Mittens’s Bane

An investigative piece in the Boston GLobe by Beth Healy and Michael Kranish pretty much shreds the claim that Mittens had nothing to do with Bain Capital after 1999.

Interviews with a half-dozen of Romney’s former partners and associates, as well as public records, show that he was not merely an absentee owner during this period. He signed dozens of company documents, including filings with regulators on a vast array of Bain’s investment entities. And he drove the complex negotiations over his own large severance package, a deal that was critical to the firm’s future without him, according to his former associates.

Indeed, by remaining CEO and sole shareholder, Romney held on to his leverage in the talks that resulted in his generous 10-year retirement package, according to former associates.

“The elephant in the room was not whether Mitt was involved in investment decisions but Mitt’s retention of control of the firm and therefore his ability to extract a huge economic benefit by delaying his giving up of that control,” said one former associate, who, like some other Romney associates, spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak for the company.

Yes, this article documents that Mittens kept the CEO title not because he thought he might come back after the Olympics, but so he could squeeze the biggest possible severance package out of the company.

Other must-reads — Ryan Grim and Zach Carter, “Mitt Romney Avoided Major Tax Hit By Shifting Stock Of Offshoring Firm

Paul Krugman, “Pathos of the Plutocrat

11 thoughts on “Mittens’s Bane

  1. What?
    Mitt Romney – a typical greedhead out to squeeze every single last penny before leaving?


    I must be nice to make and fold your own Golden Parachute before jumping out!!!

  2. The first comment that I read on the Krugman article gave me pause. It said, “What if this is a game of rope-a-dope from the Romney campaign? He lets the Obama campaign punch itself out and then releases the forms and there’s nothing there, really?” Kind of the birth certificate thing from Obama. But not sure if a)Romney has the political savoir to do this and 2) he has nothing to hide. Considering what he has released, which I think is pretty damaging, I can’t believe that his other years are any less spectacular.

  3. @buckyblue: The birther stuff was frivolous nonsense to anybody not sun-addled by living in Red States too long. Everybody files tax returns, though, and it is hard to see how Mr. Moneybags could lack significant dirt.

  4. What’s ridiculous about this entire issue is that he just wants to insist he had no control – none whatsoever – over particular investments.

    The fact of the matter is, he did have full control over those particular investments, and chose not to exert it.

    Of course, that would look really awful, coming from a Presidential candidate. “Yeah, I could have done something, and chose not to, because I figured it wasn’t that important.” That’s not as bad as “all right, you’ve covered your ass,” but it’s close.

    But at least if he said that now, he wouldn’t keep getting tripped up.

    (Heh. Now I’m giggling because I remember a PSA put on by the Mormons – a kid tells a fib and then a quick, evil-looking song-and-dance troupe explains how you tell one lie, you end up telling another, and another, and another and the kid, terrified, runs to confess the truth (some minor thing like visiting a friend instead of the library). They could redo that PSA, but I bet they won’t. )

  5. Has anyone else thought of the possibility that Mitt’s refusal to make public his tax returns is because he got, and took, the tax breaks granted to companies that outsource jobs?

    After all, job outsourcing generates a real, understandable rage among the American people. Mitt may not have created it, but he certainly may have profited from it.

    (And how about Ann Romney’s odd statement that we don’t “need” to know anymore than the Romneys are willing to reveal, tax return wise. Mrs. Romney ‘needs’ to know that should her husband become president, he will be working for us. As his employer, we will decide what we’need’ to know.)

  6. Pingback: Mike’s Blog Round Up | Liberal Media Books


  8. Hey Ann. We do know all we need to know. We do not like Slick Willard and like you even less.

  9. I wonder if the people who thought we should not be afraid of the PATRIOT Act are on to this. Don’t they keep saying “If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn’t fear this.”?

Comments are closed.