Yes, you read that headline correctly. The director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jeffrey Zients, is a child of Bain. According to his bio found here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/organization_office, Zients "began his career in management consulting at Bain & Company and Mercer Management Consulting, where he focused on developing strategies and improving operations of Fortune 1000 companies." That stinking, evil, nasty, vulture capitalist!
All kidding aside, this is left as an open debate on purpose. Why? I really don't have much of an opinion of this. I'm not big into gitchy, "gotcha" points. I'd prefer to stick to actual economic analysis, and clearly this is not. So I've opened this up for debate, and I want to see what everyone thinks of this.
My only opinion is that I find it pretty funny. I heard about this on the radio yesterday (so no, I'm definitely not taking credit for this discovery), and I came home and had to research it for myself. When my wife came over to me at the computer and asked, "what are you reading?" I simply responded with, "read this" as I highlighted the line pasted above. She (if you read this blog you would know she is a democrat, and that's fine - she even said she would be open to voting for Romney - shhhhhh) simply replied with, "ohhhhh... haha, that's pretty funny." Like I said, I found it funny, too.
So I ask: is this a big deal? Is it small potatoes? Is it hypocrisy? Is it meaningless? Obama continually rails against Romney's time at Bain, and he has made the repeated claim that Bain outsourced jobs (even to the point of putting it in a campaign ad that has since been proven wrong: http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/06/obama-campaign-deceit-machine-rolls-on.html), but private equity and Bain Capital are not bad enough things to stop Obama from hiring a former employee? Aren't republicans trying to hire one of Bain's former employees to be president?
I want to try something new. In addition to comments (or maybe you don't want to comment, and that's fine), use the rating system below. If you're on the side that believes this IS a big deal, and Obama is a hypocrite, and this should be called out and broadcast across the country, check one for #5 or Strongly Agree. If you think this is meaningless and is completely irrelevant, check #1 or Strongly Disagree. Of course, if you're somewhere in the middle, check one of those values. This can help us quantify people's feelings about this issue. Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Why is this news to anyone? he says he wouldn't raise taxes of any kind in a slowly recovering economy, but now he wants to. He wouldn't want to waste taxpayers money, but hello, Solyndra?
ReplyDeleteEverything he does is a contradiction.
Of course this is a big deal. People in glass houses...
ReplyDeleteHi LME
ReplyDeletePersonally, I wish Obama had hired more business men and women to 'advise' him.
Unfortunately, as in the case of Simpson Bowles, when he DOES take a step back from his Socialist agenda to call on someone more conservative - they come up with great ideas and he promptly ignores their advice.
Obama screams about 'outsourcing jobs'. He 'hired' businessman Jeffry Imeldt to head his 'jobs commission' and claimed that we could 'learn from him'.
* Imeldt's G.E. paid zero in corporate taxes in '10.
* His company 'outsources' over HALF of his work force to other countries.
* AFTER being tapped as the head of the 'jobs commission' Imeldt moved his ENTIRE X-ray Division to - CHINA.
* In addition he LEAVES THE MONEY in those countries and avoids our U.S. corporate income tax... which I think is now the highest among the 'civilized' countries.
So... what 'lesson' would Obama like our business people to glean from Imeldt's 'business model'?
TeamObama is using the tactic: a LIE, repeated often enough and LOUD enough - becomes TRUTH. And it appears to be working with many of the sheeple - too lazy or ignorant to do their OWN RESEARCH to find the truth.
Obama: 'I think there comes a time when you've made enough money' ... unspoken in that line is 'unless you support ME, ME, ME and MY agenda. And if you jump on MY Socialist bandwagon, as a payback, I'll toss a few (a mere $1/2 a billion or so : ) in TAXPAYER's dollars into your business...
Hypocrisy doesn't even begin to describe Obama and his 'team.'
I, personally at least, have never seen an official ad or statement from Obama that says any kind of involvement in venture capitalism is bad. A lot of people (Democrats in particular) have taken this ammo and run with it, spawning such things as “vulture capitalism” and whatnot. But Obama’s campaign against Mitt and his association with Bain has been centered on the fact that Bain contributed to the surge in outsourcing/lay-offs during Mitt’s tenure, which strikes a significant cord with many people in the current economy. They’re attempting to deface Mitt’s record (a strong point) by making it weaker, and play up on the sensationalism of outsourcing/lay-offs.
ReplyDeleteNo argument from me in the fact that his campaign is overplaying, sensationalizing, and even abusing/exaggerating the significance (and even validity) of all of this. But it’s a weakness that they’re of course attempting to exploit to the full degree, as Mitt’s campaign fights to do as well with Obama’s weaknesses.
That said, having anyone from any venture capital firm (even Bain) on staff doesn’t make this campaign hypocritical with the above being the case. Very ironic and even funny, perhaps, but that’s it.
The Obama campaign’s ultimate message here in their attacks on Bain, whether you agree what it is or not, is that ‘The type of leadership that outsources jobs and lays off workers is not what the American people want in the next administration, which is what Mitt’s business experiences lends us to believe it would be.’ No disagreement on that, right?
So to say that the Obama administration is also the type of leadership that outsources jobs and lays off workers because a single one of his white house staff began his career at a venture firm is a massive stretch (which is what would need to apply to make their ultimate message here truly hypocritical).
RKen - good afternoon. So little time to write so I'll try to make it quick. My position is more like yours in that this is more irony than anything. Will the GOP exploit it? Who knows. Exploitation at the mere preponderance of something wrong is the name of this campaign, as you've pointed out. I'd much rather stick to deeper analysis. I do think that if the GOP does point it out, it lessens the anti-Bain attack Obama is employing. But, however, it doesn't do this because of the association with Bain; it does it because I think the average American doesn't know better.
DeleteOther associations I do have to disagree with (and I know this is going on a tangent, but I have to be "on the record" :-P)... and I know you're just stating the positions of the Obama campaign, and not necessarily what you personally believe:
- Yes, Obama is doing this: "But Obama’s campaign against Mitt and his association with Bain has been centered on the fact that Bain contributed to the surge in outsourcing/lay-offs during Mitt’s tenure, which strikes a significant cord with many people in the current economy. They’re attempting to deface Mitt’s record (a strong point) by making it weaker, and play up on the sensationalism of outsourcing/lay-offs" and yes, I think that it's a terrible play, and I think it's even more terrible since there are many sources showing this is completely untrue. You did highlight this in your next paragraph.
- I do agree, as stated, that having a Bain guy on your staff is more ironic than anything.
- You said, "The Obama campaign’s ultimate message here in their attacks on Bain, whether you agree what it is or not, is that ‘The type of leadership that outsources jobs and lays off workers is not what the American people want in the next administration, which is what Mitt’s business experiences lends us to believe it would be.’ No disagreement on that, right?" - Yes, I do agree with your assessment there, and of course, I don't agree with team Obam's claim.
I definitely don't agree with the assessment that Obama is an outsourcer since he had a Bain guy on his staff. I'd defend against that connection if it came up. Again, real analysis is more in my wheelhouse :-)
Definitely good to have your opinion. The heat is back; stay cool, RKen!
Hi LME,
DeleteI think, as you said, they certainly have opportunity to exploit it. It's certainly an effective strategy to paint his administration and their attacks as hypocritical, and they've definitely given a fair amount of ammo.
I also agree that the average American likely doesn't know the details though, and will likely just get their information from these talking points. So certainly in that sense, it will hurt Obama's credibility.
Also, just to clarify (and I appreciate your demeanor in addressing it), I don’t agree with Obama on these attacks either. I really do not care much at all about Mitt’s tenure at Bain or what went down while he was there. It’s relevant, sure, but my decision on who to vote for is not determined by it, and continued focus on that is certainly a losing strategy for most people that don’t thrive on talking points. Sadly though, this political atmosphere seems to encourage that. Disappointing.
Seems we agree on most points here, LME. :)
RKen - Though you're on the "other side" most of the time, I definitely respect your views. It's refreshing to know that you always keep a case-by-case clear head on every issue. Even when I might not agree with most of your views, at least I know that you're in the select minority of Americans that WILL get to the heart of true information, left or right. :-)
DeleteI do not want to mess with others , But I just said I love OBAMA
ReplyDelete