As the 2012 Presidential election heats up, voters are faced with a critical decision: pick a man who has had great success in the private sector, or pick a man who has had great success in the public sector.
It is first important to note there is a stark difference between the private sector and the public sector. Success in one does not necessarily translate to success in the other. Mr. Romney thinks otherwise.
There is no question about Mr. Romney’s enormous success in
the private sector. As head of Bain Capital, his work with the private equity
firm has created massive payoffs for his investors and has rightfully earned
him respect as a triumphant businessman. However, creating wealth and creating
jobs are two very different things.
When Mr. Romney touts his private sector experience as “the
main calling card for why he thinks he should be president,” his time at Bain
Capital must be examined at a further depth.
What must also be examined is his experience in the public
sector, primarily as Governor of Massachusetts. Specifically, during his tenure
as Governor, Massachusetts dropped to 47th in job creation. He also advocated
that we “let Detroit go bankrupt”, criticizing Obama for his Auto-Bailout. But
we can all agree that if we took Mr. Romney’s “business” advice, our recovery
would be in a much worse position that it is today. Instead of having two and
half years of consecutive private sector job growth, our economy would have
lost millions of jobs.
No one, including the President, is criticizing Romney’s
success at Bain Capital, the private sector, or private equity firms. In fact,
President Obama has supported the principles of capitalism to a much greater
extent than his opponent (via Wall Street Reform and the Buffet Rule, which
promote equality of opportunity, NOT equality of outcomes).
But when Mr. Romney claims that his business experience is
the sole reason why he would do a better job as President than Obama, the
American people have a right to ask questions. As President Obama mentioned in
his press briefing earlier this week:
"When you're
president, as opposed to the head of a private equity firm, then your job is
not simply to maximize profits. Your job is to figure out how everybody in the
country has a fair shot. Your job is
to think about those workers who get laid off, and how are we paying them for
their retraining? Your job is to think about how those communities can start
creating new clusters so that they can attract new businesses. Your job as
president is to think about how do we set up an equitable tax system so that
everybody's paying their fair share that allows us then to invest in science
and technology and infrastructure, all of which are going to help us grow.”
"equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes" - I can get on board with that.
ReplyDeleteBasic rule of economics: increased wealth leads to an overall increased standard of living. Jobs that are inefficient should go and be replaced by emerging markets- that is how an economy grows.
ReplyDeleteTo "anonymous" regarding the basic rules of economics: Based on your explanation on the creation of wealth, how would you explain the dismal job growth during the George W. Bush administration (2000-2008) where there was a NET job growth of ZERO private sector jobs; where the middle-class lost tremendous wealth; where the top 2% continued to soar in profits; where we hit the biggest financial crises since the 1940s?
ReplyDelete