Thursday, June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court will render its decision on the 2010 Health Care law. Meanwhile Mitt Romney is being pushed to admit he’s been in the JOB OUTSOURCING/OFFSHORING business.
After months avoiding questions about his record as a corporate buyout specialist, Mitt Romney has relented and admitted that the companies he invested in and profited from created jobs overseas instead of in the United States. In fact, Romney invested in companies that led a national outsourcing trend, providing a guidebook for other companies on how to ship American jobs overseas. And under Romney’s leadership, Bain Capital invested in companies engaged in low cost production overseas.
Here’s what we know:
1. The Romney campaign has argued there is a distinction between outsourcing and offshoring – they can spend weeks debating this distinction. But that discussion will be lost on Ohio workers whose jobs were eliminated because Mitt Romney and his partners put their money in and supported companies that pursued cheaper labor costs wherever they may be found instead of placing a premium on creating American jobs.
2. Romney argues that he can’t be held responsible for the conduct of these companies because his involvement with Bain Capital ended in February 1999. That is simply not true, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other extensive documentation—including his own admission in the past. When agreeing to head the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee, Romney said he would remain with Bain on a part-time basis, and remained CEO and maintained full ownership of the firm until August 2001, a fact that his own attorney acknowledged in 2007. In fact, Mitt Romney benefits to this day from special tax treatment on the partnership profits he receives from Bain Capital deals. The Romney campaign also uses shifting standards, claiming credit for deals and jobs that bore fruit after 1999, but ducking responsibility for failures and controversial practices that took place during the same pe3. Romney’s history of profiting off of outsourcing isn’t limited to the details in the Post story.
Here are a few examples of companies that Bain invested in which, on Romney’s watch, shipped jobs overseas or profited from low wage overseas workforces, and how his attempt to evade responsibility just doesn’t stand up:
- Filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission show that Romney held control of all Bain Capital funds which owned Modus Media stock well after February 1999. In June 2000, Modus Media eliminated 200 jobs in California to “consolidate its North American operations,” while opening a plant in Mexico. Between 2001 and 2002, Modus Media laid off 1,000 employees in North America. In 2001, the company participated in a trade mission to China seeking to partner with Chinese companies to produce products for export.
- In 1995, Bain Capital received $350,000 per year to provide management services to Stream International. During the period Romney owned Bain, Stream opened call centers in Ireland, India, and Canada while declining to open call centers in the United States, citing labor costs.
- Bain Capital more than doubled its return on its investment in Holson Burnes as American workers lost their jobs. In 1992, Holson Burnes eliminated 150 jobs in South Carolina and decimated entire departments at their plant in New Hampshire, while it outsourced a large portion of its manufacturing work to foreign countries including China and Malaysia. The company also opened offices in Taiwan and Hong Kong to further relations with its foreign production operations. 
- In 1998, Bain Capital acquired Colorado-based Hi-Tech Manufacturing, Inc. A year later, the company merged with a Canadian company to form SMTC and announced plans to open facilities in Mexico and China. In 2000, SMTC announced it would lay off 1,100 employees, amounting to 20 percent of its workforce. In 2001, SMTC closed its Denver facility, eliminating 429 jobs, and sent its production to Mexico. At the time this happened, Romney was listed as the sole director, chief executive officer, and president of all the Bain Capital entities which held SMTC stock, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
- Romney’s engagement on his firm’s business practices demands he answer further questions about his experience there. For instance:
- Why hasn’t Romney accounted fully and truthfully for his relationship to Bain Capital, including producing his retirement agreement and all other agreements by which he continues to receive an interest in the firm’s profits, and claim preferred, “carried interest” tax rates of 15 percent on those gains
- Why did Romney begin running away from the core rationale of his candidacy—that his tenure as a corporate buyout specialist gives him unique experience to be President — the moment it became clear that his experience could serve as a political liability?
What public documents and published accounts demonstrate is that Mitt Romney’s companies were pioneers in shipping American jobs overseas and profited from low wage foreign production facilities.
These aren’t just idle questions about Mitt Romney’s past. Outsourcing not only costs Americans their jobs, but places downward pressure on wages. The President has fought continually to end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Mitt Romney, drawing on the lessons and values he took from his experience as a corporate buyout specialist, has presented a tax plan that would provide additional incentives for American companies to ship jobs overseas. The American people will decide whether they want to enter a global race to the bottom where labor costs are slashed and oversight of polluters is rolled back, or we make the necessary investments that lead America to outinnovate and outeducate the rest of the world and create good paying, sustainable jobs for the middle class.
 Boston Herald, 2/12/99; Business Wire, 7/19/99; USA Today, 8/21/01; Salt Lake Tribune, 8/21/01; Washington Post, 10/21/07
3 Securities and Exchange Commission,12/23/97; Business Wire, 11/29/95; Business Wire, 9/14/00; Business Wire, 7/27/00; Associated Press, 4/13/00
4 Associated Press, 12/19/11; Securities and Exchange Commission, 3/26/93
5 PR Newswire, 6/22/98; Bank Loan Report, 7/26/99; Electronic Buyers’ News, 4/9/01; The Street; 3/30/01; Securities and Exchange Commission, 3/29/02; Securities and Exchange Commission; 2/3/01
1] Boston Herald, 2/12/99; Business Wire, 7/19/99; USA Today, 8/21/01; Salt Lake Tribune, 8/21/01; Washington Post,10/21/07
 Securities and Exchange Commission, 12/23/97; Business Wire, 11/29/95; Business Wire, 9/14/00; Business Wire, 7/27/00; Associated Press, 4/13/00
 Associated Press, 12/19/11; Securities and Exchange Commission, 3/26/93
 PR Newswire, 6/22/98; Bank Loan Report, 7/26/99; Electronic Buyers’ News, 4/9/01; The Street; 3/30/01; Securities and Exchange Commission, 3/29/02; Securities and Exchange Commission; 2/3/01
****“Romney Would Put Insurance Companies Back in Charge****
In Virginia today, Mitt Romney cheered for a repeal of Obamacare, which was modeled after Romney’s own health care law in Massachusetts that he now runs away from. But Americans won’t be cheering for Mitt Romney after they learn that his plan for health care would allow insurance companies to discriminate against them if they have a pre-existing condition, kick their kids off their parents’ plans when they graduate, and charge women higher premiums than they charge men for the same coverage. Even Romney’s campaign has admitted that his plan would allow insurance companies to discriminate against as many as 129 million children and adults with pre-existing conditions ranging from asthma to breast cancer. Americans don’t want to go back to the days when insurance companies were in charge. Mitt Romney, however, is promising to take us back there.” –Lis Smith, campaign spokeswoman
ROMNEY WOULD GO BACK TO ALLOWING INSURANCE COMPANIES TO DENY COVERAGE TO PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS
New York Daily News Headline: “Mitt Romney: Insurance Companies Should Be Allowed To Deny Coverage For Pre-Existing Conditions.”[New York Daily News, 6/14/12]
Huffington Post Headline: “Mitt Romney’s Health Care Plan Would Not Prohibit Discrimination Based On Pre-Existing Conditions.”[Sam Stein, Huffington Post, 6/13/12]
- “In A Follow-Up Statement To The Huffington Post, His Campaign Clarified That He Would Not Tackle One Of The Central Issues Contained In The Affordable Care Act—The Prohibition Of Discrimination Against People With Pre-Existing Conditions.” “In a follow-up statement to The Huffington Post, his campaign clarified that he would not tackle one of the central issues contained in the Affordable Care Act—the prohibition of discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. The approach Romney described centers around proposals to return much of the decision-making to the states while allowing for greater portability of coverage. He has long disavowed federalizing the individual mandate that he passed while governor of Massachusetts, which requires the uninsured to purchase coverage or face a penalty. And so attention has turned to the most closely related provision, a ban on discriminating against individuals with pre-existing conditions.” [Sam Stein, Huffington Post,6/13/12]
- Huffington Post: “The [Saul] Statement Confirms That Under A Romney Presidency, There Would Be No Federal Prohibition Barring Health Insurers From Discriminating Against Pre-Existing Conditions.” “The statement confirms that under a Romney presidency, there would be no federal prohibition barring health insurers from discriminating against pre-existing conditions. Instead, his administration would push reforms that help eat away at the problem. It would allow ‘reinsurance,’ in which insurance companies pool resources for a joint plan to cover high-risk patients (essentially an insurance policy for health insurers); provide block grants of Medicaid dollars to the states while giving them flexibility to cover their uninsured population; and encourage the creation of high-risk pools. The Romney campaign believes that while a combination of these reforms won’t eliminate the problem of people entering the health insurance market with a pre-existing condition and encountering discrimination, it will decrease it.” [Huffington Post, 6/13/12]
“Romney’s Position – Protecting People With Pre-Existing Conditions So Long As They’ve Always Had Insurance – Has Been Law Since 1996, Experts Say.” [ABC News,6/14/12]
- Romney’s Plans For People With Pre-Existing Conditions Not Address Those Who Have Never Had Private Health Insurance, Or Who Have Had Insurance But Spent Some Time Without, Often Because Of Financial Circumstances And Unemployment. “Romney’s position – protecting people with pre-existing conditions so long as they’ve always had insurance – has been law since 1996, experts say. It does not immediately address people who have never had private health insurance, or who have had insurance but spent some time without, often because of financial circumstances and unemployment.” [ABC News,6/14/12]
- Romney Says People With Preexisting Conditions Who Have Maintained Continuous Health Insurance Coverage Should Be Guaranteed The Ability To Retain CoverageBut “We’ve Actually Had A Law Protecting People Who Maintain Continuous Coverage Since 1996. It Obviously Doesn’t Do Very Much.” “Republicans have been trying not to just come out and admit that their plan is to let tens of millions of Americans go without health insurance, but their obfuscations are having less and less success. Mitch McConnell pretty much admitted it straight out to Ramesh Ponnuru. Mitt Romney has been dancing around it by promising that ‘individuals with preexisting conditions who have maintained continuous health insurance coverage should be guaranteed the ability to retain coverage.’ Note the proviso at the end about maintaining continuous coverage. We’ve actually had a law protecting people who maintain continuous coverage since 1996. It obviously doesn’t do very much.” [New York Magazine,3/28/12]
REPEALING HEALTH CARE WOULD ALLOW INSURANCE COMPANIES TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST AMERICANS WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, KICK YOUNG ADULTS OFF THEIR PARENTS’ PLANS WHEN THEY GRADUATE, AND CHARGE WOMEN HIGHER PREMIUMS THAN THEY CHARGE MEN FOR THE SAME COVERAGE
Under The Affordable Care Act, Starting In 2014, Americans With Pre-Existing Conditions Cannot Be Denied Coverage, Charged Higher Premiums, Or Be Subject To Other Discriminatory Actions.“Up to one in five non-elderly Americans with a pre-existing condition – 25 million individuals – is uninsured. Under the Affordable Care Act, starting in 2014, these Americans cannot be denied coverage, be charged significantly higher premiums, be subjected to an extended waiting period, or have their benefits curtailed by insurance companies.” [Healthcare.gov, Accessed12/30/11]
** There Are As Many As 129 Million Non-Elderly Americans With Some Type Of Pre-Existing Condition. “According to a new analysis by the Department of Health and Human Services, 50 to 129 million (19 to 50 percent of) non-elderly Americans have some type of pre-existing health condition.”[Healthcare.gov, 03/2011]
The President’s Health Care Reform Prevents Insurers From Denying Coverage To Children Under Age 19 Based On Pre-Existing Conditions.“Now, under the health care law, plans that cover children can no longer exclude, limit, or deny coverage to your child under age 19 solely based on a health problem or disability that your child developed before you applied for coverage.” [healthcare.gov,09/23/2010]
**There Are As Many As 17 Million Children With Some Type Of Pre-Existing Condition.“Translating these percentages into numbers of people, there are 4 to 17 million children under age 18 with some type of pre-existing condition” [Healthcare.gov,03/2011]
The Affordable Care Act Requires That Insurers Allow Dependents To Stay On Their Parents’ Insurance Until Age 26. “Most of the new law has yet to go into effect — and it won’t until 2014 — but some provisions affecting insurers were instituted this fall. So far, insurers can’t deny coverage to kids because of preexisting conditions, and they must allow dependents to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26. They also must provide free preventive care and eliminate lifetime and certain annual monetary caps on coverage” [FactCheck.org,11/19/2010]
Over 3 Million Young Adults Gained Health Care Coverage Because Of The Provision Allowing Young Adults Under 26 To Remain On Their Parents’ Insurance.“New survey findings released today by the National Center for Health Statistics show that the extension of dependent health coverage up to age 26 continues to lead to greater rates of insurance coverage among young adults. This policy is one part of the Affordable Care Act, and it took effect for insurance plan renewals beginning on September 23, 2010. The new estimates show that from September 2010 to December 2011, the percentage of adults 19 to 25 with insurance coverage increased from 64.4% to 74.8%, which translates into over 3 million additional young adults with coverage.” [Department of Health and Human Services, 06/19/12]
In 2014, The Affordable Care Act Will Prevent Insurers From Charging Women Higher Premiums Than They Charge Men.“Before the law, women could be charged more for individual insurance policies simply because of their gender. A 22-year-old woman could be charged 150% the premium that a 22-year-old man paid. In 2014, insurers will not be able to charge women higher premiums than they charge men.” [HealthCare.gov, accessed 7/28/11]