Obama stated in a recent speech that having a background in private equity [Romney] is basically a disqualifier to be president:
“The main goal of a financial firm like Governor Romney's is not to create jobs. And, by the way, the people who work at these firms will tell you that's not their goal. Their main goal is to create wealth for themselves and their investors. When maximizing short-term gains for your investors rather than building companies that last is your goal, then sometimes it goes the other way. Workers get laid off, benefits disappear, pensions are cut, factories go dark. Now, that may be the job of somebody who's engaged in corporate buyouts. That's fine. But that's not the job of a president.” - Des Moines, Iowa, state fair grounds speech, 05/24/2012
Hmmm.
Upon further review, Obama's minions are simultaneously putting forth a message, and not being corrected by the White House and hence implicitly advocated by the White House, stating Obama is the real private equity guy with the most common examples pointed to as GM and Chrysler. (1)
That is, that Obama‘s restructuring of GM and Chrysler [abrogating bondholder rights], layoffs and termination of auto worker positions, plant closures, and dealership contract terminations, etc. and the semi-recovery of GM and Chrysler make Mr. Obama the king of private equity based on the sheer size of the GM and Chrysler bail out.
Upon closer examination of the Mr. Obama's debate point and his associated intelligentsia argument:
(1) government bailouts and private equity procedures are mutually exclusive, yet both are equated in the minions message. That is, a notional proposition is put forth as fact with no empirical evidence,
(2) Romney, with a private equity background, with his background held forth as an automatic disqualifier of Romney for the job as president (being Obama‘s implicit and explicit message and definition of disqualifiers),
(3) carrying forward Obama’s very own definition and applying it to those associated with private equity and simultaneously seeking the position of president,
(3a) synthesizing Obama's debate point with the minions argument,
(4) Mr. Obama is defined as the private equity king and hence disqualified by his own background- disqualifier-definition. Ops!
Ah, the evil of it all!
Notes:
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/barack-obama-private-equity-king/2012/05/23/gJQAFolLkU_story.html
“The first thing to appreciate is that Barack Obama is the real private equity king in this race, not Mitt Romney. Obama’s restructuring of the auto industry displayed, on a much grander scale, precisely the kind of tough-minded business calls Romney says are private equity’s specialty.” Matt Miller, 05/23/2012, Washington Post (1)
Interestingly enough, on 05/22/2012, the day before the Washington Post published the above article, Matt Miller, senior fellow at The Center for American Progress (CAP) a Progressive think tank, made the same notional argument on The Kudlow Report [7PM EDST 05/22/2012]. His notional debate points are put forth at the 4:45 mark in the link below:
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000091847
The immediate rebuttal to Miller’s notional debate points appears at the 5:10 mark: “He [Obama] oversaw the largest corporate welfare program in American history.” - Kevin Williamson
Better yet, Don Boudreaux of George Mason University applies economics to Matt Miller’s notional proposition and we find Miller‘s notional debate point is ludicrous:
“Here’s a letter to the Washington Post:
Matt Miller asserts that “Obama’s restructuring of the auto industry displayed, on a much grander scale, precisely the kind of tough-minded business calls Romney says are private equity’s specialty…. Obama fired management, shed workers, slashed costs, revamped operations, restructured the balance sheet and fashioned new strategies. When the dust cleared, Obama had positioned General Motors and Chrysler to move forward as viable firms” (“Barack Obama, private equity king,” May 23).Ludicrous. Unlike any actions that could be taken by Bain Capital and other private-sector investors, Pres. Obama
- arbitrarily suspended established bankruptcy procedures;
- flipped the priority of creditors so that secured creditors were forced to accept fewer cents on the dollar than were received by lower-priority (but politically more useful) creditors;
- staked none of his own wealth on this restructuring;
- strengthened the morally hazardous precedent of “too big to fail.”
Uncle Sam’s auto bailout is to privately financed restructurings as, say, Debbie Does Dallas is to Citizen Kane: in both cases, only the most facile observers focus on the superficial similarities between the two while missing the many, hulking, and fundamental differences.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030” (2)
Notes:
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/barack-obama-private-equity-king/2012/05/23/gJQAFolLkU_story.html
(2) http://cafehayek.com/2012/05/but-both-are-successful-movies.html
