George W. Bush announced his candidacy for President of the United States during the summer of 1999. He was qualified, he and the Republican Party claimed, because he was a successful businessman with an MBA. The fact that he appears to have been a less than mediocre student at two prestigious Ivy League schools[1] didn’t deter him or the Republican Party one iota. Instead, he almost seemed to be bragging about his poor scholarship when he met with a group of inner-city children, telling them not to worry about their school performance because he was living proof that even a man of exceptional mediocrity could aspire to the presidency[2].

Of course, those inner-city children lacked a few advantages that George had had. The most significant of these was that George W. Bush was a wealthy man[3]. Bush and the Republican Party put forth the myth that George was a regular, folksy sort of guy who had pulled himself up by his own boot straps and as a result of hard work and brilliant business acumen, he had built a business that had made him fabulously wealthy.

The media helped perpetuate this myth simply by failing to do its job.  Little comment was made about the fact that his investors, wishing to influence regulatory policy, were willing to prop up a failing business because George represented a back door to the White House. Very little was said about the fact that George W. Bush acquired his wealth when his business finally failed. How, an honest mind might ask, can someone make money when their business fails? By simply following the business model that was developed by George W. Bush[4], that’s how. In other words, you use your knowledge about the poor economic health of your company[5] and sell your stock before anyone else knows that you are about to go bankrupt[6].

Touted as the first MBA president, Bush came to the table offering to…what did he have to offer?  Under the Clinton Administration, American prestige had never been higher and the world community as a whole seemed to be cooperating and working towards peaceful solutions. Saddam Hussein was contained; Slobodan Milosevic was imprisoned; the hunt was on for Osama bin Laden; and Iran, uncertain whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, was willing to cooperate with the world community. Economically, the Clinton Administration was overseeing a financial boom and expansion shared by all Americans; unemployment was so low that employers were having a difficult time finding good employees and the only people consistently out of work were those people who didn’t want to work; the debt was being paid down; and though the tech bubble was predicted to burst, energy resources were more than sufficient and secure that everyone was confident that the economy could easily weather such a disruption[7].

What was there for George W. Bush to fix? George gave a preview of a Bush presidency during one of the debates with the Democratic contender, Vice-President Al Gore.  When asked about the Clinton policy of paying down the Federal Government debt, George W. Bush gave some strange, convoluted and extremely belaboured answer that simply boiled down to it being his view that such a policy would hurt the U.S. economy if that debt was paid off.

I can understand why George would have made such a claim.  After all, the majority of U.S government debt is held by Americans and the majority of that debt is held by wealthy individuals who don’t work.  Much of the American government debt system is simply a taxpayer funded welfare system for the rich.  If Americans eliminated the debt, many of George W. Bush’s friends and backers would have had to get jobs.

What confuses me is how the media responded…which was not to respond or comment. I make no claim to being an economist, but it strikes me that government debt can only be beneficial in the short term. In the long term, however, a lot of interest is paid and that payment of interest only benefits those who hold that debt.  In the United States, the greatest beneficiaries of continued debt are those wealthy families who have been buying that debt for generations and have, therefore, become dependent upon government largess[8]. For the rest of us, on the other hand, paying down the debt means less interest paid.  This, in turn, means greater cash flow for the Federal Government, which allows two things to happen. First, taxes can be lowered. Second, there will be more money to invest in infrastructure as well as other necessary and socially beneficial programs.

After Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist made George W. Bush president, George began to show the world what kind of businessman he truly was by implementing the business model that he had developed years before in the oil industry. By 2008, his business model had been such a raging success that its impact reverberated throughout the world. Nothing like it had been seen since 1929 when another Republican, Herbert Hoover, occupied the White House.

It is now 2012 and the Republicans are offering Mitt Romney to the American people and the world.  Mitt Romney and his Republican backers claim that it is his business experience that makes him an ideal candidate. After four hard years of the Obama Administration trying to reverse the disastrous consequences of the Bush business model, Mitt Romney promises to bring Bush’s business model back with a vengeance.

I’m not concerned with this though. The American people were foolish enough to vote for that model in 2000 and 2004.  If they are foolish enough to fall for it again in 2012…well, what is there to expect given that the ranking of the United States in mathematics is reported to be 26th in the world[9]. It is this same mathematical aptitude that has been so beneficial to the lottery industry.

What is of concern is this claim that Mitt Romney was a businessman. That is as far from the truth as one can get. He was a financier, an investor, a corporate raider. Take your choice. His goal was entirely to make money.  Nothing else. And, Mitt Romney, given the increase in his personal wealth during those years in the investment industry, was extremely successful at running a private equity firm. There is nothing wrong with any of this.

Financial institutions like banks and private equity firms serve a function.  They have cash to invest[10] and there are businesses that will welcome that investment because it allows them to start up or expand.  However, the investors are only interested in whether a potential investment is profitable.  Profit, for them, means a cash payout.  Profit can result in three possible ways:  1) a start up business becomes successful; 2) an expansion of an existing business proves to be profitable; 3) purchasing a business and selling off some of the parts or breaking it up entirely and selling it off in pieces is profitable. For private equity firms, the actual business concerns and employees of that business are secondary and tertiary concerns, only entering the investors’ line of sight if they have the potential of reducing the bottom line. Other than that, operating the business and employment are issues dealt with by management.

The fact is that people like Mitt Romney would never invest in a typical small business because they are not business people and therefore don’t understand business and its relationship to the health of the nation.  On the other hand, Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, understands business because he is a businessman.  And being a businessman, he understands the importance of small business and this is why he has pushed for a program that will help provide funding to small businesses. After all, it is small business that happens to create the majority of jobs. Private equity firms, on the other hand, do not create jobs.

The real job creators are those who have an idea.  They are the innovators.  Job creators are the people who invest their lives, their money, the sweat of their brow and go into their shop, store, office, garage, factory or whatever it may be on a daily basis and make decisions and work hard. The majority of job creators are from the Middle Class. The majority of those individuals who are job creators and in the top 1% did not begin in the top 1%.  They happened to have a business that filled a particular need at a particular time in history.  They may have become wealthy but that wealth was incidental to their real purpose which was to build their business. This is in contrast to a private equity firm for whom job creation is incidental to the real goal which is to accumulate more wealth.

All businessmen and businesswomen want to see a profit.  But what exactly is “profit”?  If you work for a large corporation, it can mean dividends to your investors and bonuses for the employees or maybe a new plant for operations.  If the business is a sole proprietorship or partnership, a profit can mean some new equipment, some new employees, an employee health package or a much needed vacation, college tuition for the children or a swimming pool.  What profit isn’t is a Rolls Royce or a Maserati. It isn’t a private jet or a third home on Martha’s Vineyard.

There is nothing wrong with wealth.  Personally, I think it would be great to have so much wealth that it was capable of self-propagating…at least it might be great for a day or two.  But if wealth, as measured by the accumulation of money and things, was the sole measure of my worth and accomplishments, I’d hang my head in shame. If I were a good Christian, I’d get down on my knees and beg for God’s forgiveness.

Mitt Romney is no more of a businessman than George W. Bush.  Granted, he is far more accomplished but he has limited business experience. The person working in maintenance at an auto plant has as least as much understanding of business as does Mitt Romney.  Mitt Romney’s accomplishment was to make smart investments as evidenced by his amassed fortune.

As president, what does Romney have to offer?  The government of the United States was not formed more that 200 years ago in order to create conditions that allow the accumulation of vast wealth by a handful of individuals. Instead, it is the purpose of government to create the conditions that allow businesses to form and to grow. It is government’s purpose is to insure that culture and civilization flourish. It is the prime duty of government to protect the weak and disenfranchised from the predations of the strong and powerful.

Business people create businesses, artists create art, musicians create music, teachers create thinking minds and financiers make money. That is the way of the world.