Yesterday, Mitt Romney was asked if he thought Newt Gingrich should return the $1.6 million he earned for advising Freddie Mac. “Boy, I sure do,” Romney said. “He [Gingrich] was on a debate saying politicians who took money from Freddie and Fannie should go to jail, which is outrageous in itself.” To which Gingrich shot back, “I would say if Governor Romney would like to give back all the money he’s earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees over the years at Bain, I would be glad to listen to him — and I bet you $10, not $10,000, he won’t take the offer.”
This is a ludicrous caricature of Romney’s work at Bain Capital, where he earned a reputation for excellence, investing in startups (like Staples), turning companies around in some cases and cutting payrolls and shutting down companies that couldn’t be revived in other cases.
Beyond that, though, I wonder if it bothers Gingrich that he’s basically echoing the same criticisms of Romney made by the late Edward Kennedy in their 1994 Senate race in Massachusetts. If it doesn’t, it should. Because the argument Gingrich is making is, at its core, anti-capitalist, the kind of thing you would expect to hear from an Occupy Wall Street protester, not a Republican presidential candidate.
Perhaps this isn’t surprising. After all, Gingrich started his campaign by referring to House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s plan to reform Medicare as “right-wing social engineering” — a phrase Republican House members who voted for the Ryan plan are likely to hear used against them.
What is important about this latest exchange, I think, is that it is entirely typical of Gingrich. It is yet more evidence he is not a man who is intellectually grounded in conservatism (no person who has professed admiration for the ideas of Alvin Toffler could be). It explains why his statements over the years have
been all over the lot. Like Bill Clinton, Gingrich is a man of alarming personal indiscipline. But unlike Clinton, Gingrich is also a man of intellectual indiscipline.
And then there’s this nice Newtonian touch: Gingrich, after his blistering attack on Romney, said ”Tomorrow morning, I will release a letter to staff and consultants indicating my determination to run a positive campaign.” He added he would ”disown any super-PAC or staff member” who participated in negative attacks on rival GOP candidates.
What Gingrich didn’t say is whether he would disown himself.
Peter Wehner is a consultant to the Romney campaign (as he has indicated in other columns).He should have disclosed this before writing this truly awful attack column.
No kidding!? n nIs there anyone who writes for this blog who isn't on Romney's payroll!? n nApparently the center-right commentariat is for sale.
I am not on Romney's payroll. However, I do know how to use a search engine and read NY Times articles with a healthy dose of skepticism. n nIf you have a sense of humor, you should read the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto's "Two Papers In One" comments on the venerable NY Times. The NYT gives him a consistent source of material.
Lest you attempt to smugly dismiss me as a part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, I am an attorney employed in the public sector who formerly represented traditional working-class union members (the IBEW, Operating Engineers, SEIU, and others) in litigation involving worker's rights. However, I realize that government does not create wealth or jobs… Americans create jobs and wealth.
This old pooch thinks that any issues of substance raised by Gingrich's comments are raised incidentally and accidentally–the disquisitions here on form and function of equity capitalism are detached from the scattershot, gee-whiz Powerpoint talking point or campaign one-liner retort (that may or not wander over into OWS trashing of GOP positions for momentary effect or positioning) context in which they are brought up by the Newt in the first place. n nNewt's approach to thinking is a magpie's to a sesame bun–he goes for the seeds on the surface that attract him momentarily like a raccoon going after the shiny things in a camper's backpack–except both bird and rocky display more consistent attention in their approach. I mean Newt's thinking makes a soap bubble look stolid and anchored by comparison. n nAnd no, I'm not on Romney's payroll although, who knows, given his penchant for high-class slumming Newt may be. Talk about for sale. n nGet the CD, buy the picture book, get the 2-for-1 DVD offer, buy the entire collection. Are "autographed collections" from his Lee-wins-at-Getttysburg alternate history series, prominently hawked by "Gingrich Productions" at his supposed Presidential campaign website, about leveraging the brand to run for President or vice-versa? he whole thing with Newt is about building up, trading on, and selling the brand. That the brand trades on good old Americana doesn't make it any more a considered promotion of conservative values than the equivalent salesmanship of the Franklin Mint. Is there any difference in his mind anymore between saying and doing, promoting and executing? Governance takes a back seat to flogging the sizzle of government, endlessly.
I agree that he should have disclosed any relationship to the Romney campaign. However, Wehner's non-disclosure does not automatically disqualify the substance of his comments. Wouldn't you agree?
Casuist, you don't know what your are talking about. I read the NYT article. It does not prove your or Gingrich's point. It is about ONE single company, and even at that it does not prove your point. There is no evidence that Romney's career was marked by "bankrputing companies." Plus, it is silly to say private equity funds are "central planning" because central planning means by the government, not by the owners who bought and paid for a business. If I own a business or I buy one, does that make me a "central planner"? There are plenty of legitimate critiques of private equity out there, but to call it central planning is not one of them.
The problem with liberals is they see no distinction between the owners of a company deciding what products to sell and what price to sell them for and the government deciding what products a company should sell and what price to sell them for (See, e.g., Solyndra, ethanol, and any NY Times article on business and the economy). n nLiberals view shareholders as merely stewards (a sometimes necessary evil) for the larger community of stakeholders. Hence, the reference to "central planners."
n nNo, central planning means central planning. Central planning by a government or government agency would be central planning by a government. See how that works? And private equity by no means reduces to simple proprietary relations as you seem to want to assume. n nPrivate equity falls under the general rubric of what (the now late) Peter Drucker calls "post-capitalism," as discussed in his book Post-Capitalist Society. Drucker, in his discussion of capitalism passing into its opposite of central management by means of massive equity pools like pension funds, hedge funds, private equity funds, or other forms, even predicts the "too big to fail" doctrine though he seems neutral on the issue. He calls for so-called public "business audits" of institutions deemed to big to fail. n nRomney is the epitome of the post-capitalist organization of the U.S. financial services sector. In every respect he represents its goals, its norms, and its values.
Stop drinking the Kool-Aid! But if you insist on getting business news from the "progressive" NY Times, then at least take a little time to exercise some critical thinking. According to the NYT, the company was purchased for $450 million and dramatically increased sales under Bain/Romney to the point that KK&R offered $1.9 billion (and we all know how KK&R loves to overpay for overleveraged, gutted companies). After Romney left, the company experienced problems with a new distribution center, interest rates rose, and European operations were not as profitable. Therefore, Romney is a evil capitalist because some operations were shut down and some people lost their jobs. I am sure the NYT times is stilling weeping for the loss of the pre-industrial agrarian societies too! (See, Gore, Al.)
According to the NYT article you reference, the company went on to experience surging revenues and was ultimately valued at $9 billion when it was purchased by Siemens. Unfortunately, the NYT neglected to state how many employees Dade International employed prior to Bain/Romney's involvement vs. after their involvement or how many employees are now employed due to the expansion that occurred during the evil Bain/Romney years. Did you ever pause to wonder why that factoid was not included in the article?
However, even if liberals take this story as a parable of the evils of capitalism generally or private equity in particular ($450 million valuation to $9 billion), Bain Capital was not a corporate raider as the NYT's hit piece your reference suggests. Bain/Romney made critical contributions of both capital and management experience to growing companies. Obvious examples include Staples, The Sports Authority, et al. I think the more interesting story is the Puritan/Mormon work ethic exhibited by Romney and his disdain for the trappings of corporate wealth that is contra to the stereotype liberals use when describing corporate america in general and equity funds in particular. n nWhy focus on Bain/Romney's contribution to a successful and growing company employing thousands of employees when a story about stock repurchases and a suicidal Puerto Rican will do?
You must be one of those liberals who disdain US workers employed in "retail operations like Staples or Dominos" who cling to their guns and their religion. How do you feel about non-public sector union workers? Ironworkers, electricians, Teamsters, etc. a little too "old economy" for you?
Only if he finds out he is secretly seeing someone else!