Romney and Capitalism on Trial

[Guest]

There's good reason for skepticism when former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney showcases his business background.Monday, January 16, 2012by Star Parker

"According to a new Pew Research Center survey, 66 percent of respondents agree that there are "very strong" or "strong" conflicts between rich and poor in America. This is up from 47 percent that agreed with this two years ago.

In a Gallup poll last October, 52 percent said they trust the "ideas and opinions" of President Barack Obama for creating jobs compared to 45 percent that said they trust executives of major corporations.

The point is, sadly, there is mistrust in America about the very thing that any conservative will tell you is the mother's milk of our country -- freedom and free enterprise.

Mistrust in our country about free enterprise has always been a problem but never more than now.

Why? Two important reasons.

First, we have never had a left wing ideologue occupying the White House like we have today. The man is serious and committed.

He told Americans he would change the country, and change it he has.

Now he is about to run for a second term with no pretensions about who he is. He is going to run on a platform of so-called fairness and against what he will label unbridled, merciless capitalism.

Republicans will have their work cut out to defend business and freedom against this onslaught, particularly in today's environment of mistrust about these very things.

Second, our nation is at a genuine crossroads. Even if we could scale back the trillions in new spending that Obama has larded into our federal budget, we would still be in trouble.

Government has taken over major parts of American life and to regain our vitality, significant reforms must be made.

Even if Obamacare is repealed, American health care is still in crisis. We'll need creative market based reforms to alter the way Americans get their health care.

Our entitlement morass can only be fixed with market-based reforms that involve phase out of government and phase in of ownership and choice.

Reforms of major areas of American life where Americans have grown accustomed to the heavy hand of government will be impossible if a large percentage of our population is mistrustful of free markets and business.

To get this kind of change, leadership that inspires trust in free enterprise is essential.

There's good reason for skepticism when former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney showcases his business background as the reason he will inspire this kind of trust.

America's biggest and most powerful businesses are notoriously unreliable defenders of free markets. They have a deserved reputation for being unprincipled.

Take Romney's own former company Bain.

Among top 100 contributors to each member of congress in each election since 2000, of the 29 members where Bain appears in these top 100, 26 are Democrats.

Bain executives generously supported champions of big government including former Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York, Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.

Executive ranks of Bain, the bastion of capitalism that Romney led for 25 years, are populated by left wing Democrats.

Businessmen may roll their eyes when Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., former head of the Congressional Black Caucus, says, as he did the other day, that one of America's most notorious crooks, Bernie Madoff, did what he did "in the name of capitalism."

But, unfortunately, Clyburn expresses the sentiments of many blacks.

And corporate America enables this through the millions it pours into left wing organizations -- the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP and the National Urban League.

American big businessmen are generally about expediency, not principles.

Expedient better describes Romney than moderate or conservative.

He may be saying what sounds good now. But it's the expedient thing to do.

Unprincipled business leaders helped lead us into the mess we're in today.

More expediency is not going to get us out of it. Only principled leadership that inspires trust in free enterprise and capitalism will."

(Sorry, but I have been unable to post link anymore...don't know why, but have copied and pasted the entire article from Star Parker's website for her organization named CURE- Katz)

[Guest]

Katz....

I have worked for 23 years for a company called Beckman Coulter. For 20 years I was classified as a salaried employee, even though I was technical. Our salary was lower than the industry peer groups but we were offered a company pension while others were not. 5 years ago a group of executives took over and did what CEO's do now...its all about shareholder value....pump up the stock, break up the company and sell the pieces. Good for the CEO and the stockholders but not so good for the employees. There were waves and waves of layoffs, entire departments including all the science people and QA people. Then a couple of years ago the trouble started....for the first time in the history of the company we had to recall a product... we desended into FDA hell and there we remain today. All the time this guy and his hand picked board were making millions. Stock options mostly...my salary was frozen but by this time I was over 55 not a good time to start fresh. Finally, the board said he had to go....with a 47 million dollar parting gift. We were told a new CEO would be hired but then we noticed the SEC filings, the board and the remaining executives were packing their parachutes. We got sold now my pension is forzen and will not be funded as of 2012. That pension we were told we would get at retirement. And the new guys....well the first thing they did was cut the workforce by another 8%. The company headquarters is a ghost town.

I believe in capitialism but now I believe the deck has been stacked against the workers and the middle class.

Just my recent experience.....

[Guest]

cologal, what happened to you is disgraceful, and has happened to so many others, too...the fact is that our original American character and values have been continuously eroded in all walks of life, including business, and it will take a return to decency to change anything...seems like almost an impossible task. that is why character in our leaders is so vital.

[Guest]

cologal, what happened to you is disgraceful, and has happened to so many others, too...the fact is that our original American character and values have been continuously eroded in all walks of life, including business, and it will take a return to decency to change anything...seems like almost an impossible task. that is why character in our leaders is so vital.

:bigbow:

[Guest]

Heavy Hitters

Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012

(Influence and Lobbying donations by Companies/Groups, and what percentage went to each political party)

See data at this link:
Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012 | OpenSecrets (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A)

I'd be far more concerned about the "expediency" (or "what's in it for ME) of No. 3 ranked AFSCME - American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees.

Of the $46.3 million AFSCME donated to candidates, 94% of it went to Democrats and 1% of it went to Republicans......

Or....

Eleventh (11th) ranked American Federation of Teachers, who donated $31.8 million of which 90% was donated to Democrats, and 0% (zero percent) to Republicans.

On the whole, corporations gave similar amounts to both parties.

[Guest]

The story of what happened at your company is distasteful. I guess I don't know about "disgraceful". People seem to forget how powerful businessmen treated workers years ago. People fail to connect history to what's happening today.

I worked for the first part of my career in the auto industry. If you ever visit UAW headquarters in Detroit, there's a huge mural-photo in the lobby showing Walter Reuther (the guy that started the UAW) leaning on an overpass leading to the big Ford Rouge plant, with blood streaming down his face resulting from the beating he took at the hands of the management thugs hired by Henry Ford to attempt to put down union organization.

The leader of Ford's anti-union thugs was a guy named Harry Bennett, who for a number of years actually ran Ford as the elderly Henry Ford got less involved in the company. Bennett was eventually fired by young Henry Ford II, when he took over the failing company during WWII. If you want to read a little about what really was a disgraceful display of capitalism, read the Detroit News article entitled "The Battle Of The Overpass" at the following website...

detnews.com | Michigan History (http://apps.detnews.com/apps/history/index.php?id=172)

Then I moved to Chicago, where for decades the Irish immigrants living in a South Side ghetto were taken advantage of in dangerous, filthy dirty jobs at the Union Stockyards for embarrassingly low pay. By the way, that's where the oft-referred to Saul Alinsky made his name by organizing the stock yards workers to lay claims for better pay and working conditions by using his now-famous "Rules For Radicals" in leading the worker revolt against the owners of the meat packing plants.

Fast forward almost 100 years to today. The most powerful in our country are still taking advantage of the lower and now middle classes. There are all kinds of reasons why beating workers or putting them in physically dangerous working conditions isn't permitted any more. But now capitalism is based on things like leveraged buyouts, financial derivatives, legal manipulation of laws and regulations, lobbying to get the laws changed, and Bernie Madoff-style Ponzi schemes.

The effect is the same unfortunately. The rich are continuing to get richer at the expense of the working class. The stock market continues to value those activities by the wealthy with escalating stock prices. So I would posit that not a whole lot has changed in 100 years, except the "tools" used by the capitalists are more sophisticated and complicated. But in the end the effect is the same as it was 100 years ago, and it's called American capitalism.

I guess I'd be interested in knowing how many here who call themselves conservatives totally committed to capitalism and what the private sector can accomplish really understand the history of what they stand for? I'm not suggesting that any other system is better--certainly not socialism or communism. But I just wonder how many "conservatives" really understand the history of what they call themselves and are so committed to?

[Guest]

very many companies were run by people who were not necessarily the best of management. Most if not all were capable of managing on the upside,....i.e. businesses growing year after year with ever increasing sales and physical out put increases.

They got bigger and less efficient as growing businesses tend to continue to hire past efficient levels of operating....because the high revenues cover the costs.

Then when there is a slump or a down turn this same management is incapable of scaling back costs (labor, material, inventory, physical plants, multiple plants, etc.) to maintain acceptable profitability. At some point if the go-go days do not return, there is no choice but to have to "downsize" the business to what it can afford. That is when consultants or third party management is brought in to do what the current management has over time proven they cannot; downsize, work force reductions, plant closings, etc.

Like it or not these companies had to get their income statements and their balance sheets back to a size that produces acceptable results. Yes dumping old senior management usually goes with big numbers. Yes there are layoffs and putting people out of work. Yes there are inventory reductions that translate to lower volume of goods coming in the door that in turn translates into suppliers output/sales being reduced that ultimately results in their having to "downsize" their businesses as well.

The process of doing what has to be done is not a very pleasant one since it involves the reductions in employment from top to bottom...people being laid off, management being fired are the most visible results with the worst image to employment as well as the public.

With no disrespect intended, the average person has no concept of what the line items are or mean that drive an ACCEPTABLE FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE income statement or balance sheet. All they think they know is what they see and or hear from friends and family that work there that are being laid off.

That is why companies like Bain Capital exist. Hard nosed business men that do understand exactly what needs to be done to get back to profitability. They are the third party that has no emotional attachment to a given business. They have the luxury of detachment, that gives them much better visibility of the ills of a given company. They pull the trigger (no pun intended) when it has to be done.

They wear the badge of being the BAD GUYS. When in reality it was the former management that could make no errors on the upswing while go-going and growing and expanding and hiring. During the growing and going cash is no problem and the volume of it covers the sloppy and fat and inefficient operations that comes with big and growing profits. The test of REAL management is their capability to manage a business effectively on the down size. INCUMBENTS ARE USUALLY NOT CAPABLE of doing what has to be done to that which they created (good or bad). Hence the perceived BAD guys like Bain and other third party "fix it" companies.

And by the way the above causes of failing companies are exactly the same reasons we have a failing government. They have no concept of what an income statement or balance sheet is. They really don't care if revenues are down. They continue to spend and grow and go. When they run out of money (unprofitable....more being paid out than coming in) they just raise the debt limit (ALLOWING TO BORROW MORE). They are allowed to print money to spend. They are allowed to continue even to the point where they borrow to spend even more. The basic problem? INCUMBENTS!! Of the worst kind.....they don't know! They don't care! They are all wealthy so simply can't and certainly don't want to relate.

Yes employees only see the part that very unfortunately affects them.

I spent most of my career fixing companies that INCUMBENTS, ran into the ground while getting wealthy!

And for the very reasons above, I have no use for politicians because they are not capable of doing what needs to be done. The very reasons why I would much rather err on the side of non politicians or those running for office that have a business back ground.

We the people are the so called share holders of a very under performing, broken and degrading company called the USA. That is why it is so important to root out the incumbents. And please by all means do not be persuaded by the campaign rhetoric to put experienced politicians in higher offices. And throw out the current incumbents.

The solution to fixing America is as simple as fixing a failing company....bring in some one who can do the job.

btk

[Guest]

[QUOTE=KatzPajamas;444401
First, we have never had a left wing ideologue occupying the White House like we have today. The man is serious and committed.
[/QUOTE]

This is where it starts to lose me. Carter was more of a 'socialist' than Obama. Let's not forget LBJ and his "War On Poverty". Sometimes Americans seem to have very short memories.

And just to add to the stories about "corporate America", I'll add my experience with Putnam Investments.

I put 6 years in there. For the last 5 of those, I was with a fantastic team doing great work. I survived 4 rounds of layoffs. #5 got me. #6, a few weeks later, got a guy who I thought would be turning the lights out at the place. What happened?

- They offshored the support team. First firing a group that had worked together for years, making the rest of us train a group that was temporarily brought down from Nova Scotia. They figured offshoring would make it cheaper when they moved back to Canada.

- They broke up the developers. (I was one)

Ok, that all sounds normal for a business in a bit of a downturn. Here's what happened next.

- The head of Putnam (who reported to the CEO of the parent company) was given an 8-figure bonus for killing several hundreds jobs in the name of "cost savings". My back-of-the-envelope calculations figured that his bonus could pay for the salaries of the people he laid off for at least 2 years. (I estimated average salaries and benefits high - if they were closer to the national average it would have been closer to 4 years)

- The 'customers', the people who calls we fielded and who's data we supplied? They started complaining about the poor quality of the service they were getting and they started pulling out. Result? More losses (to the point where Marsh McClennan, the parent company, ended up selling Putnam to a Canadian firm).

This is how the so-called "job creators" now work in too high a percentage of our companies.

[Guest]

very many companies were run by people who were not necessarily the best of management. Most if not all were capable of managing on the upside,....i.e. businesses growing year after year with ever increasing sales and physical out put increases.

They got bigger and less efficient as growing businesses tend to continue to hire past efficient levels of operating....because the high revenues cover the costs.

Then when there is a slump or a down turn this same management is incapable of scaling back costs (labor, material, inventory, physical plants, multiple plants, etc.) to maintain acceptable profitability. At some point if the go-go days do not return, there is no choice but to have to "downsize" the business to what it can afford. That is when consultants or third party management is brought in to do what the current management has over time proven they cannot; downsize, work force reductions, plant closings, etc.

Like it or not these companies had to get their income statements and their balance sheets back to a size that produces acceptable results. Yes dumping old senior management usually goes with big numbers. Yes there are layoffs and putting people out of work. Yes there are inventory reductions that translate to lower volume of goods coming in the door that in turn translates into suppliers output/sales being reduced that ultimately results in their having to "downsize" their businesses as well.

The process of doing what has to be done is not a very pleasant one since it involves the reductions in employment from top to bottom...people being laid off, management being fired are the most visible results with the worst image to employment as well as the public.

With no disrespect intended, the average person has no concept of what the line items are or mean that drive an ACCEPTABLE FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE income statement or balance sheet. All they think they know is what they see and or hear from friends and family that work there that are being laid off.

That is why companies like Bain Capital exist. Hard nosed business men that do understand exactly what needs to be done to get back to profitability. They are the third party that has no emotional attachment to a given business. They have the luxury of detachment, that gives them much better visibility of the ills of a given company. They pull the trigger (no pun intended) when it has to be done.

They wear the badge of being the BAD GUYS. When in reality it was the former management that could make no errors on the upswing while go-going and growing and expanding and hiring. During the growing and going cash is no problem and the volume of it covers the sloppy and fat and inefficient operations that comes with big and growing profits. The test of REAL management is their capability to manage a business effectively on the down size. INCUMBENTS ARE USUALLY NOT CAPABLE of doing what has to be done to that which they created (good or bad). Hence the perceived BAD guys like Bain and other third party "fix it" companies.

And by the way the above causes of failing companies are exactly the same reasons we have a failing government. They have no concept of what an income statement or balance sheet is. They really don't care if revenues are down. They continue to spend and grow and go. When they run out of money (unprofitable....more being paid out than coming in) they just raise the debt limit (ALLOWING TO BORROW MORE). They are allowed to print money to spend. They are allowed to continue even to the point where they borrow to spend even more. The basic problem? INCUMBENTS!! Of the worst kind.....they don't know! They don't care! They are all wealthy so simply can't and certainly don't want to relate.

Yes employees only see the part that very unfortunately affects them.

I spent most of my career fixing companies that INCUMBENTS, ran into the ground while getting wealthy!

And for the very reasons above, I have no use for politicians because they are not capable of doing what needs to be done. The very reasons why I would much rather err on the side of non politicians or those running for office that have a business back ground.

We the people are the so called share holders of a very under performing, broken and degrading company called the USA. That is why it is so important to root out the incumbents. And please by all means do not be persuaded by the campaign rhetoric to put experienced politicians in higher offices. And throw out the current incumbents.

The solution to fixing America is as simple as fixing a failing company....bring in some one who can do the job.

btk

I would agree that the CEO of my company was a really bad manager, in fact he came to us from another IVD vendor who had been forced into bankruptcy under his management. In fact he was named one of the Top 10 CEO's for that year 2010 I think.

I forget how many years in a roll my company had paid a dividend but when he came in we were not a "stuggling" company. The reason he cut people was to have enough cash to buy more company which expands the net worth, I know there is a word for that but.....

Before he left we where able to fold 3 coporate site in CA all into 1 just because of how many people were pink sliped. Even in the face of that the new guys cut 8% more.

BTW...it only took him a couple of months to find a new high paying job...at least he isn't a CEO.

[Guest]

cologal, what happened to you is disgraceful, and has happened to so many others, too...the fact is that our original American character and values have been continuously eroded in all walks of life, including business, and it will take a return to decency to change anything...seems like almost an impossible task. that is why character in our leaders is so vital.

Thank you for the post.....sometime soon we can right the ship.

[Guest]

This is where it starts to lose me. Carter was more of a 'socialist' than Obama. Let's not forget LBJ and his "War On Poverty". Sometimes Americans seem to have very short memories.

And just to add to the stories about "corporate America", I'll add my experience with Putnam Investments.

I put 6 years in there. For the last 5 of those, I was with a fantastic team doing great work. I survived 4 rounds of layoffs. #5 got me. #6, a few weeks later, got a guy who I thought would be turning the lights out at the place. What happened?

- They offshored the support team. First firing a group that had worked together for years, making the rest of us train a group that was temporarily brought down from Nova Scotia. They figured offshoring would make it cheaper when they moved back to Canada.

- They broke up the developers. (I was one)

Ok, that all sounds normal for a business in a bit of a downturn. Here's what happened next.

- The head of Putnam (who reported to the CEO of the parent company) was given an 8-figure bonus for killing several hundreds jobs in the name of "cost savings". My back-of-the-envelope calculations figured that his bonus could pay for the salaries of the people he laid off for at least 2 years. (I estimated average salaries and benefits high - if they were closer to the national average it would have been closer to 4 years)

- The 'customers', the people who calls we fielded and who's data we supplied? They started complaining about the poor quality of the service they were getting and they started pulling out. Result? More losses (to the point where Marsh McClennan, the parent company, ended up selling Putnam to a Canadian firm).

This is how the so-called "job creators" now work in too high a percentage of our companies.

Great post......