http://preeedict.blogspot.com/2008/01/excuse-me-do-you-know-rudy-mccain.html

Where is McCain when it matters?

McCain-Feingold assault on political speech.

McCain-Kennedy illegal immigrant amnesty program.

McCain-Lieberman global warming tax.

McCain-Edwards for trial lawyers.

McCain opposition to Tax Cuts.

McCain Gang of 14.

You certainly covered a lot of ground and thanks for the kind words.. Let me take a swing at some top line numbers and point you to where you can spend some time looking up the data. Lets start with your first question regarding returns and leverage. I will answer making the broad assumption that you have a pretty through understanding of structure as it relates to LBO’s and the fees and the profit holds by the firms.
Bain reports a return north of 100% gross average annual return to investors during Mitts time and the 4 or so years after his departure. Truely impressive but lets break it down some. Of the gross return we have to extract Bains 30% profit hold plus the (in round numbers) 15% management fee hold. That is a 45% of the returns to Bain without putting ANY equity in, there in lies the the primary leverage. That leaves 65% for returns to the fund holders, but wait there is two more layers of cost to the investors. First is the tax on the interest payments 28% on the average and then finally the state income tax loads which average 7%. So now we are down to 30% gross. From there you must take the present value of cash calculation of the gross investment over time vs. inflation which is 4% per year minimum. Remember that the fund holders in most cases are not seeing current pay so where the net returns to them come out is unknown. At the end of the day Bains returns to the investor on a basis of invested capitla is ok but not out of this world. One last thing Bains portion of the profits from its ventures have far different tax treatment than either Corporations or individuals get. I guess that comes from not having any influence in Washington. (pun intended). Now all of these numbers are simple to verify with a little reading after a google search of Bain Capital. Lastly on this subject, with the exception of Staples which was a great success by any measure, look at SEC.gov at the companies Bain invested in, pay particular attention to the balance sheets prior to investment and post investment. Look at the line items under “long term debt” and “current portion of long term debt”. Again takes some time but interesting non the less.

I would also encourage you to look at reports from the Mass Taxpayers Foundation, pay particular attention to line items in the budget for debt service both at the beginning of Mitt’s term and the end. I think you might be suprised how his investment banker roots translate in Gov’t. You will also see that job growth trailed all states except the Katrina states during Mitts term. He closed the budget gap by increasing Corp income tax rates. Not a business friendly idea and I dont think conservative. Also take a look at the shifting of some $400+ million in medicare cost from his last budget of record to 2007 nice accounting trick, used extensively in LBO circles.

Finally, to both you and LLB I respect the fact that you believe McCain has strayed from conservative quarters but his 83 rating from the Conservative Coalition seems to dispute your ideas. In my mind asking tough questions of your party and not mindlessly following in lockstep seems to be a virtue not a curse as you and others may think. Have a great day.

You hit the nail on the head. McCain doesn’t care about the consequences as evidenced in his most recent disastrous legislation with the Democrats. His judgment is frightening. We need a leader that will carefully weigh the consequences before he makes a move.

More people pour through the Arizona border than any other, and McCain has had 20 yrs to push help our way. I still don’t see a secure border.

When he touts his record, he brings up two or three instances of shooting down some earmarks, but his record shows that he will do whatever he wants, even when the overwhelming majority of his voters are against it and would rather have hime expend his efforts on something worthwhile.

Politicians need conviction, but they shouldn’t turn a deaf ear to those of us that put them in office.

I don’t care about McCain’s age, I care about his record. It is horrible. I regret casting that vote for him a few years ago before I had time to fully acquaint myself with his record. And I’m happy to be moving out of Arizona, so my kids can get a decent education while simultaneously staying away from the huge amounts of border related crime.

You write a good piece. A little condescending but that’s has a tactical merit and it gives a little spice to the exchange. I also appreciate the self imposed limits on some of the nonessential political points of the race.

Now down to business.

The spin you put on Mitt is that of an individual motivated by financial gain who would “say and do anything” to accomplish that end. You then assert that one should look at “how much leverage he used to do his deals at Bain and what the actual returns were”.

Do tell. It is your point, (with limited merit after all you do believe in capitalism) so defend it.
1. Tell me about this leverage. The returns I’ve been told are in the millions. You are the first to infer a negative. Proof source?
2. How is this economic experience a negative for Mitt the presidential candidate?
3. You do realize McCain admitted he hasn’t even read the book he bought. Disadvantage McCain because;
4. The economy is at present the most important issue on the voter’s mind. Foreign policy, a Romney weakness, is nonetheless down the list.

Declare your sources and enlighten us. At present you get no points for an empty unsubstantiated assertion.

Next:
You agree that Mitt was true to his commitment to the people of Mass. “. . . he left taxes in check, [but] he inflated fees to pay for his spending. Taxes and fess are siblings that feed at the same table.”

I like the analogy but reject inference based on the following.

Taxes are indiscriminately confiscatory on all who fall under the jurisdiction. Fees, while paid to fill the government coffers, are for privileges and therefore can be avoided. The distinction is, that one can choose not to pay and still enjoy the “staples of life” free from prosecution.
You want to drive then pay the fee. You want to advertise your restaurant on the interstate, pay the fee. Some of the fees had not been raised in ten years.
No one has discredited his accomplishment of turning a 2 billion dollar deficit into a positive rainy day fund. Fees are not taxes.

That’s enough for now because I did notice with interest that you said nothing in defense of your man from the post by LLB above.

Let me remind you:

McCain has worked against his own party for the last several years on many conservative issues. He has promoted legislation that has not only grown government but has been disastrous (McCain/Kennedy, McCain/Feingold, McCain/Lieberman etc.) He has abstained from voting on most conservative social issues stating they are too divisive. He has betrayed us by supporting amnesty. He has betrayed us by voting against tax cuts. He has betrayed us by voting for legislation that would raise our taxes (McCain/Lieberman as of late). He has promoted class warfare. I guess being a Maverick means betraying your political base.

You must respond!

Oh but wait . . . this just in . . . Dateline: Florida GOP campaign, January 22, 2008 . . .
Senator John McCain Just changed his position on all of the above. Talk about flip-flopping. This wholesale pandering fits your own statement:
“They [McCain] will say and do anything for a buck or an increase in power or position.”

McCain has worked against his own party for the last several years on many conservative issues. He has promoted legislation that has not only grown government but has been disastrous (McCain/Kennedy, McCain/Feingold, McCain/Lieberman etc.) He has abstained from voting on most conservative social issues stating they are too divisive. He has betrayed us by supporting amnesty. He has betrayed us by voting against tax cuts. He has betrayed us by voting for legislation that would raise our taxes (McCain/Lieberman as of late). He has promoted class warfare. I guess being a Maverick means betraying your political base.

I cannot support someone who has been in Washington as long as he has and done so much to hurt conservatism and the Republican Party. I cannot support him, even if he becomes the nominee. I cannot support him, even if it means Hillary gets the nomination.