About This Blog
– 2002: “[T]here were a number of social trips and business trips that brought me back to Massachusetts, board meetings, Thanksgiving and so forth.”
– 2012: “I was in Salt Lake City for three straight years. I don’t recall even coming back once to go to a Bain or management meeting. We were, I was out there running the Olympics and it was a full time job, I can tell you that.”
...a press release from July of 1999 seems to contradict this account. “Bain Capital CEO W. Mitt Romney” is “currently on a part-time leave of absence to head the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee for the 2002 Games,”
In 1999, Romney himself had stated that he would “stay on as a part-timer with Bain providing input on investment and key personnel decisions.”
We now know that Bain's SEC filings for the period 1999-2002 list W. Mitt Romney as "chairman, CEO, and president" from 1999-2002." Mitt is also listed on those forms as Bain's "sole stockholder."
Yet, over the weekend, Romney surrogates defended these multiple choice answers and suggested that the explanation which irons out all the inconsistencies and contradictions over the period 1999-2002 is that Romney "retroactively retired" in 2002.....you know, I guess, post-dating this alleged retroactive retirement from February 1999. Not sure how that works, really. Not sure that anyone knows how that works.
An ex-Bain partner of Romney's told Chris Hayes this weekend that it took 2-3 years for Mitt to negotiate his retirement package.....and that's why his name was still listed on SEC filings from 1999-2002. Three years of retirement negotiations with Bain partners before Mitt could, you know, "retroactively retire." 3 years of retroactive retirement negotiations? I guess that's possible. Sounds like Wall Street doublespeak....but hey, I guess it could be true.
Several of the Villager types have suggested that the real reason Romney wants voters to think he was not associated with Bain Capital during the years 1999-2002 is because Bain started pushing the outsourcing of jobs during those years....even purchasing a company whose specific service was helping corporations outsource.
The premise in that explanation is that voters won't appreciate the fact that the GOP presidential candidate was on the leading edge of sending American jobs to China and India. During an 8.2% unemployment period, voters may be persuaded to vote for the guy whose company didn't profit from the elimination of U.S. jobs.
But I'm not fully persuaded by that argument. Neither political party cares about the outsourcing of jobs. Both sides say stuff like....."it's all about jobs, jobs and jobs"....but they don't mean it, because they don't do anything to change the jobs situation. So, no.....I'm thinking that the reason Mitt doesn't want voters to know what happened at Bain during the years 1999-2002 isn't because of the outsourcing done at Bain before and after Romney said he left the company.
But what about the Bain purchase, in November 1999, of a medical waste disposal company called Stericycle?
[Bain Capital] said Romney left the firm in February 1999 to run the troubled 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City and likely had nothing to with the deal. But documents filed by Bain and Stericycle with the Securities and Exchange Commission—and obtained by Mother Jones—list Romney as an active participant in the investment... In November 1999, Bain Capital and Madison Dearborn Partners, a Chicago-based private equity firm, filed with the SEC a Schedule 13D, which lists owners of publicly traded companies, noting that they had jointly purchased $75 million worth of shares in Stericycle, a fast-growing player in the medical-waste industry...
Everyone outsources now.....but everyone doesn't profit from legal abortions. That's what Stericycle does. The Bain-owned company provides a needed medical waste disposal service which includes service to abortion clinics.
If Romney should claim that he was running Bain post-February 1999, he would have to take responsibility for the purchase of Stericycle......with the accompanying cries by the anti-choice right, and probably calls for him to step aside as the GOP's presidential candidate. But wouldn't profiting from a fetus-disposal company, which Romney unquestionably has done, be just as offensive to anti-choicers.....as buying the company in the first place?
One other big question remains. Why won't Romney release more than his 2010 and partial 2011 tax returns? What's the big deal? Everyone already knows that Mitt is filthy rich. Why are Alabama governors and neo-con maniacs like Bill Kristol calling for Romney to release more tax returns? Is it because Mitt's failure to do so makes him look like he's trying to hide something untoward?
Perhaps all those tax returns would show how Mr. Romney has gamed the system twenty-eleven ways from Sunday to avoid paying taxes. But we won't know for certain until he releases those returns.....now, will we?
Finally.....Romney insists that he had nothing to do with management decisions, purchasing decisions at Bain.....nothing.....from February 1999 forward....even though federal government filings in November, 1999, filings subject to perjury charges, say this.....
The SEC filing lists assorted Bain-related entities that were part of the deal, including Bain Capital (BCI), Bain Capital Partners VI (BCP VI), Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors (a Bermuda-based Bain affiliate), and Brookside Capital Investors (a Bain offshoot). And it notes that Romney was the "sole shareholder, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of BCI, BCP VI Inc., Brookside Inc. and Sankaty Ltd."
What is not in doubt is that, as CEO and sole shareholder, Mitt Romney was responsible for what happened at Bain Capital from 1999-2002. The real insult-to-injury here is that mighty boot-strapper, rugged individualist, Romney....businessman extraordinaire....is exactly like the banksters he reminds so many voters of. Romney profited from everything Bain did while he was "retroactively retired", including from outsourcing and Stericycle profits.....but he refuses to take any responsibility for any of the company's actions during those years.