Republicans pandered to the birther movement. During the 2010 campaign, Marco Rubio refused to say whether or not President Barack Obama was an American citizen. It is a simple yes or no question that Rubio refused to answer out of fear of angering the tea party. It is fitting that the conservative conspiracy theory web site World Net Daily is now questioning Rubio's citizenship.
Rubio's press secretary Alex Burgos told WND the senator's parents "were permanent legal residents of the U.S." at the time Marco was born in Florida in 1971.
Then four years after Marco was born, "Mario and Oriales Rubio became naturalized U.S. citizens on Nov. 5, 1975," Burgos indicated.
When asked specifically if Sen. Rubio considered himself to be a natural-born citizen, Burgos responded, "Yes."
The Constitution mandates a presidential candidate to be a natural-born citizen, a requirement that has dogged Obama since the 2008 campaign.
I don't feel sorry for Rubio for having to endure this nonsense. That said, the attacks on Rubio's citizenship are baseless.
The Republican Party played to the most crazy people in their base. That is now coming back to bite them in the ass.
More Marco Rubio Economoc Nonsense: Social Security Edition
Alex Burgos of the Marco Rubio campaign went way off the message by telling blogger and Miami Herald columnist Joy-Ann Reid that Rubio supports privatization of Social Security. Rubio would later run away from supporting privatization of Social Security. Read copies of the emails below and click to enlarge.
Reid explains that Rubio hasn't been honest about his position on Social Security.
Here was my inquiry on February 3rd of this year, regarding Marco Rubio’s view on Social Security privatization, and Mr. Burgos’ on the record response. I was asking Burgos to respond to Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling’s call to turn Social Security over to the private sector and cutting benefits, so again, the question was specifically about privatizing the program:
RUBIO: Anyone telling you that we shouldn’t touch [Social Security], they are going to play tricky political games, they’re going to go around saying that I’m in favor of privatizing it, or raising the retirement age on current beneficiaries —
CAVUTO: But you are open to privatizing it, sir?
RUBIO: No, I think for that — no I’m not. That time has come and gone.
CAVUTO: What about for young guys like you who could take some of the money and put it in the market?
RUBIO: The problem is that it takes money — it makes it more difficult to balance the system in the long term.
CAVUTO: Do you’d be against it?
RUBIO: Yeah, I don’t think that’s the solution.
Allowing future retirees to invest Social Security taxes into the stock and bond market does nothing to address the funding needs for current or future retirees who wish to stay in the government Social Security Trust Fund. An AARP study found changing over the current Social Security system to private accounts would cost $600 billion - $3 trillion. Recipients of private account would either get less or a negative return. The Wall Street meltdown of 2008 shows how asinine an idea private accounts are.
There are a few factors for conservatives push to privatization. Conservatives hate the successful programs of the New Deal. Interest groups in the financial sector would greatly benefit from the influx of Social Security money into the stock and bond market. Conservatives needed an expert to tell them what they hear They found an unlikely ally in José Piñera.
Piñera was the architect of Chile's private pension plan under the government of Augusto Pinochet. The lattter is noted for abusing the human rights of Chileans. The New York Times reported "3,200 people were executed or disappeared, and scores of thousands more were detained and tortured or exiled." Chile's private pension system was filled with corruption and underfunded by younger workers wisely choosing not to enter the system. To make matters worse, Chile's private retirement system is expensive.
At the moment, the government pays about 5 percent of gross domestic product, or more than it spends for either health or education, on pensions for the poor, payments into a separate military retirement plan and so-called transition and administrative costs. Supporters of the privatized system argue that the state's burden will diminish as older retirees enrolled in the pay-as-you-go system that prevailed here before 1981 gradually die off.
But skeptics point to another developing problem: many young people, who should be enrolling in the system early to accrue maximum benefit, are staying out or paying in very little. Some cannot afford to contribute beyond the obligatory minimum payment, which is 10 percent of wages, while others are either self-employed or have been hired by companies as low-paid independent contract workers and therefore do not have to contribute at all.
"The bottom line is that this system does not work with this labor market," said Andras Uthoff, an economist who is director of the social development division of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America here. If trends continue, he added, "only a small percentage of people are going to be able to finance meaningful pensions. What happens then to the rest?"
The Social Security Trust Fund is projected to run out in 2041. Social Security is much more stable than the faulty accounting that is the Department of Defense budget. Conservatives want to trade a retirement fund that has lifted million of Americans out of poverty for a failed banana Republic system. From a fiscal policy standpoint it makes no sense. From a purely cynical profit and greed motive it becomes easier to understand why conservatives want the Chile system.
Side note: the AARP study and reports on Chile's private accounts debunk Milton Friedman's claim that movement Socail Security accounts to private accounts is a "myth."
Brain surgeon David McKalip received a great deal of news coverage for his racist email. McKalip sent an email of President Barack Obama dressed as a witch doctor to several groups. McKalip quickly became a source of controversy for the Marco Rubio campaign. McKalip went into damage control and issued an apology.
"I recognize that this image is offensive and hope that the nation refocuses on assuring all Americans have access to high-quality, affordable health care with no party interfering in the patient-physician relationship," the apology said.
McKalip said the email does not reflect his racial views. That is rather hard to swallow.
The Marco Rubio campaign has refused to say if McKalip will continue to act as a fundraiser.
"Speaker Rubio believes there are more appropriate, civil, and substantial ways to make your point about President Obama's policies," said the spokesman, Alex Burgos. But pressed on whether Rubio would continue to work with McKalip, Burgos wouldn't say. "I don't have an answer right now," he told us.
If Rubio isn't smart enough to distance himself from McKalip then he isn't ready for prime-time.
