Ed Conard, former Bain Capital Partner, explains the discrepancy in SEC filings that show Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain up until 2002, contrary to Romney's reports that he left the company in 1999. Victoria DeFrancesco Soto of Latino Decisions and television host Alyona Minkovski rejoin the Up w/ Chris Hayes conversation to discuss.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Over the past decade, Americans watched in bafflement and rage as one institution after another – from Wall Street to Congress, the Catholic Church to corporate America, even Major League Baseball – imploded under the weight of corruption and incompetence. In the wake of the Fail Decade, Americans have historically low levels of trust in their institutions; the social contract between ordinary citizens and elites lies in tatters.
How did we get here? With "Twilight of the Elites," Christopher Hayes offers a radically novel answer. Since the 1960s, as the meritocracy elevated a more diverse group of men and women into power, they learned to embrace the accelerating inequality that had placed them near the very top. Their ascension heightened social distance and spawned a new American elite--one more prone to failure and corruption than any that came before it.
Leave a Comment:
After this morning's disgraceful section on Mitt Romney/Bain Capital where Chris only had panelists who supported Mitt/Bain and the Bain partner on his show I will NEVER again listen to Chris Hayes. He was what everyone thinks of Progressives - weak and uniformed, not able to challenge the former Bain partner. So the Romney campaign now floated his new defense, "it was reasonable it took 3 years for Mitt to exit from Bain and he was exempt from all bad Bain decisions/actions but can take the credit for all good ones! Bull....Chris Hayes was aided by 3 of the weakest panelist, especially the two women who if not, could be shills for Romney. This would have been a great television moment, where a strong debate with someone who would have challenged the former partner at Bain. This is a moment that helps Romney win, just like voter suppression, this is the selling off by the Press. But then, Chris Hayes is no journalist. CANCEL THE SHOW! He is nothing more than a pseuo-intellectual.
The panelist were weak. Where is Carville when you need him?
To establish residency in MA, Romney told the Ballot Law Commission that that he was planning on coming back to Bain, so why was he working-out his retirement settlement for several years?
Did Chris's baby keep him up last night, because he was not on his "A" game?
Did you watch the same show I did? I think you can have a show without badgering the guests. Maybe you should watch billo. He did ask if mittens attended any board meetings, he did establish mittens was still the CEO.
You are correct, Chris did not badger his guest; and I want to add that Chris has the ability to ask questions without badgering his guest. Also, you are correct to point out that Romney was still the CEO until 2002, but I would have like for Chris to have flush out more information from his guest about Romney's role at Bain between 1999 and 2002. Chris has that ability.
Well, he should have invited Obama campaign people to throw mud at Mitt Romney and cover up the four years and trillions of dollars of wasted effort of President Obama. Yes, we should not talk about Obama, CEO of USA from 2009-2012, and completely failed and rather should focus our attention to why Mitt Romney was working for U S Olympics and letting others to run Bain Capital and why this private company hired foreign companies. And we should not focus on 1.2 trillion dollar Stimulus fund, most of which went to companies in China, and Europe but the President is the first non-white president, and therefore, we should look the other way and focus on Mitt Romney. Because if Obama is defeated, America will look bad (perhaps RACIST) to the rest of the world.
As usual the right question was not asked, ask if Romney sat on any board of directors meeatings during that time of so called absemce. After signing thsoe documents, Romney would be held responsible for any decision s made good or bad. As the documents attest he is still presdent, manager, and owner is thsi not correst.
Chris should have pushed for minutes of the various board minutes. Ed said responded as though their was no paper trail that could verify who attended minutes. Ed was a surrogate for the Romney campaign. He did not offer any more proof than Romney.
Studying institutions, one analyst posed this thought experiment: If someone had a ring of invisibility- they could go and take whatever they wanted, take licentious liberties with whomever they wanted and so on. Given human nature would they behave morally, and why?
The idea of being present, yet not being seen is the crux of accountability games. It is in how poll taxes are attempt to make racism invisible and at the heart of Romney's claims about wanting to be seen for some part of his involvement at Bain, but not for others.
Listen closely to Conrad's rationale for why he believes most Wall Street players will act responsibly. His claim is that people are concerned for their reputation. What Ring of Invisibility thought experiment presents is that people are only interested in the appearance of being moral, and that if they can do something immoral while maintaining their reputation, then they will.
Concern for moral lines is not in Conrad's universe as he pointed out in response to Hayes' question regarding investments in businesses like selling alcohol. Hayes assumed that Bain stayed away from them due to moral principles informed by his Mormon religion. Conrad contradicted that view saying he was not aware that Bain ever let this sort of consideration enter their calculation- his rationale being that they were agents for investors from people's retirement funds, so they had to do what was in their investor's best interest. This is yet another form of the Ring of Invisibility. They are present, executing decisions regardless of their moral impact, yet they are invisible of moral responsibility.
The greatest irony is that those who are heavily promoting and defending economic and political practices which promote immoral activities present themselves as being on the moral high ground.
That is what invisibility is all about. Actions can be submerged in all sorts of technical, procedural, and messaging tricks so that the immoral acts are hidden from view, even though they are occuring in plain sight.
The analyst was Plato writing of the Ring of Gyges. This is a very very old problem, and we should recognize it for what it is: a moral problem, not an ideological problem. As pointed out by one of the guests, none of the ideologies being espoused are adhered to: for example republicans are for big government when it comes to defense spending. The question for both sides is moral: Which increases in government spending are morally legitimate: Providing care for people who need help, or making sure that foreign powers do not attempt to take what is ours.
The reason why conservatives hide behind "culture" issues during campaigns is because of their ring of invisibility. Liberals instinctively recoil from moral arguments, and conservatives know it. That is why they keep pressing home their advantage.
Great comment and it was a good show.!
How does Ed Conrad square the following Romney's statement with his recollection that Romney did not come back for any meetings and/or he couldn't recall Romney being at any of these meetings:
"Romney noted that he regularly traveled back to Massachusetts. '[T]here were a number of social trips and business trips that brought me back to Massachusetts, board meetings, Thanksgiving and so forth,' he said."
Chris where was the profession to ask the correct questions at in the field of the SEC commission. Chris you fell short agin not asking about did he attent board meeetings of Bain or other corrected companies of Bain partnership?
Did he lie to in 2002 to the Ballot Law Commission about attending board meetings, or is he lie now? Where are the minutes to verify attendance?
Wish Chris had pushed that point...what did he tell the Mass Commission? He's lying to somebody really...and using all the weasel words to avoid telling the truth. So much for ethics and morality! That's for little people.
Question: Did Romney participate in phone conversations or conference calls about the investments Bain was engaging in?
It is very difficult to believe that after spending 25 years of his life at Bain, and considerable personal investment in the structure of the company's finances that he would have little or no interest, knowledge or involvement in the company's activities.
Team Obama knows that this doesn't smell right to voters. What is interesting is that Romney is pursuing a rationalist strategy, as indicated by Conrad. Romney is saving his arguments for when they will matter- when people are paying attention in September. But the Bain analysis is that sentiments don't matter, instincts about which investment is best doesn't matter- only the data analysis and logical coherence of the business plan does.
Romney is walking into a shredder because he doesn't understand that sentiments are the only thing that matter, that these are built up over time and difficult to reverse at the last minute, and that rational justifications will be formed around gut instincts. If gut instincts tell swing voters that Romney is a scheister, then they will be persuaded by arguments that Obama is the better person of the two choices for the next four years.
The way you know that Ed Con-man is just reciting talking points is by listening to him repeat verbatim the same statements over and over again. Kudos to Alexis for attempting to call him on his propaganda.
The worst thing of all though, is the dismissive way this a***ole talks down to the rest of us. Just because they called themselves the smartest people in the room doesn't mean it is true.
Those board meetings he attended were probably connected to Bain Partnershipsof investments into other companies and he sat on the board of directors making decisions on Bain partnerships. Where was that question at chris hayes.
Don't tell me that Chris has become one of those liberals (there is a lot of us) willing to roll over and give the Right a platform for their message; e.g the Bain guy!
Once again, Romney is trying to use process in his desire to deceive:
“Romney maintains that he has always considered Massachusetts his home, and that a simple clerical error misclassified his Utah residence. He said he failed to notice the mistake because, for two years, the bills went to his wife.”
Secrecy and deception is a mantra of Romney. Picked this up along the way:
“Romney's legitimacy in MA guv campaign questioned”
What is interesting is the issue of Romney's 2001 MA tax return. He has refused to release that return, unlike every other candidate in the race. It was previously assumed he did not want to reveal financial issues. However, this residency issue now casts new light on Romney's refusals. You see, the return requires you to select between Resident, Non-Resident, or Part-Year Resident. Is that what he is afraid to release? Further adding fuel to the theory: Romney refused to release a redacted copy of the report to the Boston Globe showing only the residency question.
Wednesday | June 05, 2002
I am stunned that Chris Hayes has sold out to the money men and accepted the disgusting philosophy of that capitalist pig Edward Conard. That man sees nothing wrong with sweatshops in Indonesia or chemical plants in Bhopal.
Chris posted a quote from Conard's book and seemed to accept it as good business practice. He celebrates the benefits of outsourcing:
"We don't pay for their pension costs if they don't save for retirement. We don't pay for their children's public education. Nor do we pay for their out-of wedlock children, their unemployment benefits and worker's compensation, their slip and fall torts, their wear and tear on the public infrastructure, and the cost of their drunk driving, drug use, and other crimes."
"We outsource pollution, its adverse effects on our health, and its cleanup costs. Neither their employers nor their employees are here to seek political handouts"
Unbelievable. He should be asked if the nails ladies, college kids and little people should be allowed to vote.
If I missed it, I didn't hear any real discussion on this quote? Was this the Bain model? Is this the character witness for Romney?
Yes Lydia that is the model. Conard went on to say that Mitt will eventually admit to being a proud member of the Bain team. Where was Karen Finney when we needed her to refute that BS?
Joyce were all the other MSNBC political pundits at the beach?
Are New York and/or Northeastern journalist, too close to Wall Street Democrats to ask the probing questions about Bain, private equity, and other controversial financial stuff?
I watch Alonya's show on RT and can't believe she didn't jump on Conard. If Rachel Maddow had been on that panel Conard would have been slinking off the set between breaks.
Not the best questions. As sole owner are you telling me in didn't make or receive any phone calls concerning what was going on in his company. Or that he didn't receive any reports or financial statements about companies they were investing in or even Bain's financial statements. I haven't meet any owner of a business that didn't want to know what was going on in his business. If Romney didn't care that even a worse position. How can I believe you can run the country when you are saying you didn't know anything about what was going on in your our company. One basic question that should have been asked is even if he didn't run day-to-day operations didn't he profit from the activities that occured during that time?
Wow, Chris. I really feel for you after reading these comments. The hate of Romney seems to only be surpassed to the hate of George W. Bush. Strange liberal reactions, didn't understand it then and don't understand it now.
This Bain guy really did shut you down but if you listen people, like Chris did, you would hear the truth, not the leftist spinnnnnnnnnnn. The biggest revelation for me was after hearing the Right harping for so long and implying the fact Bain closed down a steel plant here in the US then reopened one overseas, thus shipping jobs out of the country, now to find it's all false. Truth be told, and what looked like a sudden surprise to you, was the fact that no steel company was built by Bain overseas and the shutdown of the steel company was industry wide and ALL steel now is made overseas, not to the liking of Bain which lost their investment in that deal.
I'm getting to where I can't stand the twists and almost down right lies being told by both parties in this election. I know MSNBC asks us to "Lean Closer" to get the truth but actually having to do our own homework is going a bit too far.
The other amazing revelation from this conversation, I was just reminded of while listening to the President denouncing Bain for outsourcing jobs on the television, is the fact Bain in-sourced double the jobs outsourced and these jobs were higher paid positions than the ones lost.
Where do the Democrats get their information? Probably researched by Grimms Fairytales. Shows incredible incompetency.
What was left out was that the federal government had to come in and secure the pension payments.
FromDownHere employs a favorite gambit of the right: begging the question.
GST isn't specifically only about outsourcing or offshoring. The problem is how the vulture capitalism works. I have personally seen the meat stripped off the carcass of a struggling company until it can no longer function. A contract is a contract capitalists are wont to say, but oddly when you talk about promised pensions and pension funds put up as collateral and ultimately losing all value and leaving the workers (retirees) high and dry where is the justice.
No it isn't all just a game your outrage notwithstanding. We aren't being duped you are.
Tom, what you say is so true.
Pension funds should be sovereign and left alone just for those that have contributed, just like Social Security. My brother is in the Glazier Union for glass workers, and talking about first hand, his pension was raided by the union, which I didn't know they could legally do. They took the contributor's money and invested it in real estate, without their knowledge, and well I guess you know what happened. His pension lost 75% of it's worth and when the union was asked about it they said "Oh well, that's how it goes".
Huh?
TJ Walker has posted at Daily Kos 35 questions that Mitt Romney must answer before the Bain controversy will go away. Sadly, Chris didn't have the gumption to press his disguinshed guest from Bain to answer even one of them. Conard should have been grilled and made to sweat.
Ed Conrad admitted that Romney was the "legal" CEO of Bain until 2002, but implied that Romney was not responsible or mindful of the major financial decisions made at Bain. This is incongruousness. If Romney were negotiating his retirement package for three years, he would have been mindful of the profitability of Bain. He would not have been negotiating without information about deals and potential deals.
Good point on the feds, and the pension payments. That would have been a great line of questioning.
Chris, I'd like to ask if this story doesn't miss a much larger point that needs to be made regarding our collective idea that only active executives have responsibility for what companies do. I believe that owners are implicitly, and need to be held explicitly equally responsible as executives, because it is investment that permits the company to function. I've written a blog post exploring this argument and I would be interested to hear you talk about this idea.
The thrust of the idea is that investment into a company is an explicit approval of its business practices, ethics, decisions and plans. Our system today implicitly corrupts capitalism because we have separated ownership from management and liability. People are free to invest, like Romney into Bain, without any legal liability or ethical responsibility for the actions of the company, and this is just plan wrong. Investors need to be made responsible, and in so doing, they will necessarily take a much more active role in company management and decisionmaking will necessarily improve or investors will quickly de-invest rather than incur liability for bad decisions. I know this is a radical and sure to be controversial proposal, but I honestly believe it would almost immediately have a profoundly positive influence on our markets, economy and the future of capitalism.
Of course Ed. If Tony Rezko, President Obama and Bill Ayers were absentee owners of several blocks of deplorable slums in Chicago, tenements with horrible crime and drugs, garbage, rats etc. and transferred all responsibility to a crooked real estate firm to manage them, we would have in essence what Romney wants us to believe about Bain. There would be no records whatsoever linking Obama to the slums, other than being the owner. All profits from the slums would be laundered in the Cayman Islands and shell companies in Bermuda. Would that sit well with Uncle Jim who listens to Fox news and hannity, Levin, and the 50 other right wing websites that would freak out if that were true.
For all you progressives, The truth will set you free. Mr Conard set the record straight, there is no story here. Selective use of quotes will not elect Obama, his record is bad and on the job training did not work out. Dems talk about Moving Forward but live in the past. Finally all the lies from the left cant change the fact that the Entitlement mentality and states CA and IL are samples of the future under Obama
LydiaNC is on target. According to SEC Romney was paid OVER 100,000 and everyone keeps talking about it as ONLY 100,000. He could have been paid millions and we have no idea without seeing tax returns.
the fact of the matter is ROMNEY IS A BIG LIAR
Well, he should have invited Obama campaign people to throw mud at Mitt Romney and cover up the four years and trillions of dollars of wasted effort of President Obama. Yes, we should not talk about Obama, CEO of USA from 2009-2012, and completely failed and rather should focus our attention to why Mitt Romney was working for U S Olympics and letting others to run Bain Capital and why this private company hired foreign companies. And we should not focus on 1.2 trillion dollar Stimulus fund, most of which went to companies in China, and Europe but the President is the first non-white president, and therefore, we should look the other way and focus on Mitt Romney. Because if Obama is defeated, America will look bad (perhaps RACIST) to the rest of the world. And, no one really thought Obama will be a good President any way in 2008, so why to bother with his performance after 3-1/2 years.
@shyam
It is clear where you stand on this issue. However, I need to point out some problems I have with what you posted:
" trillions of dollars of wasted effort" - when President Obama took office, the country was falling off a cliff due to policies of previous administrations. [Please note that I don't put the entire blame on President G.W. Bush - the root cause goes way back - and the blame can be shared by everyone]
Go check the data - number of jobs being lost, drastic drop in revenue, increased spending in mandatory programs [when more people qualify spending goes up - unemployment payments, Medicaid, other Income security programs], still had defense spending (2 wars going on plus other commitments), people still receiving SS and Medicare and more people retiring (so increased in line with current trends), and other commitments that could not just be cut.
"1.2 trillion dollar Stimulus fund, most of which went to companies in China" - I believe that number is high (but will double check). A big chunk of the ARRA went to tax cuts. Other big chunks went to states to keep teachers, etc. Some of the spending was not effective and some appear to have ended up supporting foreign jobs. Lessons were learned. Please see Department of Energy site for reports specific to ARRA spending in that department for details and analysis (Solyndra is included here).
-------------------
Other policies that have routinely had bi-partisan support to help the economy recover in previous recessions were proposed by President Obama and the Democrats, but were blocked by the Republicans. This is fact, you can argue about the reasoning and consequences.
Are we where we need to be - NO!
Where all of President Obama's policies enacted - NO!
Would policies that were proposed and blocked have been effective - we will never know for sure, but looking at history, the answer is "Probably?" - "Definitely Maybe?".
Where all of the policies that were enacted completely successful - NO! Could have been improved (always true of any policy)
Where some of the policies effective - YES! ARRA - again check the quarterly CBO analyses. The auto company bailout.
Any blanket statement that contains the phrase "no one really thought" is highly suspect and of no value to a conversation or debate.
Now that your "Up" guest has explained it was all about milking the Romney "franchise," do we really want Romney and his pals to get their mitts on the USA franchise? Also, the SEC has a new problem: The Romney Defense. Ken Lay could have used this one at Enron.
How does he justify his 5 network interviews and deny being involved? I'd like to see him explain this mess This is about character. Do we really want someone who lies and cheats to steal the election. Romney will say anything to win. Romney should be ashamed of himself. What else is he going to lie about or deceive the American people. He is certainly not a role model.
Yeah! Romney's character witness just said that he was the legal head Bain until 2002. This contradicts Romney's statement.
It seemed clear that Romney controlled Bain until 2002--does anyone think he relinquished it before the real beans were counted? Someone should have pressed for more clarity, if they needed it.
Chris was able to get Mr. Conard to admit that whatever Bain did 'wrong' politically from 1999 to 2002 was just what they always did.
One of the reasons Chris is able to have a show that still is able to get someone of Conard's views to appear is that he does not badger. Not bad for this day and age.
Point well made, but I wanted to hear more about whatever Bain did 'wrong' politically from 1999 to 2002 was just what they always did.
The bruhaha began in the first place, I believe, with Romney wanting to distance himself from Bain for something politically 'wrong' which happened at Bain during the period 1999-2002 [I think it involved a steel company, but it was something like that].
My comment reflects what I got out of watching Conard, who I really wanted to see because (1) he could illuminate Romney's relationship with Bain during that 3 year period [which Romney says was nothing...I was gone] and (2) explain more about Bain's business practices [and even include defending whatever was the politically gotcha against Romney relating to the steel company or whatever it was].
Conard confirmed at some point in the program that he thought that there was nothing wrong with what Bain did and that whatever it was that happened during 1999-2002 wasn't anything out of the ordinary for Bain--that was simply the way Bain conducted business...and made money. [Same for Romney]. Conard thinks it was fine for them to do whatever happened at Bain; any of the American people who are sorry that jobs were lost or don't think that 'experience' of that type is what we are looking for probably don't agree. [And there is the issue of a candidate, or a President, being evasive]
I don't know in what niche the website "Up" put that Conard dialogue from the July 15th show.
During the Ballot Law Commission hearings back in 2002, “ Romney's lawyer at the
Massachusetts hearing said that Romney's work in the private sector continued
"unabated" while he ran the Olympics: "He succeeded in that three-year period in restoring confidence in the Olympic Games, closing that disastrous deficit and staging one of the most successful Olympic Games ever to occur on U.S. soil. Now while all that was going on, very much in the public eye, what happened to his private and public ties to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? And the answer is they continued unabated just as they had." In addition, The opening statement delivered by Romney's lawyer in the 2002 hearing said Romney "continued to serve on the board of
directors of a significant Massachusetts company and to return here for most of its board meetings."
Romney "testified that he was a director of Staples, Marriott International and Life Like," the commission's finding states. From an article on Huff Post’s Politics dated 7/13/12:
The Romney Campaign states that the Commission found Romney left Bain in 1999; however the above testimony contradicts that. In addition the purpose of the Ballot Law Commission hearings was to establish Mr. Romney’s Massachusetts Residency and therefore his eligibility to run for Governor. It was not their charge to determine if Mr. Romney was involved in the day to day activities of Bain Capital or if he continued to oversee things via electronic communications, board meetings, reports etc. Have tried to obtain a copy of the Commission’s findings online, however, it is not on their website.
Mitt Romney twice emphasized his unique business background when he and eight other Republican presidential candidates faced off in a debate in Iowa. "I've
spent the last, as I've told you, 25 years in the private sector," former Massachusetts Gov. Romney declared at one point. "I understand why jobs come and why jobs go. I've done business in 20 countries." 1977 Romney was hired by Bain and Company, 1984, Romney left Bain & Company to co-found the spin-off private equity investment firm, Bain Capital. If you add 25 years to 1977 it comes out to 2002.
The bottom line for me is SEC documents showing himself as “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.” Regardless of his reasons, this action makes Romney legally liable and accountable for any and all actions taken by Bain. People have said that Romney is an overachiever, someone who plans things meticulously, controls and is not flexible enough when he is forced off script; he may not have been involved in the day to day operations, but I find it hard to believe this astute businessman, who could be held legally liable, had no input or knowledge of what Bain did from 1999 to 2002.
Romney’s Bain conundrum: If you had a significant role in undermining the American economy; how can the American people trust you to fix it.