I am more than happy to accept the idea that Mitt Romney had nothing to do with Bain after 1999. I am delighted to say that he made no decisions, did no work, didn't attend any meetings, yada yada yada.
Because the consequence of that position is far, far worse than what Romney is trying to bat away.
He was paid (at least) more than $100,000 in those years when he was doing nothing. Not as retirement, not as profit sharing. As salary.
Mitt, by his own admission, is a no show worker. A freeloader.
Let's look at the numbers:
Based on the Bain filings, Mitt was paid AT LEAST $100,000 a year in salary for his non-work as chairman, chief executive and president.
What that means is that, for doing nothing, Mitt was -- based solely on that salary -- in the top 10 percent of earners in America. He made 2.5x the median income of all Americans from his salary paid to him for doing nothing.
And. He. Did. Not. Do. Anything. (see income data here)
This, I think, is far far worse for his campaign than the issue he is trying to bat away. Ok, so suppose the political argument is that Mitt was running Bain when they made all sorts of smelly investments. Still, you have to argue that 1. Mitt was running Bain. 2. Bain made this investment. 3. This investment was bad because. 4. That is why he should be opposed.
That, unfortunately, descends into a series of arguments -- well, what does it mean to be in charge, because he really wasn't, and he was not responsible for the Bain investments, and the investments weren't bad anyway. A cumbersome response that can confuse the listener.
Instead, if we take him at his word, the new argument is devastating:
1. Mitt Romney was paid more than 90 percent of all Americans for doing nothing.
2. THAT is Romney's America. Is it yours?
3. If you didn't show up to work, you would get fired. Not showered in cash.
4. How can a man who makes money for doing nothing understand average Americans.
What does Mitt say in response? I was lying when I said I was doing nothing? He is trapped -- it is either he was there, and responsible for what happened, or he wasn't, and was paid for nothing.
Here is the reason Mitt doesn't see this coming: He doesn't see $100,000 in pay as being worth much, certainly not to someone who throws around the idea of making $10,000 bets.
THIS exposes the GOP for what it is. A bunch of dilettantes who think it is just fine to be paid buckets for doing nothing if you are rich, but then bitch about the possibility that some poor single mother might make a little bit more money by raising the minimum wage.
These hard-working rich people need tax cuts? Bull -- they just want the money they make for DOING NOTHING to be a little bit more. And why not? If doing nothing is worth $100,000, then it certainly is worth a cool million too.
This is jiu-jitsu. Let Mitt explain why he deserved (at least) $100,000 a year for doing nothing. Or, he can accept that he was doing a job at Bain and deserved to be paid -- and thus can be held responsible for whatever happened.
For, me, I prefer the no-show job argument. Because that exposes Mitt and his ilk to be the greedy pigs that they are.