Each campaign accuses the other of supporting policies that send jobs elsewhere. An Obama ad shows Romney telling an audience, â€śI understand why jobs come and why they go,â€ť while a Washington Post headline states that â€śBainâ€™s firms sent jobs overseas,â€ť referring to Romneyâ€™s time running the private equity firm Bain Capital.
Romney answered with his own ad accusing Obama of lying about Bain shipping jobs overseas. It quotes the Washington Post as saying the ads were â€śMISLEADING, UNFAIR and UNTRUEâ€ť (Romney caps).
In his State of the Union message in January, Obama proposed eliminating the corporate tax break â€“ that is, the business deduction â€“ for producing goods overseas. â€śThat money should be used to cover moving expenses for companies that decide to bring jobs home,â€ť said Obama.
But if the company is manufacturing in the US, Obama proposed a larger tax deduction, which would be even higher if a company were to open a factory in a town that had suffered as a result of an earlier closure.
Romney opposes the proposal. He says â€śliberal politiciansâ€ť who propose that solution donâ€™t understand that raising taxes on corporations will make them less competitive in overseas markets, â€śmaking it bad for their business overseas, and also for jobs here.â€ť
Why would it be bad for jobs here? According to Romneyâ€™s reasoning, sales overseas â€“ even with goods made overseas â€“ often support high-paying jobs in finance, research, and management at home. â€śAnd if a company's tax burden under such legislation grew too high, it could simply move overseas to avoid it â€“ resulting in a loss of tax revenue for the US, not a net gain,â€ť he says.