<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[Forums - Rubio]]></title>
		<link>http://rightwingers.org/forums/</link>
		<description><![CDATA[Forums - http://rightwingers.org/forums]]></description>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2026 14:07:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<generator>MyBB</generator>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[The Rubio implosion, who saw it coming?]]></title>
			<link>http://rightwingers.org/forums/thread-88.html</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2016 00:04:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightwingers.org/forums/thread-88.html</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[We have to admit half a year ago, our money was on Rubio getting the nomination. We weren't the only ones..<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite><span style="color: #000000;" class="mycode_color"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" class="mycode_font">I’m more conflicted about whether I overestimated Rubio’s political talent. It’s possible that I exaggerated that talent because I was early to notice it. Back in June 2009, when Rubio was running 30 points behind then-Republican Governor Charlie Crist in his long-shot race for Senate, I followed him on the campaign trail in Florida and wrote a story about <span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">how “he electrified the crowds with eloquent arguments for tea-party principles.” It was clear the GOP base loved him as much as it hated mushy-moderate Crist</span>. <br />
<br />
</span></span><span style="color: #000000;" class="mycode_color"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" class="mycode_font"><span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">That’s why I thought Rubio made so much sense for the GOP in 2016; he was the quintessential modern Republican. He stood for almost everything Mitt Romney stood for—massive tax cuts, muscular foreign policy, social conservatism—but while Romney, a former Massachusetts moderate, spoke Republican as a second language, Rubio was fluent</span>.<br />
<br />
</span></span><span style="color: #000000;" class="mycode_color"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" class="mycode_font"><span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">I still believe that in the kind of primary that most of us expected, Rubio would have been a formidable candidate, a tea partier who would have been acceptable to the establishment as a house-trained alternative to Ted Cruz</span>. <span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">Even in the crazy-town primary that actually happened, Rubio drubbed Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Chris Christie, and other would-be Republican saviors</span>. Sure, immigration would have been a problem for him in the primary no matter what, but not an insurmountable problem; Romney was the father of Obamacare, and he still became the nominee. And Rubio’s immigration flirtation could have helped him in the general; even Tuesday, polls showed he could have beaten Hillary Clinton.<br />
<br />
</span></span><span style="color: #000000;" class="mycode_color"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" class="mycode_font"><span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">Rubio’s debate malfunction happened right before the New Hampshire primary, and it might have dropped him from second to fifth</span>. <span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">If he had finished second, he might have emerged as the dominant alternative to Trump and Cruz, knocking out Bush and John Kasich before South Carolina</span>. And then, well, who knows? It’s not crazy to think that he could have united the party. Politicians always look hapless after they lose, and their campaigns are inevitably portrayed as hopelessly misguided exercises in dysfunction, but 16 of the 17 Republican candidates had to lose, and Rubio almost didn’t.</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" class="mycode_font"><a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/marco-rubio-2016-wrong-predictions-213739" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Marco Rubio 2016: What Everyone Got Wrong About Marco Rubio - POLITICO Magazine</a></span><br />
<br />
But what seems to have knocked him over was when he took on Trump. Pretty brilliantly, <a href="http://rightwingers.org/forums/thread-15.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">we thought</a> but apparently attacking Trump is a no-go area..]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[We have to admit half a year ago, our money was on Rubio getting the nomination. We weren't the only ones..<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite><span style="color: #000000;" class="mycode_color"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" class="mycode_font">I’m more conflicted about whether I overestimated Rubio’s political talent. It’s possible that I exaggerated that talent because I was early to notice it. Back in June 2009, when Rubio was running 30 points behind then-Republican Governor Charlie Crist in his long-shot race for Senate, I followed him on the campaign trail in Florida and wrote a story about <span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">how “he electrified the crowds with eloquent arguments for tea-party principles.” It was clear the GOP base loved him as much as it hated mushy-moderate Crist</span>. <br />
<br />
</span></span><span style="color: #000000;" class="mycode_color"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" class="mycode_font"><span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">That’s why I thought Rubio made so much sense for the GOP in 2016; he was the quintessential modern Republican. He stood for almost everything Mitt Romney stood for—massive tax cuts, muscular foreign policy, social conservatism—but while Romney, a former Massachusetts moderate, spoke Republican as a second language, Rubio was fluent</span>.<br />
<br />
</span></span><span style="color: #000000;" class="mycode_color"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" class="mycode_font"><span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">I still believe that in the kind of primary that most of us expected, Rubio would have been a formidable candidate, a tea partier who would have been acceptable to the establishment as a house-trained alternative to Ted Cruz</span>. <span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">Even in the crazy-town primary that actually happened, Rubio drubbed Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Chris Christie, and other would-be Republican saviors</span>. Sure, immigration would have been a problem for him in the primary no matter what, but not an insurmountable problem; Romney was the father of Obamacare, and he still became the nominee. And Rubio’s immigration flirtation could have helped him in the general; even Tuesday, polls showed he could have beaten Hillary Clinton.<br />
<br />
</span></span><span style="color: #000000;" class="mycode_color"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" class="mycode_font"><span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">Rubio’s debate malfunction happened right before the New Hampshire primary, and it might have dropped him from second to fifth</span>. <span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">If he had finished second, he might have emerged as the dominant alternative to Trump and Cruz, knocking out Bush and John Kasich before South Carolina</span>. And then, well, who knows? It’s not crazy to think that he could have united the party. Politicians always look hapless after they lose, and their campaigns are inevitably portrayed as hopelessly misguided exercises in dysfunction, but 16 of the 17 Republican candidates had to lose, and Rubio almost didn’t.</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" class="mycode_font"><a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/marco-rubio-2016-wrong-predictions-213739" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Marco Rubio 2016: What Everyone Got Wrong About Marco Rubio - POLITICO Magazine</a></span><br />
<br />
But what seems to have knocked him over was when he took on Trump. Pretty brilliantly, <a href="http://rightwingers.org/forums/thread-15.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">we thought</a> but apparently attacking Trump is a no-go area..]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Rubio nuggets]]></title>
			<link>http://rightwingers.org/forums/thread-63.html</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2016 02:41:54 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightwingers.org/forums/thread-63.html</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Rubio must really hate government..<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite><span style="color: #000000;" class="mycode_color"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" class="mycode_font">It’s not unusual for people to get extensions on filing their federal income taxes; millions do it each year. Yet the IRS requires that they pay their annual taxes -- or a reasonable estimate of them -- by the normal deadline in mid-April or face penalties and interest on any overdue amounts. <span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">Rubio has paid such penalties in six of the last seven years, totaling more than &#36;23,000, according to his partial tax returns</span>. The penalty and interest for 2012 represent almost half that total.</span></span></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-09/rubio-s-partial-2012-tax-return-left-question-when-did-he-pay" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" class="mycode_font">Rubio's Partial 2012 Tax Return Left Question: When Did He Pay? - Bloomberg Politics</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Rubio must really hate government..<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite><span style="color: #000000;" class="mycode_color"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" class="mycode_font">It’s not unusual for people to get extensions on filing their federal income taxes; millions do it each year. Yet the IRS requires that they pay their annual taxes -- or a reasonable estimate of them -- by the normal deadline in mid-April or face penalties and interest on any overdue amounts. <span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">Rubio has paid such penalties in six of the last seven years, totaling more than &#36;23,000, according to his partial tax returns</span>. The penalty and interest for 2012 represent almost half that total.</span></span></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-09/rubio-s-partial-2012-tax-return-left-question-when-did-he-pay" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" class="mycode_font">Rubio's Partial 2012 Tax Return Left Question: When Did He Pay? - Bloomberg Politics</span></a>]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Contested convention as last hope]]></title>
			<link>http://rightwingers.org/forums/thread-53.html</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2016 14:15:54 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightwingers.org/forums/thread-53.html</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[But..<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite><span style="color: #000000;" class="mycode_color"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" class="mycode_font">Republican presidential hopeful Marco Rubio, whose chances of winning the GOP nomination may rest on a contested convention, <span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">repeatedly said he opposed such a measure during the 2012 race</span>, CNN is reporting. "The primary's over, I mean, by the admission of the candidates who have admitted they can't win the primary," Rubio said in an interview in 2012. "They've said the only way they can win is at a floor fight in Tampa. And I think that a floor fight in Tampa would be the worst possible thing we can do in terms of winning in November."</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" class="mycode_font"><a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271907-rubio-opposed-contested-convention-in-2012" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Rubio opposed contested convention in 2012 | TheHill</a></span><br />
<br />
And interestingly enough, Cruz has already argued he's against a contested convention..]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[But..<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite><span style="color: #000000;" class="mycode_color"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" class="mycode_font">Republican presidential hopeful Marco Rubio, whose chances of winning the GOP nomination may rest on a contested convention, <span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">repeatedly said he opposed such a measure during the 2012 race</span>, CNN is reporting. "The primary's over, I mean, by the admission of the candidates who have admitted they can't win the primary," Rubio said in an interview in 2012. "They've said the only way they can win is at a floor fight in Tampa. And I think that a floor fight in Tampa would be the worst possible thing we can do in terms of winning in November."</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" class="mycode_font"><a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271907-rubio-opposed-contested-convention-in-2012" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Rubio opposed contested convention in 2012 | TheHill</a></span><br />
<br />
And interestingly enough, Cruz has already argued he's against a contested convention..]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Rubio's debate strategy]]></title>
			<link>http://rightwingers.org/forums/thread-15.html</link>
			<pubDate>Sat, 27 Feb 2016 01:28:05 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightwingers.org/forums/thread-15.html</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Rubio really came out swinging on Feb 25, arguing stuff like:<ul class="mycode_list"><li>Trump is always repeating himself (We're way ahead in the polls, we're going to win, win win, We're going to make America great again, etc.)<br />
</li>
<li>Using illegal Polish workers for building Trump tower<br />
</li>
<li>Perhaps he's going to use illegal workers for building the wall with Mexico<br />
</li>
<li>The Palestinians are not a real estate deal<br />
</li>
<li>Are you going to start a trade war against your own ties?<br />
</li>
<li>Insisting on more clarity on Trump's Obamacare replacement<br />
</li>
</ul>
All in all it was a pretty amazing and very aggressive performance which got Trump in defense. This might work, as part of Trump's appeal is the fact that he's a winner, the alpha male, especially popular by people who feel downtrodden by the system or people who think America isn't throwing its weight around in the world as it used to. <br />
<br />
However, perhaps there was an element of stage craft here, as suggested by Matthews:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite><span style="color: #000000;" class="mycode_color"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" class="mycode_font">MSNBC's Chris Matthews accuses the Marco Rubio campaign of putting plants in the CNN Republican debate audience to "squeal" and clap enthusiastically "every single time" Rubio said anything. Matthews called it the "most unnatural, phony thing in the world." "I hope people when they watch this know this was all choreographed. It was all part of a P.R. operation," Matthews said Thursday night.</span></span></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/26/chris_matthews_rubio_had_plants_squealing_in_the_audience_unnatural_phony_choreographed.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" class="mycode_font">Chris Matthews: Rubio Had Plants "Squealing" At Debate; "Unnatural," "Phony," "Choreographed" | Video | RealClearPolitics</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Rubio really came out swinging on Feb 25, arguing stuff like:<ul class="mycode_list"><li>Trump is always repeating himself (We're way ahead in the polls, we're going to win, win win, We're going to make America great again, etc.)<br />
</li>
<li>Using illegal Polish workers for building Trump tower<br />
</li>
<li>Perhaps he's going to use illegal workers for building the wall with Mexico<br />
</li>
<li>The Palestinians are not a real estate deal<br />
</li>
<li>Are you going to start a trade war against your own ties?<br />
</li>
<li>Insisting on more clarity on Trump's Obamacare replacement<br />
</li>
</ul>
All in all it was a pretty amazing and very aggressive performance which got Trump in defense. This might work, as part of Trump's appeal is the fact that he's a winner, the alpha male, especially popular by people who feel downtrodden by the system or people who think America isn't throwing its weight around in the world as it used to. <br />
<br />
However, perhaps there was an element of stage craft here, as suggested by Matthews:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite><span style="color: #000000;" class="mycode_color"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" class="mycode_font">MSNBC's Chris Matthews accuses the Marco Rubio campaign of putting plants in the CNN Republican debate audience to "squeal" and clap enthusiastically "every single time" Rubio said anything. Matthews called it the "most unnatural, phony thing in the world." "I hope people when they watch this know this was all choreographed. It was all part of a P.R. operation," Matthews said Thursday night.</span></span></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/26/chris_matthews_rubio_had_plants_squealing_in_the_audience_unnatural_phony_choreographed.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" class="mycode_font">Chris Matthews: Rubio Had Plants "Squealing" At Debate; "Unnatural," "Phony," "Choreographed" | Video | RealClearPolitics</span></a>]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Wall Street for Rubio]]></title>
			<link>http://rightwingers.org/forums/thread-5.html</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:07:30 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightwingers.org/forums/thread-5.html</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://rooseveltinstitute.org/marco-rubios-radical-alignment-financial-industry/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url"><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">Marco Rubio’s Radical Alignment with the Financial Industry</span></a><br />
[img=719x0]http://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/23231483386_2fc261da29_z.jpg[/img]<br />
<br />
<a href="http://rooseveltinstitute.org/blog/rortybomb/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">RORTYBOMB</a><br />
By Mike Konczal | 02.21.16<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush have been fighting for months in the GOP primaries to be the candidate representing Wall Street, hedge funds and the financial sector. Headlines </span><a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/jeb-bush-marco-rubio-wall-street-2016-214231" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">like</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">“Bush and Rubio race for Wall Street cash” dominated the fall coverage of their campaign, right next to headlines </span><a href="http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/15/news/economy/donald-trump-wall-street/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">like</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> “Donald Trump terrifies Wall Street” with statements like “hedge fund guys didn’t build this country. These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky.”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">With Bush dropping out of the race this weekend, Rubio has won this contest. And with Bush leaving, anyone carrying a quasi-reformist message on the financial sector is also gone. Rubio is both much more in sync with finance on specific issues, and also far more ideologically extreme on issues surrounding the financial sector than Jeb Bush was.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"><br />
Rubio now is the establishment consensus candidate and the best </span><a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-optimists-and-trump-skeptics-are-about-to-go-to-war/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">hope</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> of stopping Trump for the GOP. This framing and coverage will mask how extreme Rubio’s agenda is. As Matt Yglesias </span><a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/2/20/11067932/rubio-worse-than-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">describes</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">, he’s running on “a platform of economic ruin, multiple wars, and an attack on civil liberties that’s nearly as vicious as anything Trump has proposed.” This also extends to finance, especially when compared against Bush on the financial crisis, Dodd-Frank, vulture funds, the Federal Reserve and taxes. According to Rubio….</span><br />
<br />
The Crisis was Government’s, Not Wall-Street’s, Fault<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">Going back years, Rubio has a been </span><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/02/13/no-marco-rubio-government-did-not-cause-the-housing-crisis/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">a big proponent</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> of the idea that government policies, usually ones associated with GSE goals, were responsible for the housing bubble and financial crisis (“In fact, a major cause of our recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies”).</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"><br />
This argument is what Barry Ritholtz calls </span><a href="http://ritholtz.com/2011/11/examining-the-big-lie-how-the-facts-of-the-economic-crisis-stack-up/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">The Big Lie</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">, and it’s the kind of argument that has the American Enterprise Institute </span><a href="https://www.aei.org/publication/the-big-short/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">denouncing</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> the movie The Big Short as fiction. Here’s a summary of why this argument </span><a href="http://rooseveltinstitute.org/six-ways-looking-gops-financial-reform/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">is wrong</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">. For our purposes, less extreme conservatives have danced around this issue without trying to quash it. Keith Hennessey, Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Bill Thomas </span><a href="http://fcic.law.stanford.edu/report" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">refused to endorse it</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> while dissenting in the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. Robert VerBruggen </span><a href="http://www.realclearbooks.com/articles/2015/02/08/did_affordable_housing_tank_the_economy_95.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">politely tries</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> to throw cold water on it without actually burying it at RealClearBooks (this argument is “harder to believe, if ultimately nondisprovable”).</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"><br />
This may seem like an esoteric, academic debate, but if Wall Street played no role in the crisis, then there’s no need for any reforms. Which is where Rubio ends up.</span><br />
<br />
Repeal Dodd-Frank with No Replacement <br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">Jeb Bush has argued that he would repeal Dodd-Frank if he could, but he was also promoting a plan for how to weaken and replace parts of it in accordance with conservative goals. He argued </span><a href="http://rooseveltinstitute.org/six-ways-looking-gops-financial-reform/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">for</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> more capital requirements for the largest banks (“What we ought to do is raise the capital requirements so banks aren’t too big to fail”) while weakening them for smaller firms. He wanted to </span><a href="https://jeb2016.com/the-regulatory-crisis-in-washington/?lang=en" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">target</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> the management and funding structures from the CFPB for dismantling, and be harder on the regulators in general. It was easy to see Bush converging to the position of someone like Rick Perry, who had the most detailed (but still very general) </span><a href="https://rickperry.org/fact-sheet-governor-perry-on-wall-street-reform" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">outline</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> for how he’d tackle regulating Wall Street, an outline that involved weakening Dodd-Frank rather than strictly repealing it.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"><br />
Rubio has no financial reform plans. There are </span><a href="https://marcorubio.com/issues/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">36 [!] detailed “policy issues”</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> on his website, and not a single one is related to financial reform. For someone who is trying to be the ideas-driven candidate, there’s simply nothing about how to regulate Wall Street. There’s simply </span><a href="https://marcorubio.com/news/dodd-frank-cripples-innovation-and-economic-growth/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">a press release</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> saying: “We need to repeal Dodd-Frank,” which he has voted to do numerous times. Each time he’d replace it with nothing. He is vocal in his policy issues section </span><a href="https://marcorubio.com/sidebar-featured/marco-rubio-health-care-obamacare-repeal-replace/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">about having a plan</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> to replace Obamacare after repeal; he has no such plan for Dodd-Frank. This makes perfect sense if you have a very distorted view of what happened in the crisis, one where Wall Street simply didn’t matter.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"><br />
When we do find specifics, they are either more in sync with financial interests directly or reflect an extreme ideology far outside most conservatives’ points of view. This is clear when you compare it to Jeb Bush.</span><br />
<br />
No Bankruptcy for Puerto Rico<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">Jeb Bush has </span><a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-28/bush-says-puerto-rico-agencies-should-have-access-to-bankruptcy" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">argued</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> that Puerto Rico, facing a debt crisis exacerbated by holdout vulture hedge funds, should be able to access bankruptcy. Marco Rubio argues they </span><a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/rubio-puertorico-213332" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">should not</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">. As Casey Tolan of Fusion notes, according to “public campaign-finance documents, at least six executives of hedge funds that hold Puerto Rican debt have donated to Rubio’s presidential campaign.” According </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/us/politics/puerto-rico-money-debt.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">to the New York Times</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">, Rubio “expressed interest this year in sponsoring bankruptcy legislation for the island […] Mr. Rubio’s staff even joined in drafting the bill. But this summer, three weeks after a fund-raiser hosted by a hedge-fund founder, Mr. Rubio broke with those backing the measure.” This is consistent with a much larger AstroTurf and lobbying campaign being waged by hedge funds and financial firms.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">This is a very strong stance, one I believe no other person who has run for the 2016 nomination has taken. It’s also one that aligns with both the practical interests of the hedge funds and their ideological assertion that creditors must be paid in full no matter how much it destroys Puerto Rico, or any other place.</span><br />
<br />
Austere Reworking of the Federal Reserve<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">But this is nothing compared to the Federal Reserve. Rubio </span><a href="http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2016/02/17/rush-transcript-senator-marco-rubiocnn-republican-presidential-town-hall-greenville-sc/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">has said</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> that it’s “not the Fed’s job to stimulate the economy,” when that is exactly what a crucial part of the Federal Reserve’s job is. He went on to say that the Fed’s “job is [to] provide stable currency and I believe [it] should operate on a rules based system.  They would have a very simple rule that determines when interest rates go up and when interests rates goes down.”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"><br />
Changing the Federal Reserve to a single mandate for stable currency, and not for full employment, is something Rubio has </span><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/marco-rubios-terrible-idea-about-the-fed-is-just-what-it-needs/266025/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">advocated since</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> at least 2012. The appointments he’d place on the Federal Reserve would follow this, naturally, radically changing the nature of financial markets to terms far more favorable to those who only care about inflation. Note that this isn’t about “auditing” the Fed, or better governance reform, or an argument that policy should be tighter than it is, which are all things people are currently fighting about when it comes to the Federal Reserve. This would be a massive change to the mission of the Fed, one that would empower the financial industry, since it would align monetary policy directly with its interests and disempower anyone who cares about full employment.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">I can’t find anything about Jeb Bush taking extreme opinions on the Federal Reserve and neither could </span><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/121077/2016-gop-candidates-have-rand-pauls-views-federal-reserve" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">other people</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> looking for it. It’s certainly not the major focus it is for Rubio. No doubt Bush would have been more hawkish than the current situation, but being more hawkish and what Rubio wants to do are totally different projects.</span><br />
<br />
Eliminate Taxes For Capital Owner<br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">Marco Rubio’s original family-friendly tax cut policy was </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/17/upshot/rubio-tax-cut-got-bigger-and-bigger.html?_r=0" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">quickly expanded</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> once questioned by the guardians of conservative supply-side orthodoxy. Most notably, he would eliminate all taxes on incomes from capital gains and dividends. This income from holding financial assets is incredibly concentrated at the top. As Josh Barro notes, Rubio’s tax plan “would raise incomes for the top one-thousandth of taxpayers by 8.9 percent — that is, an average tax cut of more than &#36;900,000 per year — because of its sharp cuts in tax rates on business income and capital income.”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"><br />
Besides the massive distributional implications, this has consequences for finance’s power over the real economy. A lot of people are </span><a href="http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-16/the-next-big-idea-in-economic-growth" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">looking</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> at the influence of the financial sector and the issue of “short-termism,” or the extensive prioritization of dividend and buyback payments to shareholders over real investments. Independent of its effects in driving inequality, Rubio’s removal of any taxes on dividends and capital gains would certainly scale this issue. As Danny Yagan has </span><a href="http://rooseveltinstitute.org/2003-dividend-tax-cut-did-nothing-help-real-economy/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">found</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">, the substantial cuts to dividends passed by the George W. Bush administration didn’t boost investment. It did, however, boost dividends, something </span><a href="http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/120/3/791.short" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">other research</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> in finance has found. If you are worried that corporations prioritizing payouts instead of investments is a challenge to our economy, taking the extreme act of eliminating taxes on dividends and capital gains would send that spiraling.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"><br />
The establishment “lane” has gone to Marco Rubio. We’ll soon find out if he’s capable of beating Donald Trump. But either way, that lane has become far more radical, and far more in sync with financial wealth, than anyone should have expected a year ago.</span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="http://rooseveltinstitute.org/marco-rubios-radical-alignment-financial-industry/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url"><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">Marco Rubio’s Radical Alignment with the Financial Industry</span></a><br />
[img=719x0]http://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/23231483386_2fc261da29_z.jpg[/img]<br />
<br />
<a href="http://rooseveltinstitute.org/blog/rortybomb/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">RORTYBOMB</a><br />
By Mike Konczal | 02.21.16<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush have been fighting for months in the GOP primaries to be the candidate representing Wall Street, hedge funds and the financial sector. Headlines </span><a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/jeb-bush-marco-rubio-wall-street-2016-214231" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">like</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">“Bush and Rubio race for Wall Street cash” dominated the fall coverage of their campaign, right next to headlines </span><a href="http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/15/news/economy/donald-trump-wall-street/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">like</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> “Donald Trump terrifies Wall Street” with statements like “hedge fund guys didn’t build this country. These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky.”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">With Bush dropping out of the race this weekend, Rubio has won this contest. And with Bush leaving, anyone carrying a quasi-reformist message on the financial sector is also gone. Rubio is both much more in sync with finance on specific issues, and also far more ideologically extreme on issues surrounding the financial sector than Jeb Bush was.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"><br />
Rubio now is the establishment consensus candidate and the best </span><a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-optimists-and-trump-skeptics-are-about-to-go-to-war/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">hope</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> of stopping Trump for the GOP. This framing and coverage will mask how extreme Rubio’s agenda is. As Matt Yglesias </span><a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/2/20/11067932/rubio-worse-than-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">describes</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">, he’s running on “a platform of economic ruin, multiple wars, and an attack on civil liberties that’s nearly as vicious as anything Trump has proposed.” This also extends to finance, especially when compared against Bush on the financial crisis, Dodd-Frank, vulture funds, the Federal Reserve and taxes. According to Rubio….</span><br />
<br />
The Crisis was Government’s, Not Wall-Street’s, Fault<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">Going back years, Rubio has a been </span><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/02/13/no-marco-rubio-government-did-not-cause-the-housing-crisis/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">a big proponent</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> of the idea that government policies, usually ones associated with GSE goals, were responsible for the housing bubble and financial crisis (“In fact, a major cause of our recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies”).</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"><br />
This argument is what Barry Ritholtz calls </span><a href="http://ritholtz.com/2011/11/examining-the-big-lie-how-the-facts-of-the-economic-crisis-stack-up/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">The Big Lie</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">, and it’s the kind of argument that has the American Enterprise Institute </span><a href="https://www.aei.org/publication/the-big-short/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">denouncing</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> the movie The Big Short as fiction. Here’s a summary of why this argument </span><a href="http://rooseveltinstitute.org/six-ways-looking-gops-financial-reform/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">is wrong</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">. For our purposes, less extreme conservatives have danced around this issue without trying to quash it. Keith Hennessey, Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Bill Thomas </span><a href="http://fcic.law.stanford.edu/report" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">refused to endorse it</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> while dissenting in the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. Robert VerBruggen </span><a href="http://www.realclearbooks.com/articles/2015/02/08/did_affordable_housing_tank_the_economy_95.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">politely tries</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> to throw cold water on it without actually burying it at RealClearBooks (this argument is “harder to believe, if ultimately nondisprovable”).</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"><br />
This may seem like an esoteric, academic debate, but if Wall Street played no role in the crisis, then there’s no need for any reforms. Which is where Rubio ends up.</span><br />
<br />
Repeal Dodd-Frank with No Replacement <br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">Jeb Bush has argued that he would repeal Dodd-Frank if he could, but he was also promoting a plan for how to weaken and replace parts of it in accordance with conservative goals. He argued </span><a href="http://rooseveltinstitute.org/six-ways-looking-gops-financial-reform/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">for</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> more capital requirements for the largest banks (“What we ought to do is raise the capital requirements so banks aren’t too big to fail”) while weakening them for smaller firms. He wanted to </span><a href="https://jeb2016.com/the-regulatory-crisis-in-washington/?lang=en" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">target</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> the management and funding structures from the CFPB for dismantling, and be harder on the regulators in general. It was easy to see Bush converging to the position of someone like Rick Perry, who had the most detailed (but still very general) </span><a href="https://rickperry.org/fact-sheet-governor-perry-on-wall-street-reform" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">outline</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> for how he’d tackle regulating Wall Street, an outline that involved weakening Dodd-Frank rather than strictly repealing it.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"><br />
Rubio has no financial reform plans. There are </span><a href="https://marcorubio.com/issues/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">36 [!] detailed “policy issues”</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> on his website, and not a single one is related to financial reform. For someone who is trying to be the ideas-driven candidate, there’s simply nothing about how to regulate Wall Street. There’s simply </span><a href="https://marcorubio.com/news/dodd-frank-cripples-innovation-and-economic-growth/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">a press release</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> saying: “We need to repeal Dodd-Frank,” which he has voted to do numerous times. Each time he’d replace it with nothing. He is vocal in his policy issues section </span><a href="https://marcorubio.com/sidebar-featured/marco-rubio-health-care-obamacare-repeal-replace/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">about having a plan</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> to replace Obamacare after repeal; he has no such plan for Dodd-Frank. This makes perfect sense if you have a very distorted view of what happened in the crisis, one where Wall Street simply didn’t matter.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"><br />
When we do find specifics, they are either more in sync with financial interests directly or reflect an extreme ideology far outside most conservatives’ points of view. This is clear when you compare it to Jeb Bush.</span><br />
<br />
No Bankruptcy for Puerto Rico<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">Jeb Bush has </span><a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-28/bush-says-puerto-rico-agencies-should-have-access-to-bankruptcy" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">argued</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> that Puerto Rico, facing a debt crisis exacerbated by holdout vulture hedge funds, should be able to access bankruptcy. Marco Rubio argues they </span><a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/rubio-puertorico-213332" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">should not</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">. As Casey Tolan of Fusion notes, according to “public campaign-finance documents, at least six executives of hedge funds that hold Puerto Rican debt have donated to Rubio’s presidential campaign.” According </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/us/politics/puerto-rico-money-debt.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">to the New York Times</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">, Rubio “expressed interest this year in sponsoring bankruptcy legislation for the island […] Mr. Rubio’s staff even joined in drafting the bill. But this summer, three weeks after a fund-raiser hosted by a hedge-fund founder, Mr. Rubio broke with those backing the measure.” This is consistent with a much larger AstroTurf and lobbying campaign being waged by hedge funds and financial firms.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">This is a very strong stance, one I believe no other person who has run for the 2016 nomination has taken. It’s also one that aligns with both the practical interests of the hedge funds and their ideological assertion that creditors must be paid in full no matter how much it destroys Puerto Rico, or any other place.</span><br />
<br />
Austere Reworking of the Federal Reserve<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">But this is nothing compared to the Federal Reserve. Rubio </span><a href="http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2016/02/17/rush-transcript-senator-marco-rubiocnn-republican-presidential-town-hall-greenville-sc/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">has said</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> that it’s “not the Fed’s job to stimulate the economy,” when that is exactly what a crucial part of the Federal Reserve’s job is. He went on to say that the Fed’s “job is [to] provide stable currency and I believe [it] should operate on a rules based system.  They would have a very simple rule that determines when interest rates go up and when interests rates goes down.”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"><br />
Changing the Federal Reserve to a single mandate for stable currency, and not for full employment, is something Rubio has </span><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/marco-rubios-terrible-idea-about-the-fed-is-just-what-it-needs/266025/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">advocated since</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> at least 2012. The appointments he’d place on the Federal Reserve would follow this, naturally, radically changing the nature of financial markets to terms far more favorable to those who only care about inflation. Note that this isn’t about “auditing” the Fed, or better governance reform, or an argument that policy should be tighter than it is, which are all things people are currently fighting about when it comes to the Federal Reserve. This would be a massive change to the mission of the Fed, one that would empower the financial industry, since it would align monetary policy directly with its interests and disempower anyone who cares about full employment.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">I can’t find anything about Jeb Bush taking extreme opinions on the Federal Reserve and neither could </span><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/121077/2016-gop-candidates-have-rand-pauls-views-federal-reserve" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">other people</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> looking for it. It’s certainly not the major focus it is for Rubio. No doubt Bush would have been more hawkish than the current situation, but being more hawkish and what Rubio wants to do are totally different projects.</span><br />
<br />
Eliminate Taxes For Capital Owner<br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">Marco Rubio’s original family-friendly tax cut policy was </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/17/upshot/rubio-tax-cut-got-bigger-and-bigger.html?_r=0" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">quickly expanded</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> once questioned by the guardians of conservative supply-side orthodoxy. Most notably, he would eliminate all taxes on incomes from capital gains and dividends. This income from holding financial assets is incredibly concentrated at the top. As Josh Barro notes, Rubio’s tax plan “would raise incomes for the top one-thousandth of taxpayers by 8.9 percent — that is, an average tax cut of more than &#36;900,000 per year — because of its sharp cuts in tax rates on business income and capital income.”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"><br />
Besides the massive distributional implications, this has consequences for finance’s power over the real economy. A lot of people are </span><a href="http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-16/the-next-big-idea-in-economic-growth" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">looking</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> at the influence of the financial sector and the issue of “short-termism,” or the extensive prioritization of dividend and buyback payments to shareholders over real investments. Independent of its effects in driving inequality, Rubio’s removal of any taxes on dividends and capital gains would certainly scale this issue. As Danny Yagan has </span><a href="http://rooseveltinstitute.org/2003-dividend-tax-cut-did-nothing-help-real-economy/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">found</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">, the substantial cuts to dividends passed by the George W. Bush administration didn’t boost investment. It did, however, boost dividends, something </span><a href="http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/120/3/791.short" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">other research</a><span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"> in finance has found. If you are worried that corporations prioritizing payouts instead of investments is a challenge to our economy, taking the extreme act of eliminating taxes on dividends and capital gains would send that spiraling.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size"><br />
The establishment “lane” has gone to Marco Rubio. We’ll soon find out if he’s capable of beating Donald Trump. But either way, that lane has become far more radical, and far more in sync with financial wealth, than anyone should have expected a year ago.</span>]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>