Critics call these tactics "slash-and-burn" and "vulture" capitalism, claiming that already rich people are preying on weak companies and sacrificing rank-and-file workers to make a quick buck. Romney and his supporters say that layoffs are just the cost of doing business in a free enterprise system and that without the help of private equity these under-performing companies would simply wither and die. They're both right, of course. A successful turnaround can save more jobs than it destroys, while creating value and profits for troubled businesses, but that not always the way things turn out.

Some companies are left truly devastated after PE takeovers, even as the investors make off with healthy profits. Less savvy PE firms can and do make bad investments or mismanage their holdings, leaving companies worse off than when they found them. (Even some of the companies Romney invested in when bankrupt after Bain sold their stake and moved on.) Some don't care whether the company survives at all, as long they can take winnings out first. Another legend of the leveraged buyout industry, Ted Forstmann who passed away last year, often criticized his fellow travelers for violating "the rules of prudent investment" and abandoning wisdom for get-rich-quick schemes.

The problem is that when it comes to evaluating the truth of these arguments about private equity, the "private" part often gets in the way. Romney claims that he and Bain created a net of 100,000 jobs during his tenure at the firm and Bain success stories, like Domino's Pizza and Dunkin Donuts, make compelling cases for their work. But because the companies private equity deals with are usually not publicly traded, the numbers are nearly impossible to verify. And even if Bain "netted" a positive job creation number, that's small consolation to those on the losing end who found themselves out of work.

Private equity veterans are stepping up to defend their industry and hope Romney will do the same. After all, he's the one who made his business background the key justification for his presidency. They're people too, and there are great benefits for everyone when companies are saved that might otherwise fail. Still, it's not easy to sell your ability to create jobs when you're also personally responsible for cutting thousands of them. (And you can't "lay off" taxpayers because they aren't profitable.) He's now the face of a whole industry that will only face more scrutiny if he wins the nomination.

It also doesn't help to see stories about other private equity firms reaping gigantic rewards at time when income inequality has become an central focus of the political world. Gingrich and the Democrats backing President Obama will certainly try to stoke the fears of Romney as a cold and calculating slasher.

This article is from the archive of our partner The Wire.