Tag Archives: Bain

Guess Who Invests With Bain

The California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) has $1.25 billion invested with Bain Capital. Ricardo Duran, CalSTRS spokesman, said that CalSTRS’s fiduciary duty to its members and their families is paramount. He also said that private equity (such as Bain Capital) has been the best-performing asset class in the system’s portfolio over the past 24 years, and that “… the scrutiny generated by a heated election year matters less than the performance the portfolio generates to the fund.”

And the last time I looked, the California Teachers Association (CTA) [a CalSTRS participant] is a union. So how does the CTA resolve this apparent conflict with the AFL-CIO, which said, “Bottom line: the issue of greed vs. fairness is more than a debate about Romney’s role at Bain. It’s about fundamental American values we all hold – and how Romney’s actions, while running a major corporation, show he does not share our values.” Real “Bottom line”: “Bain‘s private-equity executives have enriched dozens of organizations and millions of individuals in the Democratic base – including some who scream most loudly for President Obama’s re-election.”

Hank Kim, executive director and counsel of the National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems, with 550 members, says that “pension managers ultimately want stability and good returns, which private equity has provided.” And Max Patterson, executive director of the Texas Association of Public Employee Retirement Systems, says “It’s all about money.”

And guess who else invests in Bain Capital. Toys “R” Us, The Weather Channel, Dunkin’ Donuts, and some 140 other companies, state and city pension funds, and universities. Below is a (very) partial list:

No one, not Obama, not Democrats, not the DNC, not the MSM, not unions, has pointed out the obvious hypocrisy of the unions going after Romney and his business career at Bain Capital.

Where is the Obama campaign on this? Where is the MSM on this? Where is the DNC on this? Why have they not announced who invests with Bain Capital? Will they lose credibility if they make this announcement? Why is this hypocrisy allowed to continue? All of these questions can be answered with one word: “politics.”

But that’s just my opinion.

Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

Obama Campaign Bundler Works At Bain, Had Role In Layoffs

Oops! Here’s a little something that must have slipped out while David Axelrod and the rest of the President Barack Hussein “kill list” Obama reelection campaign committee weren’t looking. The Obama reelection campaign blamed Mitt Romney for the failure of GST Steel company in 2001. A May, 2012, TV ad focuses on the Bain acquisition of GST Steel, and it shows workers at a shuttered plant blaming Romney and Bain Capital for the closure and job losses.

But there are two facts about this situation that the Obama campaign would rather that you not know.

First, GST Steel failed in 2001. Romney left Bain Capital in 1999. I can see how the desperate Obama campaign could try to blame Romney for the failure – sort of a “halo” effect, like the one Newsweek placed around Obama’s head back in May of this year. I know the Newsweek cover was about gay rights, but both the cover and the campaign ad are “reaching.”

Second, what is probably the more interesting fact is that Jonathan Lavine was in charge of Bain during the GST closure and occurrence of job losses. Who, you ask, is Jonathan Lavine? Well, it turns out that Lavine is one of Obama’s campaign bundlers. And Lavine is not just any bundler, he is a top bundler, bundling between $100,000 and $200,000 in campaign contributions. And he is doing all of this while the managing director at Bain Capital.

Further, we are all familiar with the story of workers at an Indiana office supply company who lost their jobs after a Bain-owned company named American Pad & Paper (Ampad) took over their company and drove it out of business, and then Ampad eventually went broke itself. Guess who was on the Board of Directors at Ampad – Jonathan Lavine.

Lavine’s being on Ampad’s Board of Directors suggests that he had a direct role in the layoffs, labor disputes and eventual bankruptcy of the Marion, IN, factory featured in the Obama campaign video. When asked about Lavine’s role at Ampad, Ben Labolt, Obama campaign spokesman, tried to ignore Lavine’s role. Labolt said, “No one aside from Mitt Romney is running for president highlighting their tenure as a corporate buyout specialist as one of job creation.” Labolt also said that Romney, as Bain CEO, would have been the one ultimately responsible for what happened at Ampad.

But a spokesman for Bain said that Lavine had nothing to do with the workers being laid off in Marion, IN. Alex Stanton, a spokesperson for Bain Capital, said, “The assertion he [Lavine] had any involvement with those events is totally false.” Class shows!

Perhaps the MSM will find time (and space) to report all of this, but I’m not holding my breath.

But that’s just my opinion.

Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

CNN Reports Back Romney Bain Claims

If you tell a lie often enough people will believe you. This seems to be the case for Team Obama regarding Mitt Romney’s departure from Bain Capital. Continuing to spread falsehoods and exaggerations may turn one or two naive voters back to the Obama camp.

CNN should have no axe to grind in this story. If anything they are trying to improve their viewership by reminding us that they can report unbiased news. You can help by refuting the stories with news clips like this:

Obama’s Rich Bashing Is Backfiring

President Obama and his team thought they could deliver a headshot to Romney with the grossly inaccurate Bain ad that detailed how they closed GST Steel.  Well, Romney left Bain in 1999 and GST Steel folded in 2001.  Not to mention, Bain’s managing director, Jonathan Lavine, was still at Bain when GST closed its doors. Mr. Lavine also happens to be an Obama bundler raising between $100-200,000 for the president’s re-elect campaign.  I’ve mentioned this in a previous post.

However,the president continues to push this anti-Bain narrative, which isn’t sticking and killing his chances at winning the affluent vote.  Yes, bashing the rich may seem like the “cool” and “liberal” thing to do, but, as Michael Barone aptly pointed out, the last class warfare president that won was Harry Truman in 1948.  The same could be said about Obama’s populist vein.  The last populist president elected was Andrew Jackson.  History seems to be against him.

Barone wrote:

Today there are a lot more affluent people. The 2008 exit poll told us that 26 percent of voters had household incomes over $100,000. Half of them voted for Obama. He needs those votes again. My hunch is that Obama’s attacks on Bain will strike most affluent voters as offputting and that Romney’s calm responses will strike them as reassuring. If you want more jobs created, you don’t go around attacking job creators. Most affluent voters believe that free markets, appropriately regulated, tend to produce fair outcomes. They see investors not as vultures but as creators of jobs and promoters of innovation that increase national productivity and make everyone better off. They see class warfare as attacks on themselves.

Furthermore, Barone cites areas where the president is probably already doomed.  Especially, in states he needs to win this November to continue his agenda of dependency and big government policies.  Policies that have not reduced the high unemployment rate, gave us consecutive trillion dollar deficits, and added another $5 trillion dollars to the national debt.   The rich, and Americans in general, see Obama as ineffectual and totally antithetical to the values he promised to bring to Washington.  This is starting to have an effect no matter how much Obama tries to pivot on the matter.  Barone continues by listing how the president is losing his grip on this demographic that he needs to win again to ensure re-election.

Here’s evidence that Obama has already lost many affluent voters. The popular vote in House elections is a good proxy for presidential and party support, and voters with incomes over $100,000, evenly split in 2008, voted 58 to 40 percent for Republicans in 2010.

Northern Virginia, which Obama carried 59 to 40 percent and which provided 95 percent of his statewide popular vote margin, went 52 to 47 percent for House Republicans in 2010. Nine suburban Denver counties voted 53 to 46 percent for Obama but switched in 2010 to 54 to 42 percent Republican.

Virginia and Colorado are on everyone’s target state list. But Obama also hurt the Democratic brand among affluent voters in other states.

The four suburban counties outside Philadelphia voted 57 to 42 percent for Obama but 52 to 47 percent Republican in 2010. The six suburban counties outside Detroit voted 54 to 45 percent for Obama but 53 to 44 percent Republican in 2010. That means Pennsylvania and Michigan could be in play.

Affluent suburbs outside the South trended heavily toward Democrats in from 1992 to 2008. Now they seem to be trending Republican.

All we need is Romney, who finally clinched the nomination in last night’s Texas primary, to stay focused and hammer the president on the economy, the debt, deficit, high unemployment, and the rest of his dismal record.  However, expect this 2012 election to be the dirtiest since 1824.