Mitt Romney’s supporters are defending his time at Bain Capital (that would be the firm he co-founded that made a fortune downsizing companies) by pointing out the firm’s existence was demanded by the market.

And while it’s true, that doesn’t mean it’s any less of a political vulnerability. Americans suffering from high unemployment may be less than inclined to vote for a guy who made his (rather significant) fortune laying people off.

Some supporters, most prominently amongst them Tim Pawlenty, are acting surprised that Republican opponents would dare to attack the free market, capitalistic purity that was Bain Capital.

After all, aren’t we all Austrians now?

Yeah, about that:

It was a gamble. The old mill, renamed GS Technologies, needed expensive updating, and demand for its products was susceptible to cycles in the mining industry and commodities markets.

Less than a decade later, the mill was padlocked and some 750 people lost their jobs. Workers were denied the severance pay and health insurance they’d been promised, and their pension benefits were cut by as much as $400 (258 pounds) a month.

What’s more, a federal government insurance agency had to pony up $44 million to bail out the company’s underfunded pension plan. Nevertheless, Bain profited on the deal, receiving $12 million on its $8 million initial investment and at least $4.5 million in consulting fees.

That pure, free market poster-child that supposedly was Bain Capital actually profited handsomely from having the federal government, that is taxpayers, bail out corporate pension plans. This was while Romney was racking up a fortune of more than $200 million.

So apparently we should respect the purity of the free market even while Romney made a fortune in part by having taxpayers foot the bill for a company’s pension plan. You can’t have it both ways, Romney supporters. Either it was virtuous free market capitalism or it wasn’t.