Bain Capital

Romney Willing to Win Without Honor

Leo Gerard — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:39:03 -0400

Mitt Romney kept quiet last week when the subject was rape and God’s will. He remained silent the week before when the news was all about Illinois factory workers pleading with him to stop his alma mater Bain Capital from offshoring their jobs.

At no time this year did Mitt denounce Republican employers who threatened their workers if President Obama is re-elected or condemn repeated Republican legislative attempts to suppress Democratic votes.

Throughout the campaign, Mitt Romney confronted numerous George Washington moments -- opportunities to establish an aura of honor. It takes moxie to tell fellow Republicans that voter suppression is un-American. Only a guy with strongly held principles would stand up to the firm he founded and insist they stop the morally bankrupt practice of offshoring jobs from profit-making American factories. At every turn, Romney chose the ignoble path. He kept his mouth shut rather than speak up for what’s right.

Just last week, an opportunity for righteousness landed in Romney’s lap. It happened when the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Indiana, Richard E. Mourdock, said he opposed all abortions, even in cases of rape, and suggested that God intends rape to happen. Here’s what Mourdock said:

“Even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, it is something that God intended to happen.”

Romney could have specifically renounced this view – that God intends women to be raped and become pregnant as a result. And he could have underscored that position by ending television ads in which he endorses Mourdock.

But he didn’t. A campaign spokeswoman said Mitt “disagreed” with Mourdock on that rape thing, but still supports him. Since then, Mitt has refused to answer questions about Mourdock. And he’s kept airing his Mourdock endorsement ads.

Clearly, Mitt values a Republican-controlled U.S. Senate over a decent stand on rape.

Just the week before, heightened news coverage of the plight of workers at the Sensata factory in Freeport, Ill. gave Romney another opportunity to do the right thing.

He chose to do nothing.

The 170 workers at Sensata will lose their jobs at year’s end when Bain Capital finishes shipping the car sensor factory lock, stock and machinery to China. The workers have repeatedly petitioned Romney to intervene with Bain, a firm he created and still profits from, to stop the offshoring.

Romney stiffed them. The candidate who claims he would create 12 million jobs if elected president failed to make an attempt to save the jobs of these 170 workers at a successful, money-making American factory. He didn’t send the workers his condolences for personally profiting from their calamity. He has never even acknowledged the Sensata workers’ existence.

At virtually any moment as he ran for president over the past two years, Romney could have very publically deplored Republican attempts to suppress Democratic votes. That’s because virtually continuously over that time, Republican-controlled legislatures, Republican governors and other GOP officials have concocted a variety of measures to wrest from Democrats their right to vote. These include passing onerous photo ID requirements, limiting early balloting and aggressively purging voter rolls.

These measures disproportionately affect minority, poor, disabled, elderly and women voters, all of whom tend to vote Democrat. Among the most egregious examples occurred in Ohio where the secretary of state tried to limit poll hours in Democratic-dominated counties and extend them in Republican-controlled counties.

At any time during the massive publicity over any one of these incidents across the country – from Maine to Montana and Florida to Arizona – Romney could have stood up and spoken for fairness. He never did – not even after the Republican National Committee was forced to fire a shady voter registration firm that was caught in September submitting hundreds of fraudulent registration forms in Florida or after a Republican operative in Virginia was criminally charged in October with throwing completed voter registration forms in a Dumpster.

A simple statement from Romney would have sufficed: winning by means of voter suppression and registration fraud is craven and beneath the dignity of anyone seeking public office. But he said nothing.

Similar to voter suppression is the attempt at voter coercion that has been made by numerous employers this year. Just this past week, Mike White, owner of Rite-Hite, a Milwaukee industrial equipment manufacturer, threatened his workers with “personal consequences” if President Obama is re-elected. Earlier this month, timeshare mogul David Siegel, who is building himself a 90,000-square-foot, $100 million home, threatened to lay off his workers if President Obama is re-elected. Arthur Allen of ASG Software Solutions and the Koch brothers of Georgia Pacific, told their tens of thousands of workers they’d suffer fallout if Romney loses.

Romney could have acted as a shield for workers by condemning this intimidation. Instead, in a June conference call with business owners, Romney encouraged bullying. He told the business owners:

"I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections.”

What Americans want is a president like George Washington. The general’s appeal is not the quirky wooden teeth or odd half-finished portrait. It’s the never-tell-a-lie, step-down-from-power nobility of the guy. Romney, by contrast, has shown he’s willing to win without honor. He doesn’t seem to know Americans won’t elect a candidate they believe lacks nobility.

Here Is What Is Happening With #Sensata

Dave Johnson — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 11:55:18 -0400

Uppdate -- See More Arrests At #Sensata Factory That Is Moving Jobs To China then come back for details.

If you are hearing about a company names Sensata, here is the story. Right now this company is moving equipment out of a factory in Freeport, Il. and shipping it to China. They are making the workers there train their Chinese replacements. And the end of the year they are laying off the American workers. The workers have set up a camp across from the factory and have named it Bainport. (please click!) Supporters are trying to block the trucks, and some have been arrested. This is all happening right now, even as Mitt Romney says he wants to "get tough on China." So the workers have asked Romney to come to Freeport and help them.

"The week before they came they took the American flag down outside the plant. The week after they left they put it back up."

See Wendi Kent's moving photos of the Bainport camp, where workers are asking Romney to hep them:

Bainport, Illinois Pt.1

Bainport, Illinois Pt.2- Profits Over People

What's Going On?

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney started the "private equity" firm Bain Capital. Bain Capital makes its money by purchasing companies using "leveraged buyouts" that borrow huge sums using the purchased company's own assets as collateral. They often use part of the borrowed money to immediately pay itself. Bain then cuts costs by doing things like sending jobs to China, cutting wages and manipulating tax rules to cut taxes owed, along with standard big-business practices like consolidating business units, taking advantage of economies of scale not available to smaller competitors, squeezing distribution channels for price cuts, and other practices that bring competitive advantages. (Please see So DID Mitt Romney Really "Create Jobs" At Staples? for a look at how this works.) Then, after reorganizing the purchased companies Bain "harvests" them for profit. ("Harvest" is Romney's word, watch the linked video.)

Bain Capital purchased a sensor manufacturer that makes key components for our automobile supply chain, and named it Sensata. They immediately announced they closing a factory in Freeport, Ill., and sending the manufacturing and jobs to China to save money. (This is significant because China is engaged in efforts to dominate American auto supplies. See China Cheating Costs 400K Auto Parts Jobs and Why The Latest Trade Complaint Against China Matters. )

Bain/Sensata brought in Chinese workers and made the Freeport workers train them. Bain/Sensata is moving the equipment out of the Freeport factory and shipping it to China right now. The Freeport employees have set up a camp outside the factory that they call Bainport and are trying to stop the Bain trucks that are moving the equipment out for shipment to China. Supporters were arrested this week, trying to stop those trucks.

The Sensata employees have asked Romney to come to Freeport/Bainport and help them. Read on to learn about Romney's response to the Sensata workers, and how Romney is actually making big money right now from shipping their jobs to China.

Romney's Opportunity

Mitt Romney is not running Bain Capital anymore. While he still makes millions from the company, and gets checks from the profits made when they ship jobs to China), this is a tremendous opportunity for him. Can you imagine a better spokesman for the Bainport employees than the former head of Bain Capital, who now says he opposes the kinds of things that Bain Capital is doing here?

This is an opportunity for Romney to show the public that he actually means it when he says he wants to do something about companies sending jobs to China! Here is his former company, people who know him, sending jobs to China right now and there is no one in a better position to put pressure on them to stop this than the former head of the company, and on top of that a presidential candidate!

What an opportunity for Romney to show that he means what he says!

Will Romney Help?

Mitt Romney wants to be President, and polls show that the public overwhelmingly wants something done about jobs and factories moving to China and the resulting was pressure that puts on the rest of us and on our economy. So Romney says he will do something about it.

But Romney's current actions are opposite his current words. He complains about China currency manipulation, but refuses to ask the Republican House leadership to bring the China currency bill up for a vote, and refuses to ask more than 60 Republican co-sponsors of that bill to sign a "discharge petition" that would force a vote.

And Romney refuses to even meet with Sensata workers. When asked if Romney would help these workers the Romney campaign says Romney will not do it:

"Governor Romney has not worked at Bain Capital for over a decade, but for four years President Obama has been presiding over an economy that is creating too few jobs and sending more jobs overseas. Despite the President being invested in Sensata through his personal pension fund, and the government owning a major Sensata customer in GM, President Obama has not used his powers to help this situation in any way."— Curt Cashour, Romney Campaign Spokesman.

PS - SNL

Here is SNL addressing the disparity between how Chinese workers are treated (because they don't have a say) and American expectations:

For More On Sensata

Is This Why Romney Won't Talk To Sensata Workers Whose Jobs Are Being Shipped To China?

You Should Know About Sensata - It's What The Election Is About

Election Or Not, What Happens To Sensata-Style Workers?

Blocking Bain Trucks To Save Jobs In Freeport – This Is An IMPORTANT Story

Breaking – Arrests At Sensata "Bainport" Camp

Paul Harris at The Guardian: 'I'm sick to my stomach': anger grows in Illinois at Bain's latest outsourcing plan

Also, see:

Bain Of Our Existence - Go-To place for stories and info about Bain Capital.

Laura Clawson at Daily Kos: Mitt Romney profits as Bain sends American jobs to China PLUS a Daily Kos campaign:
Send a message of support to the Sensata workers as they fight to keep their jobs and shine a light on what a Romney economy would look like.

Unraveling The Romney/Bain Tax Story,

Romney, Jobs And China – Let's Connect Dots

Rights Report Describes Romney-Owned "Brutal Chinese Sweatshop"

Romney, Republicans Again Side With China Over US Companies

Ohio And China – One Side Promises While The Other Delivers

China Is Very "Business-Friendly"

Will Conservatives Support American Companies ... Or Chinese?

Ohio And China -- One Side Promises While The Other Delivers

Here is a Democracy Now! report:

Arrests At Sensata "Bainport" Camp

Dave Johnson — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:48:35 -0400

Sensata is a Bain-owned company that is closing a factory in in Freeport, Il to move the jobs to China. The workers have set up a camp they call "Bainport" and workers and supporters are trying to block the Bain trucks that are moving equipment out to ship to China right now. In breaking news there were arrests made today.

Last week in the post Blocking Bain Trucks To Save Jobs In Freeport -- This Is An IMPORTANT Story I wrote about the Sensata workers in Freeport who have set up a camp they call Bainport, and are asking Mitt Romney to show that he means what he is saying about cracking down on China by coming to Freeport and asking his former company not to send these jobs to China.

The Sensata workers camping at Bainport as asking Mitt Romney to come help them keep their jobs. Romney insists that he has nothing to do with Bain Capital anymore (his tax returns showed that he gets more than $400,000 a week from Bain investments).

Helping the Sensata workers would show that he means it when he says he has nothing to do with the things Bain does now, and that he will do something about the jobs being sent to China. What better opportunity to prove both than to show up and confront Bain for sending these jobs to China!

Romney, Bain And The Outsourcing Strategy

Mitt Romney and Bain "pioneered" outsourcing strategies. They invested in companies set up to help other companies send jobs to China, and they especially used offshoring in their strategies to avoid paying the taxes that enable We, the People to have good schools, roads, courts etc. The NY Times story, Offshore Tactics Helped Increase Romneys’ Wealth explained,

Some of the offshore entities enabled Bain-owned companies to sidestep certain taxes, increasing returns for Mr. Romney and other investors. Others helped Bain attract foreign investors and nonprofit institutions by insulating them from taxes, again augmenting Mr. Romney’s bottom line, since he shared in management fees based on the size of each Bain fund.

In Unraveling The Romney/Bain Tax Story I explained how it works,

The complicated story of how the 1%ers and their corporations evade democracy's taxes is the story of our crumbling schools and infrastructure and the flow of all the gains of our economy to a very few at the top. This tax evasion is also part of the story of our deficits and debt. The tax evasion is "legal" -- because the tax evaders pay the people who write the tax laws. And even as their tax evasion adds to our budget deficits and debt, the 1%ers are insisting we close the deficit by cutting Social Security, Medicare and "safety-net" programs!

[. . .] The American-based entities can buy American companies without incurring "foreign-based" obligations. Then the foreign-based entities can avoid the taxes that the American-based buyers of companies would have to pay. And the foreign-based investors can be in the foreign-based parts of the company, avoiding US tax obligations. Also American entities like pension funds can avoid US taxes they would otherwise have to pay.

To put it another way, the same company can pretend it is US-based when that is what it needs to be, and foreign-based when that is what it needs to be.

Mitt Romney is wealthy because he engaged in strategies to lay people off, sending their jobs to China and pocketing the wage differential for himself. Then his companies would force people to take wage cuts or risk losing their jobs, too, and pocking the wage difference for himself. The profits from these "enterprises" were manipulated in ways that enabled him to pay very little in taxes, so the rest of us end up not only with layoffs and lower wages, but bad schools, crumbling infrastructure and government debt.

Then later, Mitt Romney can claim that We the People are the cause of the resulting government debt and that we need "austerity" -- less for We, the People in order to keep taxes low.

Arrests

Today community members supporting the Sensata workers were arrested for trying to block Bain trucks from sending the factory's equipment to China.

Visit the Bainport blog for pictures and details.

Romney Loves American Cars; Obama Loves American Car Workers

Leo Gerard — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:17:49 -0400

GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, son of an American Motors CEO, naturally says he loves American cars. His wife, as he put it, “drives a couple of Cadillacs.” He’s installing an elevator in his beach mansion just for his cars. Though a millionaire, he rejected flying his five sons to a vacation destination, instead packing them into a car, then strapping their dog Seamus’ carrier to the car roof for a ride that, shall we say, challenged the canine’s intestinal fortitude.

President Barack Obama, by contrast, has given some love to American car companies and American car workers. He rescued Chrysler and General Motors, preserving the American icon companies and hundreds of thousands of American car manufacturing jobs. He imposed sanctions on Chinese tires that received improper export subsidies, a move that saved thousands of U.S. tire-building jobs. And now he’s challenging illegally-subsidized Chinese auto parts to sustain American companies and workers.

Romney has blasted Obama every auto-manufacturing-job-preserving step of the way. On the auto bailout, Romney admonished, “Let Detroit go bankrupt.” He condemned the tariffs on Chinese tires. Romney claims he loves American cars. But the actions of his private equity firm, Bain Capital, in buying companies that were “pioneers” in offshoring American jobs, suggest he’s fine with American firms making cars and car parts overseas. Obama, by contrast, took the action necessary to ensure American cars are made in America by American companies employing American workers.

Here’s what Romney actually said about his adoration for cars:

“I love cars. I love American cars. And long may they rule the world.”

When it came to helping them continue to rule the world, however, Romney dissed Detroit.

President Obama embraced Detroit. He took money from the Wall Street bailout fund and used it to help GM and Chrysler continue to rule the world. GM regained the title of world’s largest car company in January and hundreds of thousands of auto and auto part manufacturing workers retained their jobs.

Similarly, in September of 2009, President Obama imposed duties on unfairly traded Chinese tires. My union, the United Steelworkers (USW), filed the trade case that led to those duties. The sanctions saved thousands of tire-making jobs in the United States and contributed to creation of 1,000 more.

Earlier this year, the USW, the Alliance for American Manufacturing and 189 members of Congress urged Obama to take yet another trade action, this one to protect American auto parts manufacturers and their workers. The request followed publication of four reports detailing China’s illegal export subsidies to its auto parts sector. Nations may subsidize manufacturing for internal consumption, but international law prohibits subsidizing products to be exported because it distorts the market, causing the bankruptcy of manufacturers in countries where the artificially cheap products are sold.

The auto parts complaint says that forbidden export subsidies, including cash grants, preferential tax treatment and other perks valued at $1 billion over the past three years enabled China to jump from 16^th largest producer of auto parts in 2002, when it exported $7 billion in parts, to 5^th largest last year when it exported $70 billion.

The upshot is that imports of auto parts from China increased seven fold, contributing to the loss of nearly half of all U.S. auto parts jobs – 400,000 – since 2000. An example is Olymco, Inc. a Canton, Ohio, metal-plating company where 100 workers, members of the USW, once made auto parts. Now, mainly as a result of subsidized Chinese competition, only 11 workers remain.

The predatory Chinese practices encourage U.S. auto parts makers to offshore manufacturing, and now some of the largest U.S. auto parts companies produce in China.

Sensata, a car parts manufacturer in Freeport, Ill. is among those on the way to China. The 145 workers in Freeport, who make sensors and controls, are training their Chinese replacements.

These workers may return to China to join many there who are packed into dormitories that rival turn of the 20^th Century U.S. tenements for slum conditions. Romney described workers in a Chinese appliance factory he visited:

“working, working, working as hard as they could, at rates of roughly 50 cents an hour. They cared about their jobs; they wouldn’t even look up as we walked by.”

That’s right. These exploited workers kept their heads down. These 50-cent-an-hour laborers feared they’d be fired for the audacity of looking at a quarter billionaire American visitor.

Sensata is owned by Bain Capital, the company Romney founded in 1984, the private equity firm that Romney claims he left in 1999, even though it continued to pay him millions for a decade afterward. The workers at Sensata have publically begged Romney to intervene with Bain on their behalf to keep the factory in the United States. They’ve collected 35,000 signatures supporting their cause. They’ve got the backing of the Freeport City Council, U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky and Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn. They’re camping outside the factory in a tent city called Bainport. But Romney hasn’t responded. No word from the candidate who claims to love American cars.

He loves owning ‘em. He relishes riding them up and down on elevators. But when it comes to showing a little love for car businesses and car workers, Romney’s frigid. Just ask the workers cooling their heels at Bainport.

The auto parts case is Obama’s ninth trade action against China. The Washington Post wrote:

“The Obama administration has steadily amped up its enforcement actions against China at the WTO.”

Obama has repeatedly confronted countries whose illegal trade practices threaten American companies and workers, filing twice as many cases in one term as Bush did in two. He has tangibly demonstrated his love for American cars and American car workers.

The Radical Rich: Moving From Romney to Re-Occupy

Richard Eskow — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:00:19 -0400

Two recent movements have transformed the political landscape. The Occupy movement literally operates in the light of day. The other movement operates in secrecy, with money as its "speech" rather than ... well, you know, speech.

The Romney video offers us a rare glimpse of the other movement. This movement of the extremely rich is ruthless, radical, and full of rage. And it's on the rise.

If you're not scared, you're not paying attention.

The Revolutionary

Sure, it was stupid for Mitt Romney to insult the non-Federal-tax paying "47 percent" on that video, especially since so many of them are Republican voters. But it was only "stupid" in traditional political terms. For a radical – and make no mistake, Romney is a radical – those rules don't apply.

The bile flows out of this unscripted Romney. He says of his father, the governor, presidential candidate and car company CEO: "Had he been born of Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot of winning this." This kind of resentment, as absurd as it is, is a very real emotion for the Radical Rich.

The words seem to sting his lips when he says "they believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, that they are entitled – to health care, to food, to housing, you name it. That's an entitlement."

Feast your eyes on the articulated rage of the Radical Rich. Romney and his audience are genuinely angry at people who "don't pay taxes" – although almost all of the "47 percent" do, counting payroll and sales taxes. That doesn't matter. The Radical Rich consider all of them – the disabled, the elderly, poor people, veterans – the Other.

From Savanarola to Sarah Palin, from Robespierre to Romney, the psychology never changes: You're either one of us or one of them.

Private Equity Party People

In his attempt to defend Romney, David Brooks suggested he was a "fundamentally decent" person who only expresses contempt for so many of this country's citizens because it appeals to his audience.

The only thing that may be less "decent" than hating entire groups of people is pretending to hate them for your own purposes. But this incident reveals something even more important than Romney's weakness of character, which is:

That's what appeals to Romney' audience.

The guests had gathered at the home of Mark Leder, a private equity manager whose business practices are as exploitative and job-killing as Bain Capital's. Leder's post-divorce antics earned him the nickname "private equity party boy" and headlines like "Nude frolic in tycoon's pool."

Romney and the others keep their clothes on, in case you were wondering, so the video's work-safe.

But that doesn't mean they're not enjoying life. They've acquired a level of wealth, power and luxury which ancient pharaohs and kings could never imagine: Their private jets will take them anywhere on the planet at a few minutes' notice. Rulers of nations flatter and court them. They even seem to be above the law. None of them will ever know hunger, or financial fear, or be denied medical care because they can't pay for it.

And yet they're filled with resentment.

Their voices are heard over the the constant clinking of silver forks on fine china. As the night wore on a man at that table undoubtedly loosened his expensive belt – lizard-skin, perhaps, or calfskin – because he'd eaten too much. A slightly tipsy woman left lipstick prints – a Shiseido lacquered rouge perhaps, in a shade like "Savage," "Nymph," or "Nocturne" (Mark would like that) – on a half-empty glass of very fine wine.

And yet, beneath the warmth of the meal and the glow of the wine, they were burning with rage.

Meet The Radicals

They're probably just a small subset of high-earning Americans. But these resentment-fueled party people are a new force in politics, made even more powerful by growing wealth inequity and Citizens United. They are the Radical Rich.

How radical are they?

Romney and his party are already pursuing their radical policies: A dismantling of most government programs, including a self-funded program like Social Security and vitally needed ones like Medicaid, Federal disaster relief, education ... even law enforcement and storm warning systems to reduce deaths and property damage.

The country they seek is radically different from the one we all grew up in, or even the troubled one we live in today. It's a nation without a social safety net, with hungry and ill people in the streets, without free and fair elections, without basic legal protections for consumers or the environment – a United States unlike anything we've seen in our lifetime.

How angry are they?

Their resentment is as great as their wealth. It seemed like an unfortunate slip from an unpleasant individual when another hedge funder, Steve Schwarzman, compared the loss of his tax breaks to Hitler's invasion of Poland. But we now know that this sense of outrage is shared by many, if not most, of his peers: Hedge funder Daniel S. Loeb. The unnamed CEOs of Fareed Zakaria's acquaintance. Scandal-ridden bank CEO Jamie Dimon.

You'd think they'd be kissing the ground Barack Obama walks on, given their embarrassment – or what should be an "embarrassment" – of riches.

But they're enraged. Why?

Insatiable

Because it isn't enough.

At no time in modern history has the top 1 percent – or the top 0.1 percent, or the top 0.01 percent – owned more of our wealth or paid less in taxes.

But it isn't enough.

The Wall Street executives who broke laws weren't indicted, and those who ruined their own businesses were saved – their wealth and incomes protected – by the very people who are being financially destroyed by their actions.

It isn't enough.

Our government relaxed the regulations, razed the rules, and leveled the laws so they could ruin both the economy and the Gulf of Mexico, and has left us vulnerable to their ongoing predations.

It isn't enough.

What do they want?

They want more – more tax breaks, more protection from the law.

And they want adoration. From the looks of it, nothing short of an Roman Imperial cult – complete with their apotheosis as state deities upon their death – would satisfy them. Obama's corporate-friendly policies, which have protected their wealth and protected them from judgement, aren't enough. They want him to pledge his fealty on the White House steps – or they'll destroy him.

Not every wealthy person is radical, of course. It seems as if a rich person's level of bitterness and rage is directly proportional to the undeservedness of their riches: Hedge fund managers who exploited the rules are the angriest, while authentically talented business people, artists or genuinely "job-creating" entrepreneurs seem to be the least angry.

Could it be guilt, and a not entirely unreasonable feeling of low self-worth, turned outward? Whatever's behind it, a Molotov cocktail of wealthy rage has exploded.

Asymmetrical Warfare

David Frum, a conservative and former George W. Bush speechwriter, gets it. Frum writes that "what makes it all both so heart-rending and so outrageous is that all this is occurring at a time when economically disadvantaged Americans have never been so demoralized and passive, never exerted less political clout. No Coxey's army is marching on Washington, no sit-down strikes are paralyzing factories, no squatters are moving onto farmer's fields."

Beautifully said. Frum's batting average dips slightly as he continues: "Occupy Wall Street immediately fizzled, there is no protest party of the political left."

Occupy didn't "fizzle." It attracted massive support almost overnight. Within weeks it had dramatically transformed the national conversation. Democrats from the president on down were forced to address issues of economic injustice, at least rhetorically, instead of negotiating destructive (and pro-wealthy) austerity deals with the Republican counterparts.

But the powers arrayed against Occupy – in the media, in politics, and elsewhere – combined with the winter winds to force it into hibernation.

Frum's absolutely right, however, when he says there's "no protest party of the political left" – although I'd drop the word "protest" and make it simply a party, one that can win rather than just siphon off votes. That won't happen without a mass movement.

That's why it's time to re-Occupy our country. In fact, maybe it should've been called "Re-Occupy" all along. It was, and it remains, a re-occupation – of our privatized public spaces and our privatized political discourse. Occupy, or something like it, is the only force that has a chance against the power of the Radical Rich.

Closing the Deal

Mitt can't close the deal. He's tanking like Facebook's IPO. Why? Because he's one of the Radical Rich, and he can't control his rage any more than Steve Scharzman can.

The executives I used to know would have laughed off Obama's populist rhetoric as long as the cash kept pouring in. But the new crowd doesn't just want an unfair and ill-gotten share of the nation's wealth. They want it paid as tribute.

This didn't happen by accident. The Radical Rich have, in David Frum's words, been "scammed" by political operators playing off their emotions. In the old days demagogues would work a mob into a frenzy until it was ready to burn down Parliament. Nowadays you can work a billionaire or two into a frenzy and buy Parliament instead. That's much more efficient – and a lot less messy.

And yet, even with all their resources at his disposal, Mitt can't close the deal. He can't hide his radicalism long enough.

Next time it'll be uglier. They may not even try to close the deal. They might just take it. That's why we need a new movement.

What would a revived Occupy movement – a "Re-Occupy movement" – look like? That topic should dominate the conversation on the American left. This election and the events that follow it should be viewed through the lens of long-term independent activism, with political office only one tool among many.

Romney articulated both his own emotions and those of his crowd when he said of the American majority, "The things that animate us aren't the things that animate them." Well, right back at ya, pal.

That's why it's time to Re-Occupy the country – now, before it's too late.

You Should Know About Sensata - It's What The Election Is About

Dave Johnson — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:30:58 -0400

Workers facing outsourcing by Bain Capital are camping outside the Sensata factory in Freeport, Ill. They are asking Mitt Romney to show up and help save their jobs. They say they will stay camped there until Romney shows up and stands with them – or with Bain.

Mitt Romney can can use this to show us if he wants to be president of the whole United States, or just president of, by and for the outsourcing 1 percenters.

Sensata

The private equity firm Bain Capital put together Sensata Technologies in 2006 to make and sell sensors and controls to car makers and other manufacturers. The company is closing the Freeport, Ill. plant and outsourcing the 165 jobs to China. The workers have to train their Chinese replacements before they are laid off.

Sensata is making plenty of money. According to the company's website:

Second quarter 2012 net revenue was a record $504.6 million, an increase of 10.9% from the second quarter 2011 net revenue of $455.0 million.
Second quarter 2012 net income was $26.1 million, or $0.14 per diluted share, versus second quarter 2011 net (loss) of $(34.6) million, or $(0.20) per diluted share.
Second quarter 2012 Adjusted net income1 was a record $97.5 million, or $0.54 per diluted share, versus second quarter 2011 Adjusted net income1 of $92.2 million, or $0.51 per diluted share.

Sensata explains that Chinese workers cost less.

Mitt Romney started Bain Capital in 1984. He left the company in 1999, or 2000, or 2001, or 2002, or later, or earlier, depending on which year is best. In 2012 he is clearly no longer with Bain, while receiving only approximately $440,000 a week from the company.

Efforts To Get Sensata To Reconsider

The Freeport, Ill., City Council unanimously passed a resolution on July 16 asking
Romney to come and help save the workers' jobs.

Two Republican members of Congress, Don Manzullo, R-Ill., and Bobby Schilling, R-Ill., sent a letter to Sensata's CEO asking him to keep the jobs in Freeport. Manzullo is a co-sponsor of the House "currency" bill, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act (H.R. 639) that would crack down on China's currency manipulation. Though he is a co-sponsor, Manzullo refuses to sign a discharge petition that would bring the bill to the floor for an actual vote.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Evanston) has joined workers in asking Romney to show up and help.

Illinois' Governor Pat Quinn has visited the workers in Freeport, and asks Congress to pass the Bring Jobs Home Act. The Bring Jobs Home Act would eliminate the tax breaks that encourage companies like Bain and Sensata to close factories here and send the jobs and the work to countries like China, with the cash stopping off in the Cayman Islands for a quick tax cleansing. The Bring Jobs Home Act was recently filibustered by Senate Republicans.

Sensata workers collected 35,000 petition signatures, asking Romney to come to Freeport to help save the workers' jobs. This video shows what happened when they tried to deliver these petitions and a letter at a Romney campaign office in Madison. Instead of accepting the letter and petitions, the campaign locked them out and called the police.

President Of All Of US Or President Of 1 Percent?

Many Americans are asking, if elected, will Romney be the pPresident of the United States or really just the president of, by and for the 1 percent? Visiting the camp at "Bainport" and helping the workers keep their jobs would give Romney a chance to distance himself from the outsourcing and "vulture capitalism" practices of his former company, making a break and standing with the rest of the country, by asking Sensata not to ship these jobs to China.

Appearing to support manufacturing workers like those at Sensata, Romney is running a new ad saying President Obama is killing manufacturing jobs.

But if you watch the ad, it is actually describing conditions under President Bush, and trying to make viewers think this happened under President Obama. Visiting the Sensata workers and helping them in their struggle with the company and Bain would give Romney an opportunity to clear this up.

The ad criticized President Obama for not cracking down in Chinese currency manipulation. Like Rep. Manzullo, Romney also says he supports cracking down on Chinese currency manipulation but has not called on House Republicans to bring this bill to the floor for an actual vote. See previous posts on this, Romney Etch-A-Sketching On China Currency, Romney On China: Talks The Talk, Will He Walk The Walk? and China Currency Fight In Congress.

Greetings From Bainport, Illinois

The workers campaign in Freeport, Ill., are calling their camp "Bainport." They have a website, Greetings from Bainport, Illinois. Take a look, there are lots of great pictures.

From the website:

We're workers at Bain Capital-owned Sensata in Freeport, Illinois. We're fighting to save our jobs from being shipped to China by the end of this year.

Sign our petition here.

I support the Sensata workers and their call on Mitt Romney to come and save their jobs from being shipped to China. I commend and support their efforts to save their jobs and encourage them to keep it up the fight until Mitt Romney visits the workers in Freeport, Illinois.

Let's see of we can get Mitt Romney to show up at Freeport, Ill. and help these workers.

You can stand with the Senstata workers fighting outsourcing by sending them a pizza. Call Logan's Bar & Grill at (815) 232-4592. Tell them it's for the Senstata workers camping out and they'll make sure the food gets to them.

Labor Day: Team America, Including Workers, Built That

Leo Gerard — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 09:14:07 -0400

The GOP, the party of exclusion – no gays seeking marriage allowed, also no Hispanics, no black people, no poor people who are on or ever were on welfare, and no women who are on or ever were on birth control – yeah, that private party spent last week taking sole credit for America's greatness, saying in speeches, announcing on signs and even chanting: We built it.

Republicans did it all, they said. The GOP accomplished that exclusively, they contended.

Ann Romney adopted the braggadocio, assigning to her husband all credit for the success of private equity firm Bain Capital. She said of GOP nominee Mitt Romney:

“I can tell you Mitt Romney was not handed success. He built it.”

No help from anyone, not Bain & Co. founder Bill Bain, not Romney’s fellow Bain workers, not the Bain investors, certainly not the government that Romney considers so evil but that he wants to run. He built Bain all by himself.

This is a new week though. It’s a week that begins with Labor Day. For that reason, it’s a time when Republicans will be falling all over themselves to compliment American workers – well, except unionized workers, who Republicans hate and who Republicans would like to exclude from their party, along with those gays, poor people and women using birth control. This week, Republicans will ever so briefly share some credit for the greatness of America with white, male, non-union, blue collar workers – the ones Republicans believe they can convince to vote for the quarter billionaire they’ve nominated for president. Next week, however, the GOP will be back to claiming Republicans built it all by themselves.

A couple of weeks ago, President Obama said he believes America’s success was forged by the talent and hard work of innovators, risk takers, researchers, hard laborers, skilled workers and government leaders mixed with community support, faith and hope. He explained that no one person can take credit for the greatness of America, no individual built that. He said:

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”

Republicans, have been pounding President Obama about that ever since. They contend one person did build that. No help provided or needed. If Bain was successful, then Romney did it all by himself. He gets all the credit.

Well, that might be right except for the credit that local, state and federal government should get. And that credit, of course, goes to citizens because they provided the government with the tax money that politicians handed Bain companies.

Yeah, that’s right. Bain companies took corporate welfare. One of ’em even required a new tax!

In the mid-1990s, Bain invested in a start-up mill, Steel Dynamics, that was to be constructed for $385 million in DeKalb County, Ind. The mill got built with $37 million in subsidies and grants from Indiana and DeKalb County. In addition, DeKalb County levied a new quarter-percent income tax on residents to pay for infrastructure improvements such as roads and railroad exchanges that benefited Steel Dynamics.

Bain put $18.2 million into the project, less than half of what Indiana residents did, and the private equity firm took out $104 million when it sold its share five years later. Romney, of course, contends he built that all by himself.

Similarly, California taxpayers built a conveyor bridge between two Bain company buildings. New York taxpayers gave Bain tax breaks and lower energy bills so it wouldn’t move a company to New Jersey. South Carolina taxpayers gave Bain company Holson $200,000 in utility support and a $5 million construction bond. Maryland taxpayers gave Bain company Staples $2.3 million in grants and low-interest loans. And there’s more government help for Bain companies Sealy, Steam International, Alliance Laundry Systems, Burger King. . .

But, you know, Romney did it all by himself.

Then there’s the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics that Romney claims to have saved all by himself. Right. Except for that quarter billion dollars that American taxpayers donated in the form of federal subsidies to rescue the games.

Other GOP members who spoke on the special “Republicans built it” day at the convention were Phil Archuletta, owner of P&M Signs, and Sher Valenzuela, who owns an upholstery business. Both received government aid to build their businesses. Archuletta complained that his business didn’t get enough tax dollars out of the federal stimulus package – only $340,000. Valenzuela got $2 million in loans from the Small Business Administration and $15 million in government contracts, some noncompetitive. But, you know, they did it all by themselves.

Last week, while Republicans claimed credit for building by themselves everything that’s great in America, President Obama upped the ante on his contention that many achievements are a result of group efforts. The President told 6,500 students at the University of Virginia that securing a tax credit for college tuition, increasing tuition grants and extending low interest interest federal student loans, were all possible “because of you.”

President Obama made no claim that he built that by himself. On Labor Day, he recognizes the contributions union and non-union workers made to building this great country.

All Americans built that.

***

(Now some may say Republicans love black people and Hispanics. Both Former Secretary of State Condi Rice and Sen. Marco Rubio spoke at the convention. But here’s the thing, Ann Romney last week referred to Hispanics at a Latino Coalition luncheon as “you people,” and two GOP Convention delegates threw peanuts at a black CNN camerawoman and yelled, “This is how we feed the animals.”)

A Tale of Three CEOs: Romney, Bain, and a Crooked Executive's Overlooked Story

Richard Eskow — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 01:07:20 -0400

In the annals of Mitt Romney's days at Bain Capital, one story seems to have escaped our collective memory. It involves Bain's acquisition of a New York City drug store chain during Mitt Romney's tenure there, and the hiring of a new president who would turn out to have pronounced criminal tendencies.

When the story of Duane Reade's Anthony Cuti is put together with the better-known story of Bain's relationship with a Medicare-defrauding lab testing company, it becomes a tale of two criminal CEOs - and of the presidential candidate who was involved in choosing them both.

Damon International

Recent media scrutiny of Romney has uncovered the case of Damon International, the medical lab company which Bain purchased in 1989. In addition to being Bain's CEO while it owned Damon, Romney continued to sit on Damon's board of directors after Bain took the company public in 1991. The company was eventually sold to Corning in 1993, which netted Romney $473,000 in personal earnings as well as creating additional profit for Bain.

That brings us to the matter of one Joseph Isola. According to the Boston Globe's archives, the paper ran a story on January 5, 1990 entitled "Isola Takes Over At Damon." Then there's this headline, from July 31, 2000: "Damon Lab Executive Pleads and Is Sentenced For Conspiracy to Defraud Medicare, Reports U.S. Attorney."

The story says that a United States attorney had announced on July 26 that "Joseph Isola, age 53, formerly of Westwood, Massachusetts, and former President of Damon, an independent clinical blood laboratory, pled nolo contendere last Friday before U.S. District Court Judge Edward F. Harrington to a one count information charging a conspiracy to defraud Medicare in connection with medically unnecessary clinical laboratory blood testing."

The scandal came to be known as LABSCAM, and it included the period of Romney's involvement with the company. As Forbes observes, "before Romney indicated that he was involved in conducting an investigation while he was on the board of directors, he said that he was completely unaware of any investigation."

Romney has at various times claimed that he didn't know about the illegalities, that he "blew the whistle" on the illegalities, and that he put a stop to the crimes without notifying the authorities:

“We put in place a program to stop that immediately. That’s how you blow the whistle.”

Um, no. You don't "blow the whistle" on crooks in your own employ by telling them to stop committing crimes—and letting them keep their jobs. But that's not the most important part of this story. Romney's shifting story is much more troubling, and says volumes about his character. It's astonishing that it hasn't become a major campaign scandal - but that the artificial "you didn't build that" controversy has.

But that's not the most important part of the story either.

While Mitt Romney was running Bain Capital, and while Bain Capital owned 100 percent of Damon Inernational, Joseph Isola was selected by the Romney team to serve as the company's CEO. Romney then oversaw Isola's management of the firm for several years - and Isola kept his job.

And a lesser-known story shows that this has happened more than once.

Duane Reade

Bain Capital's involvement in Duane Reade Pharmacies hasn't received nearly as much attention as Damon International, which was the subject of a major communications push by the Democratic National Committee. The spotlight has yet to be trained on this story.

Duane Reade was a well-known chain of family-owned New York City pharmacies when Bain Capital purchased it in 1992. In 1996, shortly before it sold the chain to another buyout firm, Bain Capital hired a former Pathmark executive named Anthony Cuti to serve as Duane Reade's CEO.

From Bloomberg News, August 22, 2011, under the headline "Ex-Duane Reade Chief Cuti Gets Three-Year Prison Sentence":

Former Duane Reade Inc. Chief Executive Officer Anthony Cuti was sentenced to three years in prison for falsely inflating income and misleading investors ... U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts also ordered Cuti today to pay a $5 million fine. Batts called Cuti “a gifted, arrogant, driven, entitled individual” who “bullied people into committing fraudulent acts to make the company look better than it actually was” to increase his pay.

Batts said Cuti was also guilty of “the height of hubris” for rewriting his employee compensation plan that would allow him to double his compensation even if he was fired for cause, which later occurred.

The crimes were committed between 2000 and 2005, commencing roughly four years after the Bain sale. A subsequent Duane Reade owner apparently discovered Cuti's irregularities, and he was fired in 2005. But he was presumably the executive in charge when Duane Reade's New Jersey stores began the behavior which eventually led to a $50,000 fine from the State of New Jersey the following year—behavior that included selling expired and/or mispriced nonprescription drugs, infant formula, baby food and other products at the company's New Jersey drug stores. (Duane Reade promptly violated that agreement, leading to $200,000 in fines and fees the year after that.)

Damon International's Medicare fraud made it an attractive target for Democratic campaigns, especially in Florida and other states with high Medicare populations. But selling expired drugs and infant formula is a pretty nasty thing to do too. And hiring an executive who commits serial investor fraud? Investor fraud's the kind of crime that brought down our economy—and for which no Wall Street executive has been arrested.

A Tale of Three CEOs

There's no evidence that Romney was directly involved in the ongoing criminality which took place for years at Damon International—even though some of it took place on his watch. And there's certainly no evidence he knew of the crime spree that Anthony Cuti would eventually undertake when Cuti was hired as Duane Reade's CEO.

It certainly raises questions about Romney's judgement, however. Isola was promoted from within, while Cuti was presumably selected after a thorough search. In both cases, Mitt Romney had responsibility for ensuring that the right person was selected for the job. It's reasonable to ask whether this casts a negative light on a would-be president's ability to judge human character and make good hiring decisions.

But, valid as those questions are, this story is bigger than Joseph Isola and Anthony Cuti. It's even bigger than Bain Capital or even Romney's candidacy.

In Part #2, we'll discuss the most important aspect of this story—a story of Bain Capital and a tale of three CEOs.

David Brooks Thinks Romney's a "Modern Capitalist." He's Right.

Richard Eskow — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:22:29 -0400

David Brooks says Obama's attacks on Romney's business record are "about capitalism." That's like saying an arrest for vehicular homicide is "about driving."

Our economic "roads" are jammed with destructive drivers like Romney. They're menacing motorists with their massive semis and monster dumptrucks while traffic laws go unenforced. And whenever there's a lethal pileup their friends say it proves we shouldn't have traffic laws at all.

Brooks says that the President's campaign rhetoric "challenges the entire logic of capitalism as it has existed over several decades." That sounds like a subliminal suggestion from the liberals' favorite conservative that Barack Obama's a socialist. But if there's anything that needs to be challenged at this point in history it's "the entire logic of capitalism as it has existed over several decades."

This decades-long wave of unchecked corporate greed was brought about by deregulation, along with other symptoms of a corrupting collusion between corporate and political leaders. That unholy marriage has been made manifest in the very being of Mitt Romney.

Brooks conflates the economic rampage this process has created with capitalism itself - or, in a phrase he uses no less than three times in an 800-word piece, "modern capitalism." Those two words embrace behaviors that include both Wall Street lawlessness and the government largesse that has inflated the wealth of people like Mitt Romney, whose firm's first success was made possible by Massachusetts tax deals and whose personal fortune has been padded by undeserved loopholes.

Today's big-corporate czars are the worst case studies in unchecked greed since the Robber Barons. You'll need a phrase like "Modern Capitalism" if you're trying to defend their misdeeds. The words resonate with entrepreneurial spirit, which the American public loves. And who could be against the "modern" except a Luddite or a fool?

(Or a socialist, of course.)

Today's big-money CEOs aren't really "capitalist." The popular American notion of "capitalism" fits Merriam-Webster's definition: "An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."

But that's not how it works anymore. Wall Street has deceived and defrauded courts, homeowners, account holders, shareholders, government agencies and investors on an epic scale. Market choices - which bank to use, whether to invest in big-bank shares or purchase mortgage-backed securities, aren't "determined by private decision" at all. They're driven by long-standing patterns of fraud and deception.

Our largest corporations survive and thrive because of government patronage, not market forces. That's especially true of the too-big-to-fail banks which the government rescued after the crisis, and which it continues to prop up with cheap Federal Reserve money, lax regulation of civil and criminal laws, and the moral hazard that comes with the implicit guarantee of future bailouts.

The LIBOR scandal reminds us that prices are often determined, not by "competition in the free market," but by price-fixing, investor fraud, and market manipulation by a very small group of "too big to fail" players.

David Brooks' conception of "modern capitalism" should repel most Americans, and according to polling data it does. Conservatives should be as outraged as anyone - maybe more so, since it flies in the face of everything they claim to hold dear: transparency, integrity, freedom from government control, and an economy guided by "the wisdom of the markets."

In other words, what David Brooks calls "modern capitalism" isn't capitalism at all.

It's not modern, either. The government/big business cronyism Brooks defends is as ancient as the Roman and Athenian politicians who gave bribes for personal profit. It's as old as the Union Pacific/Crédit Mobilier scandal of 1872. It's as stale as J. Pierpont Morgan responding to charges of illegal restraint of trade by asking Teddy Roosevelt, "Why don't you just send your man to my man and we'll fix it up?" It's as antiquated as bank magnate Andrew Mellon, who as Hoover's Treasury Secretary articulated the credo which corporate predators re-state whenever they've caused economic disaster:

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate ..."

Brooks hits closer to home when he points out that, contrary to campaign rhetoric, Obama has employed or been friendly with some dubious "Modern Capitalists." He's right to say the President hasn't acted against globalization. He even missed the chance to knock Obama for supporting additional free trade agreements. The President should do a better job of matching his actions to his rhetoric.

Then there's Mitt. Seems like everybody's got some advice for him nowadays: Release your taxes. Don't release your taxes. Focus on Obama. Focus on the future. Don't focus at all. There's only one piece of advice Romney hasn't been given: Be yourself.

Think about that.

But out of all the unsolicited suggestions coming Mitt's way, none can be worse that the one offered by David Brooks. "Romney is going to have to define a vision of modern capitalism," Brooks writes. Define a vision of modern capitalism?

That's Romney's biggest problem: He already has.

So DID Mitt Romney Really "Create Jobs" At Staples?

Dave Johnson — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:46:44 -0400

Did Mitt Romney really "create 100,000 jobs" with Staples? Simple answer: only if no one else was selling office supplies, stationery, etc. before Staples came along. What Staples did was force many competing stationery, office supply and computer stores out of business, probably shifting their employees into lower-wage jobs. Staples was just one more part of the Wal-Martization of our economy in the last few decades. In our system the wealthy few have the power to lay people off or force pay cuts and then pocket the difference for themselves. We have to come to grips with that, and fix the system.

Job Creator?

Mitt Romney says he should be President because he and his company Bain Capital created 100,000 jobs at Staples and "created jobs" at other companies that Bain took over. So ... did Mitt Romney really "create jobs" at Staples? Or did he and Bain really just follow the Wal-Mart model, using the advantages that come with having large, national chains, putting a number of local, smaller businesses out of business, while shifting a lot of people into lower-paying jobs? Understanding the difference is important because Romney says he will help the country "create jobs" the way he helped "create jobs" at Staples.

He says his experience is just what is needed to solve our national jobs emergency. He wants to apply the methods that "created 100,000 jobs at Staples" to the entire country. He says he will cut regulations and cut government and make the country more "business-friendly." This means we should take a good look at Staples and the rest of the companies Mitt Romney and Bain Capital and others like them operated, and decide if this is really the way We, the People want to go.

Staples

Staples grew into a major chain because they consolidated what different kinds of stores sold, offering a one-stop-shop for stationery products, office supplies, office-furniture, computers, etc. They also were able to be competitive because of the advantages of scale as they grew into a national chain, centralizing functions like accounting, purchasing, legal, marketing, etc. And never underestimate the power of having a ton of cash at your disposal. This is all just smart business, well executed.

As Staples grew it overtook competing chains like Businessland and others. In other words, Staples took business from other, existing stores -- often local retailers. Staples did not “create” jobs, it shifted office-supply jobs from local stores, etc., probably to lower-paying jobs. (The former owners of local businesses certainly were worse off from this.) They likely even lowered overall office-supply, stationery, etc. employment in the larger economy.

Low Wages?

How do these"Romney job creator" jobs stack up against other jobs? Average Staples salaries for job postings nationwide are 51% lower than average salaries for all job postings. The pay at Staples appears to be around $8-10 an hour. That's $16-20,000 a year, certainly not enough to support a family, or even pay rent in many areas, never mind buying food. (The 2012 poverty guideline for family of four is $23,050.)

Wal-Martization

Big, national chain stores like Wal-Mart have tremendous advantages over local businesses because they are able to take advantage of scale. They buy from manufacturers and distributors in mass quantities, which means they can demand lower prices from them, and offer lower prices to customers. They can centralize accounting, HR and other management functions and employ these people in-house instead of contracting with local accounting firms, etc., also enabling them to offer lower prices.

And when they are big enough they can squeeze, and squeeze and squeeze their workers for lower wages and fewer benefits, their suppliers for discounts and other concessions, and even their customers by reducing support and staff, again enabling them to offer lower prices.

This is just the kind of "job creation" that makes a few people really wealthy at the expense of the rest of us, "hollowing out" the middle class.

(Here's an industry secret --those multi-page advertising supplements that come in the Sunday paper are profit centers for the chains, not an advertising expense. The market power of these big chains enables them to demand "market development" payments from product manufacturers and distributors before they can gain shelf space, effectively making the newspaper and other advertising into profit centers instead of advertising costs.)

The Effect On America

I wrote about the impact of this "squeeze them all" business model on the American landscape in Lorain, OH Keep It Made In America Town Hall Meeting:

As you drive from town to town in Michigan and Ohio you see one after another a ring of the "big box" stores and national chain stores around each city. You also see the "brownfields" of rusted-out, closed factories, empty, falling-down buildings. Then you go to the downtown and you see boarded up houses, empty storefronts, deteriorating and deteriorated communities, idle people standing on corners. As you drive into these towns you can just see what is happening in a nutshell.

You used to hear about how Wal-Mart was predatory, how it would show up in an area and after a while the downtowns would dry up, local business-owners would go broke, local business employees would be laid off, and the local people would have to work for low wages at Wal-Mart, while the region's spending money would go off to the wealthy few who run these things.

Well a juicy story of devastation like that one gets around, and there are those who hear it and say, "Hey, that's a great idea, I wanna get me some of that." So the Wal-Mart business model has taken off and now there are any number of these vultures, ringing the cities and towns around the country, so often private-equity owned. They are draining away the lifeblood of the downtowns, fighting off the unions to keep wages down, even demanding tax breaks to move in and "create jobs." You see all the same stores circling every town now, running all of the local and regional businesses unto the ground.

Restructuring?

The changes in our economy that are hollowing out the middle class come from the restructuring that Wal-Martization represents. (And bad trade deals, never forget that.) Big, national chains have natural advantages over small, local businesses. And when they are big enough they have the power to squeeze employees, suppliers and even customers. The same kinds of advantages also hold for other industries.

Big, multinational corporations have advantages of scale over smaller companies. Etc., throughout our system. And big companies have tremendous power to squeeze workers, making them accept lower pay and benefits. They have the power to squeeze suppliers and customers as well.

These giant companies even have the power to squeeze communities and even states, demanding tax concessions with the threat of relocation. This has put our tax base in a downward spiral along with our wages.

These giant businesses have the wealth and power to force changes that move the benefits of business and our economy entirely to a few at the very top.

The Playing Field

As I wrote above, this is all just smart business, well executed. Business are just neutral bundles of contracts that operating on a playing field of laws and regulations. They only do what we let them do with the laws and regulations that we set out there for them to operate under, and those that do that the best and smartest win the game.

But why would We, the People allow businesses to do things the way Wal-Mart and the rest do them with the terrible results we see all around us? Don't we want businesses that benefit all of us? Isn't that the point of having a We, the People country? Don't we want businesses that pay good wages, provide good products and services, and pay us back with taxes that enable us to have good infrastructure, internal improvements, and public structures like good schools, universities, courts, police, firefighters, health care, retirement and a fair share of all the other benefits of modern society?

Why is the playing field defined in a way that is so obviously hurting us and funneling all the benefits of our economy to a very few at the top? This restructuring is occurring the way it is because we let these businesses do these things to us. Businesses are not good or bad -- they can't be, they are not sentient and do not have morals. They are just bundles of contracts. Again, businesses are neutral, operating on a playing field defined by us. We can change that.

Our problem today is that a few people are able to change the rules of that playing field, for their own benefit. Once we allow money to influence our government decision-making and our public attitudes and understandings at all, then of course it will influence that decision making to their advantage, and will do so more and more as they gain more wealth and power from it, until there is nothing left. This is the road we are on.

The playing field is tilting and tilting and We, the People are starting to fall off the edge.

What Can We Do?

Cut to the chase. We currently operate under an economic paradigm, or system, in which the Romneys have so much power they can fire masses of people or force people to take pay cuts, and then pocket the difference for themselves. They can squeeze their suppliers for greater and greater concessions and then pocket the difference for themselves. We have to come to grips with that.

Romney/Bain didn't really create jobs with Staples, they put small office and stationery retailers and other already-existing competitors out of businesses and moved the workers from those outlets into jobs at Staples that pay very little. In other words, they didn't create 100,000 jobs, they lowered 100,000 people's wages.

Romney made his money opertating on a playing field of business rules that let him and Bain and Wal-Mart and the rest do what they do. They were all able to tilt that playing field in their favor using the wealth and power they already had, and they tilted it in ways that gain them more wealth and power.

Mitt Romney gained his wealth and power on that playing field, and is campaigning with a promise to further tilt that playing field in favor of the few who already have great wealth and power.

We can change those rules. We can demand better pay, higher taxes at the top, better products, better service, and all the things sensible people would demand if We, the People were really in charge.

Note - while researching this post I came across Jonathan Tasini making a number of these points in the LA Times in January, in Not all jobs are equal,

Even if he's telling the truth by some measures, the fact is that private equity buyouts often enrich those who arrange them by sharp cost-cutting, including dismantling pay and benefits for most of the workers who remain or new hires who join the more "efficient" enterprise. It's simple math: To service the huge debt taken on in virtually every buyout, workers take cuts. And the new jobs aren't necessarily a path to the American dream.

Take Staples, which Romney trumpets as one of his successes. The company certainly pays some of its employees well: Staples Chairman and Chief Executive Ronald L. Sargent received a total pay package of more than $15 million in 2010. But jobs in retail — one of the fastest-growing job sectors in recent decades — tend to pay poorly, and Staples jobs don't seem to be an exception to that rule.