1. Putting people back to work: I follow the commentary on BMG closely, and I know that there is some concern about Steve’s record at Bain. However, I have reviewed it extensively, and I am confident that his record of growing companies and creating jobs is real and impressive, and that this experience will serve him well in the US Senate. We need more elected officials who understand the economy and what it takes to grow jobs in the private sector – Steve’s skills and experience will help Washington better understand what policies and initiatives will produce jobs. His focus on investing in job training, job tax credits, and investment in the jobs of the future will work nicely with the Governor’s initiatives and benefit many residents of Massachusetts who need help now.
2. Fixing the financial system: The lack of strong regulation under the Bush administration is one of the reasons for the current economic crisis. Yet even though we know this, we still have not seen Congress pass a comprehensive financial reform package. This is unacceptable. Steve has spent a lot of time on this issue – well before he ran for office – and has put forth a well-thought out, aggressive federal initiative that would help prevent the abuses that caused the financial meltdown. We can’t afford to wait much longer, and Steve would bring a strong, respected voice to this issue in the Senate.
3. Passing health care reform: The passage of the bill in the House presented an opportunity for the candidates in this race to deal with this issue in real-time. I believe that Steve made the right call on this issue, avoiding the pitfalls of a wedge issue designed to kill the best chance we have at universal health care and declaring his support for passing health care reform now. I don’t doubt that other candidates have taken principled positions on this issue – I just believe that in the heat of the campaign, Steve showed admirable judgment in declaring he would be a reliable 60th vote in the Senate.
For these reasons, along with the fact that he has refused special interest and PAC money, I support Steve Pagliuca for Senate. That doesn’t imply anything negative about the other candidates – they are all extremely good people, and I will proudly support whichever candidate emerges on Dec. 8.
But I do believe that Steve Pagliuca is the candidate best suited to meet the challenges we currently face as a Commonwealth and a nation, and I will proudly cast my vote for him on Dec. 8.
As always, I look forward to your comnents. Thanks.
For you: How much is the Pagliuca campaign paying you? Is is a flat fee or a percentage of the media buy, or both? Is there a win bonus?
<
p>For the candidate: Why exactly should we entrust a George W. Bush donor with zero public record to represent Massachusetts and inherit the Kennedy mantle?
<
p>And generally: What’s next for Pagliuca? It seems pretty obvious he is not going to win on Tuesday. But he did just drop a pretty penny buying some serious name recognition. Will he be considering a run for the corner office, perhaps in the Democratic Primary? And if he does so, who will you be supporting, Mr. Rubin? If not, is he planning to run for Auditor or some other post?
The man is paid, and he disclosed that. Unless he joins a public payroll, his salary/fee is his business.
Fec reports are a wonderful thing. Should be easy to figure it out. Yes ad buys have a component and maybe Doug has some of it, but we can just make poor guesses.
<
p>Doug,
<
p>Did you watch Brewsters millions for inspiration?
All campaign expenditures (including payments to staff and consultants) are listed and filed in the federal campaign finance reports of each candidate.
But I don’t think it needs to be “disclosed” in a blog post.
If he is getting paid $100 then his endorsement means a lot more than if he is getting paid $100K so the question is indeed relevant.
<
p>We will eventually be able to look up his pay in the campaign reports, but that might not be until after the election is over and the issue is moot.
Unbelievable…literally. You can take that campaign to the bank…as surely you will. Poor Deval. Poor Grossman. They are next.
Look, as my oldest daughter constantly reminds me, I am not cool when it comes to the latest technology or texting, so I don’t know what ROFLMAO stands for. But I do take offense to the reference to both the Governor and Steve Grossman, who are outstanding people and candidates and who I am proud to support.
The acronym he was attempting is “ROTFLMAO”, which stands for
“Rolling On The Floor Laughing My A— Off”. In practice, it refers to something funnier than plain-old “LOL” (Laughing Out Loud).
<
p>My suggestion is to ignore the boorish attempted cheapshot altogether.
Every time I hear that “businessman can make the economy right” argument, I make sure my wallet is where I put it. Government is not a business. Experience in business is not very useful when the job at hand is serving the people. I’m not buying what you’re selling this time.
I know Pagliuca says he won’t take money from special interests, but IMHO, he’s his own special interest group. For me, the defining moment of his candidacy came with his announcement statement that he contributed to Romney’s campaigns, in “a case of friendship coming before politics.” That kind of friendship democrats don’t need in Washington. He contributed money to George Bush in 1999, was a registered Republican in in the 1990s and contributed to a Republican candidate for Governor of New Hampshire in 1998. (Adam Reilly link here )
<
p>His history is that of a private equity guy, loyal to his friends above others. He’s done nothing in his campaign to show me otherwise. We don’t need someone in the Senate with a history of trading off his principles to be loyal to his friends-there’s plenty of that already.
<
p>Sorry Doug.
Look, if that is how you feel I respect your decision. I just choose to look at the entire body of evidence, including his work with the MSPCC to help prevent child abuse, his extensive support of Democratic candidates in the past, and his stance on the issues and challenges we currently face. With all of that in mind, I choose Steve over a number of other very qualified candidates.
<
p>Like I said, elections are about choices, and of course you are free to make your choice based on the things you see as most important. Thanks for the comments – I really appreciate them.
…to read something that I find impossible to believe the author agrees with at all. Doug, you have certainly built up a lot of progressive credentials throughout your tenure in MA politics. It seems to me that you have sold out and lost a significant amount of credibility in the process. I can only speak for me personally, but I have lost a lot of respect for you.
<
p>If you really believed that Pags is the best suited candidate for progressive voters, you should have come here earlier to engage the BMG community in discussion. I also follow the comments on this site very closely, and to the best of my memory, this is the first pro-pags post I have seen.
Not so! I believe this might be the first one. But you will notice a certain common thread between that one and this one.
by someone not being paid by his campaign? đŸ™‚
Look, I understood when I decided to work with Steve Pagliuca that some people would not agree with that choice. I have been working in MA politics for a long time, and I know how tough it can be.
<
p>But it is simply ridiculous to assert that I have “sold out” just because I have made a decision that is different from yours.
<
p>I respect people who support the other candidates in this race. Elections are about choices, and people have a right and a responsibility to make the choice in an election they feel is best for the common good.
<
p>I have made my choice, and it is Steve Pagliuca. If you spent the time I have talking with the people at the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (MSPCC) who have worked with Steve to prevent child abuse, or the people who know Steve well or worked for him over the years, you might come to the same conclusion that I have – that Steve is a man of integrity who brings uniqe skills and values to the challenges we are facing.
<
p>Even if you don’t come to that conclusion, and I respect your views if you don’t, please don’t question my values in making this choice.
You are not alone in respecting people who have chosen other candidates. I also have a great amount of respect for people who are passionate about a candidate other than my own, and my assertion that you sold out had nothing to do with the fact that you are supporting a different candidate than me. I would also argue that I did not question your values – rather, I lamented your willingness to sacrifice them.
<
p>Take Steve’s position on Health Care Reform.
<
p>You have been around politics for long enough to have an intimate understanding of how the game is played. Unconditionally promising your vote on a bill effectively destroys any and all negotiating power you may have had. For Steve to have done so represents to me either ignorance of the process (which is clearly not the case with you at the helm), or willful and disingenuous obfuscation and oversimplification of the issue to mislead voters by suggesting the other candidates are not true supporters of Health Care Reform.
Doug, your touting of a multi-millionaire’s decision to eschew “special interest” and PAC money also rings pretty hollow. A cheap campaign trick which only the rich can play.
<
p>Were you disappointed when your only slightly less of a multi-millionaire employer raised more “special interest” money than any gubernatorial candidate in the history of Massachusetts?
<
p>Ready to denounce the “special interest” labor unions behind the Patriot Majority when you suddenly realized the candidate was benefiting from over $4 million worht of “independent” anti-Healy advertisements?
<
p>Give me a break.
As we all know, Alan Khazei also rejected special interest and PAC money, so it’s not fair to categorize that decision to one only available to the rich.
Many years of experience raising millions nationwide for City ear and AmeriCorps from the liberal establishment is also an unusually helpful background for an upper middle class but admittedly not super-wealthy candidate.
That person doesn’t exist.
<
p>What person, running for any office worthy of a PAC contribution, hasn’t held a previously elected office, a semi-high profile private sector or public advocacy role, or already networked to build up a base of supporters and/or financial backers?
Wow, since when did it become against one’s values to support a candidate they believe is most qualified?
<
p>As to Steve’s position on health care, I respectfully disagree with you. I think the historic opportunity to pass national health care reform, including the chance to cover 30+ million Americans with no coverage (and 17 million women) is too important to let pass. And that doesn’t seem to be a view that is out of the mainstream – the bill passed the House with every Democratic pro-choice representative voting for it.
Of course this is an opportunity that is too important to let pass. My point is that offering unconditional support and committing 100% to vote yes no matter what the final bill looks like is extremely dangerous. If he were to be elected, he would hold no leverage whatsoever to change parts of the bill that he doesn’t like. He has effectively defined himself as the rubber stamp candidate.
<
p>And yes, every pro-choice rep did vote for the bill in the House – including Mike. But this was a procedural vote to advance the bill. While a compromise is being negotiated, it makes no sense for pro-choice legislators to say they’d be fine with a bill containing Stupak-Pitts.
Except for the 40 who signed a letter that they wouldn’t support Stupak in the final vote.
Please stay away from the Governor’s re-election campaign.
Since when does a certain type of person have a monopoly on progressive values? To me, being a progressive means believing in equality: equality in opportunity, equality before the law, and equality in the minds of others.
<
p>If we can’t accept that these values can be held and acted upon by members of our community from all walks of live, including businesspeople, how can we claim to be in the right? And if we immediately disqualify someone based on a few narrow preconditions, how can we call ourselves progressive?
<
p>Progressive leadership isn’t something that’s cooked up in a laboratory, I’d like to see Pagliuca get a fairer hearing when his policies are right on the money.
<
p>
It seems to me that he has for the most part put them aside while working at Bain. Many of his stated policies are in direct opposition to Bain’s corporate behavior.
<
p>i’m an independent, and when pags announced, i definitely wanted to give him a fair look…
<
p>specifically, i wondered if he was another gabrieli: super smart guy, deeply cares about the issues, really loves the policy nitty gritty. while i realize that’s not enough to get elected, because the rhetoric needs to be there, it’s certainly enough for my support.
<
p>unlike perhaps many BMGers, i find it appealing that someone can be in one party and find common ground on the other side, not a turnoff. success at bain? good in my book.
<
p>so i was ready to be impressed by your guy.
<
p>i just never got that Gabs vibe from Pags. i got it from khazei.
<
p>that was something you couldn’t easily have predicted as a campaign director. different guy emerging to scoop up the wonk vote.
<
p>* *
<
p>2. hindsight is 20-20, but…
<
p>allowing each of the 4 candidates to have exactly the same positions besides nominal differences – standard bearer dem who cares about jobs and health care – was smart for 3 of the candidates.
<
p>but not Pags.
<
p>for martha, she gets the nomination. i still think scott brown could surprise if he keeps the message “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” – so not ready to give her the seat.
<
p>for khazei, he emerges with a future, from nowhere to somewhere.
<
p>for caps, he also raises his profile, no downside.
<
p>but for your guy – ? he needed to say something different. sorry, but “1 financial regulator” is not that thing.
<
p>needed to cut against the grain. needed a wedge so all the debate heat was 3 ganging up on him, he defines the race.
<
p>oppose the health care plan, for example. simple message – support a tax on expensive plans to cover more people. but no messing with everything else.
Good post GGW, but I would disagree with your characterization of Scott Brown’s message as “socially liberal, fiscally conservative.”
<
p>An anti-equality, pro-gun, pro-execution, pro-carbon, anti-healthcare, anti-immigrant candidate is not going to pass as “socially liberal” in Massachusetts. He may be pro-choice with some restrictions, but, then again, so was Mitt Romney.
Brown is way too socially conservative to win statewide. The only possible shot is the Charlie “My brother is gay and so is my running mate” Baker approach.
Brown is conservative on almost all social issues, especially same sex marriage. Baker is socially liberal on marriage, abortion (including stem stells), and even on health care. His careful, economic-based arguments against the public option and his insisting that he he “against ‘partial birth abortion'” only seek to highlight his mostly liberal stances.
sorry, when i said “keep” i meant “makes”
<
p>in my mind it was “if he keeps to A message that would be”….
<
p>agreed: that’s not his current message. which is why few independents will gravitate to him.
Thanks for the post – I appreciate your comments and how you got to your decision. On the second issue, it is pretty simple to explain. Steve got to his positions because he believes in them, not for reasons of political strategy or advantage. That may not be the best campaign “strategy” but it is what he believes and why he is running, and why I support him.
I prefer Doug posting to someone who was not a regular BMGer saying they were inspired — I’d get cynical that they hadn’t been here sooner.
<
p>But Doug, one question: I really don’t see the other candidates ignoring the issues you’ve cited. Other than business background, what distinguishes Pagliuca?
<
p>
Doug,
<
p>Could you clarify a couple of things related to Pagliuca’s financial reform package. I’ve read “Steve’s Plan for Financial Reform” but have some questions/concerns about the plan.
<
p>First, the private equity industry, of which Bain Capital is a part, has long resisted any attempt to be regulated by the SEC or any other federal regulatory authority. Does he intend for prong 4 of “Steve’s Plan for Financial Regulatory Reform” to apply to private equity funds like Bain Capital of Sankaty?
<
p>Second, prong 2 of his plan deals with adequate capital and the taking of excessive risk using leverage. Isn’t this a little ironic considering Mr. Pagliuca has made his money making risky bets using excessive amounts of leverage? That is the private equity model, using large amounts of debt to finance acquisitions in order to (hopefully) increase returns down the road. With the current recession, a number of private equity owned companies are now struggling under their heavy debt burdens and some are being forced into bankruptcy. While not the same size as an AIG, how are the actions of the private equity industry any different than those of AIG? Who Mr. Pagliuca propose/support some form of limit of the leverage ratios used in private equity transactions?
<
p>Third, (and somewhat related to my second point), a number of privately-owned companies have faced serious trouble (and some have been forced into bankruptcy) after their private equity owners have dividended out large amounts of cash from the company. When things take a turn for the worse, these companies no longer have adequate capital to pay their debt obligations or other liabilities. However, their private equity owners have generally already recouped back their investment (and sometimes much more) from the dividends and therefore don’t feel the same sting as other stakeholders in these companies. Would Mr. Pagliuca support/propose some regulation that would prevent these forms of distributions beyond the current solvency test?
<
p>Fourth, currently, private equity professionals are allowed to treat income they receive off of investments they make with other people’s money (the so-called carried interest) as capital gains rather than ordinary income, and therefore receive beneficial tax treatment on those amounts. So an investor, sat a pension fund, invests its money with Mr. Pagliuca and his colleagues at Bain. Bain then uses that money to finance the acquisition of company X. When Bain sells Company X, they keep the first 20% of any profits on the investment and then distribute the rest to Bain’s investors. That 20%, which is the fee Bain received for providing a service rather than a return on capital invested by Bain, is taxed as capital gains to Bain’s employees rather than ordinary income. Since these professionals, such as Mr. Pagliuca, are not investing their own money, but instead realizing a return from providing a service, it would seem appropriate that their carried interest be taxed as ordinary income. However, the private equity industry has spent millions trying to prevent any Congressional fix of this apparent tax loophole. Where does Mr. Pagliuca stand on this issue?
I imagine Mr. Rubin is very busy with less than a week to go to the election, but I find it odd, and disappointing, that he, nor anyone else from the Pagliuca campaign answered any of my questions. This is especially true given (1) my questions relate to one of the 3 enumerated reasons as to why Mr. Rubin supports Pagliuca and (2) he posted some 7 other comments to this thread alone since my comment (so I assume he had some free time to respond).
<
p>I’m sincerely interested to see where Pagliuca stands on the issues I discussed above. It’s unclear to me if Pagliuca wants his reforms, which are much touted here and in his commercials, to the industry which has made him quite a rich man. If so, good for him (though it’s odd he supports these measures now and not when he was making money). If not, it seems a bit hypocritical.
Steve Pagliuca is a Bain Capital wolf in sheep’s clothing.
<
p>Bain Capital has LOST more jobs for the US economy than any other Massachusetts institution.
<
p>Bain Capital specializes in buying out firms (often without risking ANY of Bain’s own equity). Bain always dramatically increases the debt-equity ratio of their acquired firms. Bain then pulls out (I prefer the term, steals) millions of dollars for themselves from the acquired business. No matter what becomes of the acquired business (failure, mediocrity, success), Bain and its partners always makes out.
<
p>Eventually, overall economic conditions change and the debt burden placed by Bain Capital on their acquired firms puts the acquired firms in distress. Some of Bain’s acquired businesses go out of business altogether laying off everyone. Others “restructure” — that is, they lay off US workers, outsource many jobs to places like India, China, Eastern Europe & Southeast Asia, and cut employee benefits. Almost none of Bain’s aquisitions thrive.
<
p>Meanwhile, Bain partners like Pagliuca sit on the boards of their acquired companies and authorize millions for corporate lobbyists to resist every progressive federal government regulation (e.g., minimum wage, OSHA, environmental protections, health coverage for workers).
<
p>It is my opinion that Steve Pagliuca’s $400 million net worth represents blood money. Pags got his fortune merely by shuffling paper. He has NEVER added to the productive capacity of the US economy. In fact, he has repeatedly hurt the US economy.
<
p>Pags and his Bain partners have stolen the accumulated wealth created by thousands of employees over decades and they have left dozens of failed businesses and thousands of broken families in their wake.
I understand your concern, but I don’t believe that the actual facts and Steve’s business record are very different than you have asserted in your comments. There are a number of studies, including one from Harvard, that show that private equity has created hundreds of thousands of jobs. Very successful MA companies, like Staples and Genzyme, have been started this way.
<
p>Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. But I have spent a lot of time reviewing the record, and I don’t believe the facts back up your assertions.
Doug,
<
p>I think your “research” is flawed. Perhaps, you should add to your reading list.
<
p>How about November 26th’s Boston Globe op-ed by Josh Kosman, author of “The Buyout of America: How Private Equity Will Cause the Next Credit Crisis”?
<
p>http://www.boston.com/bostongl…
<
p>You might find reading Josh Kosman’s book illuminating, too.
<
p>Also, you might consider reading a December 1 Boston Globe story on Steve Pagliuca’s actions on Burger King’s board of directors:
<
p>http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
<
p>And, do you actually think a Harvard Business School assessment of private equity is unbiased and definitive? HBS is where most, if not all, these corporate raiders are taught how to steal.
My dispute is not with “private equity”, it is with Bain — the firm of which your candidate is a Managing Director. I’ve spent a career spanning three decades in high-tech startups, and I’m reasonably familiar with this turf. There is simply no way on this earth to separate Steve Pagliuca from the abysmal record of Bain.
<
p>Please excuse me for sounding harsh, but I would prefer to see even a single external study looking at the portfolio of Bain investments: What companies has Bain (under Steve Pagliuca’s leadership) invested in, what has been the return for Bain in general and Mr. Pagliuca specifically, and what has been the experience of workers in those companies?
<
p>I understand that Bain likes to trumpet the success of Staples. There are many other companies in the Bain portfolio.
<
p>As I think I’ve written before, all of us have to put bread on the table and keep the pots boiling. I don’t begrudge the decisions you, like all of us, have to make in order to sustain yourself in a brutal economy. At the same time, I do think it’s crucial to maintain a little bit of rigor in evaluating the claims that Mr. Pagliuca is making, especially regarding the role that his company plays in the real world of working men and women.
<
p>Finally, I am growing increasingly curious about the cross-fertilization that seems to be happening between the Pagliuca and Patrick campaigns. I find myself wondering what it portends after the upcoming special Senate election.
I would clarify it even further, and say the real issue should be Steve’s record at Bain. His efforts have been focused on growth opportunities, a lot in the health care arena, and the results in my opinion have overall been positive. We spent a lot of time in this campaign reviewing this record with the media, so I believe that it has been vetted fairly well. That is not to say that it is perfect, but rather that the overall track record speaks well of Steve both as a person and as a successful business executive.
<
p>Not sure what you mean about “cross-fertilization” – these campaigns are completely separate. I look forward to working to help re-elect Governor Patrick after this special Senate election.
Doug,
<
p>How do you square your comment about “a lot in the health care arena” with Pagliuca’s position on Burger King’s board of directors? Explain to us again how Burger King (and by extension Steve Pagliuca) doesn’t perpetuate America’s obesity epidemic?
<
p>As for your other assertions about Steve’s job creation skills, name just one Bain deal Steve Pagliuca headed that resulted in a NET GAIN of US jobs several years after the firm was acquired by Bain. [Oh sure, Bain and their ilk like to expound on how many jobs they created AFTER they restructured. Of course, they never count the jobs they first killed when they took the company over in the first place.] I can list dozens of Bain deals where total net US employment dropped precipitously. Companies Bain buys almost never regain the US employment they had before Bain took them over.
<
p>[And, please don’t list Staples and Genzyme. Those were NOT buy out deals. Those are some of the very few deals where Bain provided start-up VC funding — not the bulk of Bain’s business.]
<
p>BTW, I too have worked in Mass High Tech for 30 years and have witnessed first hand the economic destruction that Bain and their ilk have wrought.
Saying a lot of his work has been in the health care arena does not preclude work in other areas, like Burger King.
<
p>In the case of Burger King, it was a turnaround that, as the Globe reported, included an increase of 24,000 jobs and helped save many small business (franchisees).
What was the state of Burger King prior to the Bain investment? How many employees, what was their benefits, what was their average salary, what was their retention rate, and so on?
<
p>What was the baseline for the 24,000 job increase? What compensation did those new employees receive, especially compared to those who were there before? How many employees were laid off prior to this increase, and when?
<
p>What was Bain’s (and Mr. Pagliuca’s) return on the investment, and how does that gain compare to the gains made by the existing and new employees during the same period?
<
p>Who received the greatest financial gain from the turnaround, the employees or Bain?
But maybe you should have asked your senate candidate’s business partner Wyc Grousbeck to hold onto the $1000.00 contribution to the Baker campaign until after 12/8
Kudos to you for posting this endorsement even though you knew it would be met with unkind words. It’s an impressive trait to have such courage. For the record, I do not believe you are supporting Steve Pagliuca for the money. I think you truly believe he is the best candidate. But, that has puzzled me from the very beginning.
<
p>I will admit that I don’t really know much about Steve Pagliuca. I’ve just heard snippets of information here and there. I think that what Steve Pagliuca does to some people, and to me for certain, is make us fearful.
<
p>America’s middle class is tumbling down because of overly successful business people and investors. Some of the most successful business people have earned their success by cutting wages and benefits for their workers in order to maintain and increase the bottom line, all the while increasing bonus payouts and corporate salaries to the highest earners. Profits go up, the top tiers earn more, and the middle class falls closer to the poverty line.
<
p>I think Steve would have had more success in a better economic time. There is no trust on the ground here for big business or overly successful investors. I would love it if Mr. Pagliuca would use his skills to create jobs in Massachusetts. I would support him in bringing large corporations or entertainment complexes to our state and making them examples in how to uplift the working middle class. It is the working middle class that smiles for the customer and promotes the business. It’s time that they receive a little more acknowledgement for that. A pat on the back and a yearly holiday party is just not good enough. Corporation need to learn how to appreciate the people who make their money for them. It would have been nice to hear that from Mr. Pagliuca at least once. If he said it, then I missed it.
<
p>At this point, I do not trust him to be a lawmaker.
Thanks for your comments – I really appreciate them. And I appreciate your concerns about Steve. We knew when Steve decided to get into this race that many fair-minded people would have the same concerns, and Steve has worked hard during the campaign to try to address them. He has spent a lot of time talking about the middle class, and he has put forward a number of proposals to try to help, from increasing job training funds, new job-creation tax credits, a tough regulatory plan to protect Main Street from the abuses of the financial system, and an unwavering call for universal health care. If you have time, check them out at http://www.stevepagliuca.com.
<
p>I agree that from a political standpiont, Steve might have had more success in better economic times. But that is exactly why I am supporting him – we need someone with his experience on the ground, working to build business and create jobs, because that is exactly the challenge we face as a state and a nation. The fact that Steve understood how difficult this campaign would be, but still decided to run because he felt, in his own words, that he “could help”, is one of the reasons I feel good about supporting him.
Doug,
<
p>Is there a reason why you won’t answer my questions above (from several days ago)? You keep referring to Pagliuca’s financial regulatory proposal, and I have some legitimate questions on that topic. I like to think I am a fair-minded person and, as you admit others like me would have, I have some concerns about Pagliuca’s proposals. Yet, no attempt has been made to address those concerns here, while almost every other poster has been responded to (whether posting negative or positive comments).
<
p>Mr. Pagliuca was able to create any jobs that he created using large amounts of debt, yet his plan seems to indicate that he views leverage as a harmful tool used by the financial industry. If his ability to create jobs depends on debt, but he wants to put restrictions on the use of debt, there seems to be some disconnect that should be explained (and maybe it can be, but that’s not apparent from the campaigns public statements and explanations). If Mr. Pagliuca had to operate under the same constraints he now proposes, would he have been as successful as he has been?
<
p>And as to the Main Street/Wall Street divide, I think Mr. Pagliuca should publically address the beneficial tax treatment private equity officials receive. Would he join Senator Grassley and others who have (for several years now) worked to treat income earned by PE professionals as ordinary income as opposed to capital gains (as is the case currently)?
from Steve Pagliuca campaign. Really don’t appreciate the misrepresentation that Mike Capuano will vote no against a bill that does not “guarantee federal funding for abortion coverage.” That is a total stretch since federal funding is not currently allowed for abortion coverage. Mike Capuano would support a bill that carries the current restrictions on abortion coverage, but would not support a bill that would prevent abortion coverage paid for by private or state funds. I think you know that, and I think Steve Pagliuca knows that. I think misrepresentation is the lowest form of dirty politics. While I had, for a moment, thought I would give Steve Pagliuca a little credit and respect for the sake of him being an honest man with an honest mission, I have now officially changed my mind. I hope I never have to see his face in Massachusetts politics again.
<
p>It appears to me he will use trickery, lies, and bad politics for personal gain. That’s the last thing we need at any level of our government. Steve Pagliuca can take a flying leap into the lake of “I-will-misrepresent-to-my-heart’s-content”. I think that lake is in Texas. Somewhere near George W. Bush’s lake “i-will-misrepresent–and-cause-world-wide-calamity-and-distruction”.