characterize themselves as risk-taking entrepreneurs (Romney did this), whereas reality is quite different. They sit atop diversified portfolios of leveraged companies that:

1) Are carefully compartmentalized so that failure of some businesses doesn't impact others (creating asymmetric returns where they debtholders are left holding the bag on failures)
2) Lobby for government backstops to reduce the odds of failure for any of their holdings, further skewing returns

This is financial engineering and an influence game, not entrepreneurship. And they profit massively through carried interest (typically about 20% of portfolio profits), which is taxed at highly favorable rates. The ones getting those types of tax breaks should be entrepreneurs taking the risk of creating entirely new businesses, not PE partners leveraging up old ones. But those people have less political clout.