case that it is the Republicans, not he, who is to blame - a difficult, but not impossible task.
In the end, that might be the worst part of all - one of two major political parties in America is engaging in scorched-earth economic policies that are undercutting the economic recovery, possibly on purpose, and is forcing job-killing austerity measures on the states. And they have paid absolutely no political price for doing so. If anything, it won them control of the House in 2010, and has kept win Obama's approval ratings in the political danger zone. It might even help them get control of the White House.
Sabotage or not, it's hard to argue with "success" - and it's hard to imagine we've seen the last of it, whoever wins in November.

On Immigration… Again

Mitt Romney supported John McCain and Ted Kennedy's 2007 immigration reform, which would provide a pathway to citizenship for those who entered the country illegally. Now that he's running for office (for Pete's sake), Romney wants to throw out undocumented veterans and split up families who have been here for decades. Watch the video, then share with your friends.


http://www.whichmitt.com/video/immigration-again

Mitt Romney Has A Truth Problem

http://youtu.be/JeP5A5cczqk


Health Care: Mitt Romney flip-flops on Health Care

Mitt Romney once said his landmark health care reform in Massachusetts was a model for the whole nation. But now that he's a GOP presidential candidate shamelessly pandering to the Tea Party, Romney doesn't think the rest of the country deservesaffordable health care. Watch the video, then share it with friends.






youtu.be/SBFQKxLMPy4

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Romneycare and Obamacare Differ Only in Inconsequential Ways


No other issue--not his wealth, his 15 percent tax rate, or “corporations are people, my friends”--has given Mitt Romney as much trouble as the health care law he passed while governor of Massachusetts. Each of Romney’s opponents has taken a shot at the law Tim Pawlenty dubbed Obamneycare, pointing out again and again that it was the inspiration for President Obama’s reform so loathed by the Republican base. At a town hall rally in Ohio Monday, a Romney supporter pleaded for the candidate to give her something to say to critics. "I understand that Romneycare was good for Massachusetts at the state level, whereas Obamacare is federally mandated," she said. But "I don't know what the fundamental differences between the two [are] and I really would like your assistance with being able to tell others."
Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney signed the Massachusetts health care reform bill on April 12, 2006 in Boston. (David L. Ryan, The Boston Globe / Getty Images)
The problem for Romney is that there are no fundamental differences between the two laws. Both programs create exchanges where private insurers compete. Both require individuals to purchase insurance. And both subsidize those who can’t afford it. It’s a relatively new way of extending coverage. Massachusetts was the first place it was adopted, and the Affordable Care Act was the second. The two laws are, in the words of Jonathan Gruber, who helped design both the Romney and Obamaplans, “the same fucking bill.”
To find any differences between the two, you must look to the margins.
The Individual Mandate
This is the part of the Affordable Care Act that really enrages Republicans, whose challenge to it is awaiting judgment by the Supreme Court. It’s an essential part of both plans. The only difference between Romney’s mandate and Obama’s is that Romney’s plan levies a harsher penalty on people who don’t buy insurance: $1,200 versus Obama’s $695.
Click here to find out more!
It’s not something Romney can easily distance himself from. Last week Buzzfeeduncovered a 2009 op-ed by Romney in which he urges Obama to follow Massachusett’s lead and adopt the mandate. “Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages ‘free riders’ to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others,” he wrote.
Subsidies
Both plans subsidize people who can’t afford to buy insurance on an exchange. The only difference is that Massachusetts gives more money to fewer people (anyone earning up to 300 percent of the poverty level), while Obama’s plan gives less money to more people (anyone earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level).
Employer Mandate
Again, both plans require employers to provide insurance, and again the differences are marginal. In Massachusetts companies with 11 or more employees must provide insurance or pay a $295 penalty per employee. Under the Affordable Care Act, companies with 50 or more employees must offer insurance or pay a $2,000 penalty per employee. Romney’s plan affects smaller businesses; Obama’s levies harsher penalties.
The two laws are, in the words of Jonathan Gruber, who helped design both the Romney and Obama plans, ‘the same f------ bill.’
Young Adults
Both plans let children stay on their parents’ plan until they’re 26 years old. The only difference is that in Massachusetts children can stay on their parents’ plan for two years after they’re no longer claimed as a dependent or until they turn 26, whichever comes sooner.
Limits to Benefits
The Affordable Care Act forbids insurers from placing limits on the benefits someone can receive over their lifetime or in a given year. Romney's plan doesn’t, but most Massachusetts plans don’t place limits anyway because it could run afoul of the state’s Minimum Creditable Coverage regulations.
Pre-existing Conditions, Rescission
Both plans require insurers to cover pre-existing conditions and prohibit insurers from rescinding coverage retroactively. However, in Massachusetts an insurer can limit coverage of certain pre-existing conditions to six months, whereas there’s no limit under the Affordable Care Act.
Preventative Care
Insurers in Massachusetts are allowed to charge co-pays for preventative care, whereas preventative care is free under the Affordable Care Act. However, theMassachusetts program requires insurers to cover preventative care without a deductible.
Contraception
The latest aspect of the Affordable Care Act to come under fire is the inclusion of contraception under the forms of “preventative care” insurers must provide for free--including some businesses and colleges with religious affiliations. Romney tried to capitalize on the issue when he told the woman at the Ohio town hall that one key difference between his insurance plan and Obama’s is that his doesn’t require religious institutions to cover practices that are against their belief. That’s true, but tenuously. Romney’s plan doesn’t mention contraception, but only becauseMassachusetts already had a similar mandate. Under the 2002 law, insurers must cover contraception in the same way they cover other prescription drugs. Unlike Obama’s law, the Massachusetts law didn’t require insurers to provide contraception for free, but it did require them to cover it.
The substance of Romney’s health care reform is so similar to Obama’s that he’s been forced to invoke states rights to defend himself, saying that federal government is wrong to force other states to adopt a Massachusetts-like plan. But as his 2009 op-ed makes clear, his resistance to a federal mandate is fairly recent. And there’s plenty more where that came from. For example, there’s the 2008 ABC News debate, where Charlie Gibson pointed out that Romney “backed away from mandates on a national basis,” and Romney replied, “No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work.”