A response to MSNBC's hit job on Marco Rubio

An MSNBC article titled, "Rubio Makes His Case Against The Paycheck Fairness Act," on first glance, seems like a reasonable piece of journalism. The title, in the way it is phrased, suggests the author will present a non-biased review of Rubio's arguments followed with quotes from experts supporting and opposing his viewpoints. 

Unfortunately, it isn't that at all. 

Let's get right to the arguments the article makes and refute them piece by piece. 

Rubio's argument goes like this: We already have laws on the books preventing discrimination, any pay gap we have must be non-discrimination related because paying women less is already illegal, therefore, new legislation is not only redundant but unnecessary. Sound like a reasonable position? I think so. 

But MSNBC says this, "Rubio has had years to come up with a proper defense for his position, and the fact that this is the best he can come up with is a little surprising." 

What? Rubio made a good argument. If it is already illegal to pay women less than men, then any new legislation is unnecessary red-tape. Unless the author can demonstrate this law would significantly change current law--something the author does not do--then we must assume Rubio's argument is correct. (Indeed, if you read the Equal Pay Act of 1963, you will see that Rubio's statements are true). 

Quoting the New York Times, the article states "enhance the remedies available for victims of gender-based discrimination and require employers to show that wage differences are job-related, not sex-based, and driven by business necessity. The measure would also protect employees from retaliation for sharing salary information, which is important for deterring and challenging discriminatory compensation."

This statement seems to argue the new law would protect women's rights. But as noted above, they already are protected. But this argument also also assumes a pay gap between women and men exists and is caused by discrimination. Unfortunately for MSNBC, no such gap exists. 

The St. Louis Federal Reserve bank has reviewed the literature and concluded that the pay gap is smaller than liberals suggest. If you take into account relevant factors--total compensation instead of wages (total compensation includes insurance and other benefits), educational choices, career choices, and other factors not related to discrimination--the pay gap is extremely small. 

The BLS report liberals frequently cite when claiming women make 77 cents per every dollar a man earns is also total bunk. The report itself offers a germane caveat, the report does "not control for many factors that can be significant in explaining earnings differences." (emphasis added) This statistic is media manipulation--that's it. 

Another study concluded, "the gender gap largely stems from choices made by women and men concerning the amount of time and energy devoted to a career, as reflected in years of work experience, utilization of part-time work, and other workplace and job characteristics." 

So, to sum it up, Rubio is in the right on this issue for a few reasons. 

(1) We already have laws banning discrimination. He is right to assert any new laws would be redundant and unnecessary. 
(2) The "pay gap" is a myth. It is not caused by discrimination; rather, it is caused by lifestyle choices. The law doesn't prevent women from becoming teachers instead of lawyers or working part time over full time. Even the research liberals cite to prove their claims say the data doesn't necessarily prove discrimination is an economy-wide problem. 

Does discrimination happen? Yes, and it is tragic when it happens. Those people should--and under current law, already can--be punished, but there is no need to pass unnecessary laws. The wage gap is a media myth created to pander to women for votes. People who spread this myth should be ashamed--lying about public policy that affects millions is never acceptable. This hit job of a piece against Rubio is not real journalism, and again exposes MSNBC for what it really is: the left's superPAC. 

(And yes, I stole the last line from Rubio). 

We must reauthorize the ExIm Bank: A Response to Graber

My friend John Graber has just published an article opposing the reauthorization of the ExIm bank. I understand his frustration. I am not a fan of corporate welfare, and in a perfect world the ExIm bank would not exist. But this world is not perfect. The simple fact is, the ExIm bank is an important part of our economy, and not authorizing it would be a big mistake. 

(1) Is ExIm corporate welfare?

To a degree, yes. Any subsidization, to businesses big or small, is corporate welfare. But Graber, citing former Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich and Republican Representative Jim Jordan, describes the ExIm bank as "slush fund for a handful of well-connected megacorporations." This is simply untrue. In fact, 89% of ExIm authorizations went to small businesses. 

It is true that large companies receive more money from ExIm than do smaller businesses, but this statistic is meaningless. Big companies have different needs than small ones. Larger companies have much larger projects that they need to be funded. 

So, technically the answer is yes, but small businesses benefit just as much--if not moreso--than larger companies using ExIm loans. 

(2) ExIm too small to help economy? Does it hurt it?

Graber argues ExIm support helps only about 2% of trade, and of that help, it all goes to big corporations. For this reason, ExIm doesn't help the economy, and it may hurt it. This is not true. 

As I already noted, ExIm benefits many small businesses; but, the claim that ExIm is too small is a weak argument. ExIm is not meant to be a large part of trade. It is supposed to operate on the periphery. According to the Lexington Institute, "Although Ex-Im credit only supports a small share of U.S. exports, it has a disproportionate impact on job creation and GDP growth due to the leverage it gives exporters." Indeed, the report discusses how ExIm has drastically benefited Boeing. While foreign companies have ExIm-like banks much larger than ours, and benefit from other subsidies, the small amount of help ExIm provides to them drastically increases their staying power. Graber points to airline industries suffering under ExIm, but Boeing has hugely benefited. His job loss statistic is simply cherry picking and fails to look at the whole picture. If job growth is taken into account--job growth in industries that benefit from ExIm--the Lexington Institute notes that 20,000 jobs have been saved because of ExIm. This outweighs the 7,500 losses Graber points to. 

As foreign companies benefit from their foreign governments' subsidies and similar export banks, abolishing our own would actually make it a lot worse. 

ExIm is necessary for trade

According to the American Action Forum, "27 countries require support from an export credit agency before even considering a bid for a project from an American company. Those countries account for 40 percent of the world’s population and over 10 percent of global GDP. Without Ex-Im, U.S. companies can’t compete for project contracts in these countries, and that takes a huge toll on business."

Abolishing the ExIm bank would significantly reduce US exports. 

ExIm isn't perfect. If other countries didn't have these types of banks, I would favor abolishing it. Unfortunately, ExIm is necessary for global competitiveness. With China spending 8 times more in export subsidies than our bank, abolishing ExIm would further endanger our industries. 

Current 2016 predictions

Using the RCP demographic calculator, I have attempted to model what the election results would be with different GOP candidates. I assume the democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton. 

Trump

Whites: I slightly increases Trump's victory margin among whites and give him 61%, but leave turnout at the same level as the 2012 election. 
Hispanics: As Trump has a 14% favorable rating among Hispanics, but 79% are familiar with him, I am generous and give him 20% of the Hispanic vote BUT I increase turnout as his comments against Mexicans will likely make them angry and drive them to the polls. 
Blacks: I increase black turnout because they have had an increasing turnout level since 2000 even before Obama ran for office. I keep his share of Black voters the same as Romney's -- 11%. 
Asians: I lower Asian support for Trump versus Romney by 1% to 30%. I keep turnout the same. 

Trump loses 157 - 381 and only garners 45.3% of the popular vote. 



Although I doubt Texas would go blue still, the overall projection looks reasonable. 

Bush

Whites: With only a 37% favorability rating among GOP voters, I actually lower his share of the white vote to 60%, but as it is a non-midterm presidential election, I slightly increase white voter turnout. 
Hispanics: Bush actually has a decent favorability rating with hispanics, currently the best in the field, so I give him 40% of the Hispanic vote -- his brother got 44% in 2004, and as Jeb can speak fluent Spanish, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. I slightly increase Hispanic turnout to 50%. 
Blacks: At least Jeb Bush is trying when it comes to African Americans. I give him a modest boost, but nothing significant: he gets 15% of the black vote, again turnout increases because it is part of a long-term trend.
Asians: I leave Asian turnout and percent the same as 2012. 

Jeb Bush loses 266 - 272, but interestingly he wins the popular vote 50.3 - 49.7, however, this is too small a difference to say he would win the popular vote. For all intents and purposes, the PV is tied. 

Marco Rubio

Whites: I increase Rubio's portion of the white vote to 62%, as he is a dynamic candidate who I believe would be able to win more whites despite his ethnic difference. I also slightly increase white voter turnout to 65%. 
Hispanics: While Rubio's favorability among Hispanics is slightly lower than Jeb Bush, I give him a larger percent of the Hispanic vote. His fluency in Spanish is the same as Bush, but being able to tell his story of rising from nothing will resonate among Hispanic voters because he grew up in the same situation as they have (or are currently living). I think Rubio could win 50% of the Hispanic vote, but I give him 45% as I don't want to overestimate. I also increase Hispanic turnout to 50% as those that do vote for Rubio may do so to make history--he would benefit from the same thing Obama benefited from in 2008. 
Blacks: I don't see Rubio winning over many African American voters. I increase turnout to 68% to follow the historical trends. I give Rubio a slight boost -- 10% of the African American vote (compared to 6% for Romney) simply because Rubio is much more talented than any GOP candidate since Reagan. 
Asians: I leave Asian turnout and percent the same as 2012. 

Rubio wins 300 - 238, and wins the popular vote 51.6% to Hillary's 48.4%. However, this simulation gave Rubio PA, which is debatable, so assuming he loses PA he wins 285 - 253, a more reasonable prediction. 

Rubio seems to do best with my assumptions. The tool is linked above, so you can make your own predictions -- tell me what you think!

Rubio's energy plan is right on target

An article published in New York Magazine calls Rubio's energy ideas "terrifyingly stupid." To prove this point, the author outlines five weaknesses in Rubio's energy positions in order to prove that Rubio is a dangerous man (and he is... if you're a democrat, that is.)

1) "Rubio’s speech attempts to weave together two themes. The first is that the Obama administration’s environmental regulations are strangling the energy industry. The second is that the energy industry is developing brilliant new innovations that are creating new jobs and affordable energy for the economy. At no point does Rubio grapple with, or even acknowledge, the tension between these two strands of thought."

These two ideas are not contradictory. Now it is true Obama has drastically increased the number of regulations strangling the energy industry. Obama's regulations cost $80 billion annually. So the author makes a good point: then why is the energy industry booming?

It is booming in spite of these regulations. Indeed, growth would likely have been higher had Obama not increased the amount of red tape. Indeed, the oil boom was created first in 2005 when breakthrough energy technologies were created and made fracking more efficient. Over time, as these technologies became more widespread, productivity increased. These discoveries came about before Obama piled on the bureaucracy (of course, regulations existed in 2005, but at a much lower level).

It should also be noted that Rubio doesn't oppose all regulations--only new Federal ones. In fact, states already regulate fracking. There is no point in creating redundant regulations at the Federal level. Proper regulations can benefit growth--Rubio opposes the inefficient ones.

So...
The views are not contradictory because Obama's regulations are bad... and...
The industry grew in spite of regulations, and it boomed before Obama's new rules, and...
States already regulate fracking, so it makes no sense to have more regulations on a Federal level that would just complicate things.

2) "Rubio asserts that Hillary Clinton opposes this technology... This is false."

Clinton wants to ban fracking on public lands. And while she takes a moderate stance on fracking overall, she supports regulating it significantly. So, yes, she is pretty much against it.


3) "The central policy proposal in Rubio’s speech is to “immediately stop the Clean Power Plan.” Rubio has cast doubt on the validity of climate science."


(1) Of course we should stop it. There are better ways to combat climate change. First, institute a pigou tax. This raises the gas tax significantly BUT cuts payroll taxes, so the net-effect fewer taxes because people simply buy less gas, but they get to keep more of their overall paycheck. Economist Greg Mankiw, Bush's adviser and former head of the Harvard economics department, is a proponent of pigou taxes. The alternative is Obama's Clean Power Plan... that will cost the economy $479 billion, cause energy bills to increase by double digits, and cause 19 million Hispanics to lose their jobs. Which sounds better? Opposing the Clean Power Plan is good economics. And there are alternatives should Rubio decide to take action. 

(2) I have to disagree with Rubio on denying climate science. It is 100% true. Now, even if the US ended all CO2 emissions we wouldn't do that much, so being a climate skeptic isn't that dangerous. 

(3) Rubio supports nuclear power, essentially a CO2-free energy source. Oh, and evil fracking has caused America's emissions to fall to the lowest point in 20 years. So, yep, Rubio is so evil, reducing greenhouse gasses while growing the economy. 

So no, this doesn't make him crazy eithe. 

4) "He praises fossil fuels on the grounds that we’re sitting on all this energy, so we might as well use it. ... [T]urn Rubio’s logic completely around: All that solar and wind energy does the people no good if we don’t harness it."

Here is the difference: oil and gas actually work. Solar and wind are intermittent power sources, meaning they don't always provide power. When they are unable to do so--because there is no wind or it is night time--you need other, more conventional, sources to fill in the gaps. So nuclear, coal, or natural gas. Simply put, solar and wind are inherently unable to provide for our energy needs. Natural gas and nuclear can, and they both would drastically cut emissions in this country while simultaneously growing the economy.

5) "On energy, and many other issues, Rubio’s policy vision — like that of his fellow Republicans — is to overturn Obama-era reforms and restore Bush-era policy priorities."

The author literally gives no proof for this. It is just an assertion. But Rubio is not just George Bush. Rubio's tax plan is an entire redo of the tax system, Bush just cut tax rates. 

Rubio's plan can be summarized like this, "Rubio would ensure that we are deploying and developing the resources we already have, by allowing states and tribes to develop energy resources within their borders; approving the Keystone XL pipeline; lifting the ban on crude oil exports and expedite the approval of natural gas exports; streamlining offshore drilling regulations; and other measures."

-- Bush never ended the ban on oil exports. 

-- Bush didn't have the opportunity to allow the Keystone XL pipeline. It didn't exist yet. 

-- Bush actually passed many energy regulations, whereas Rubio gives that role to the states. 

Nice try, NY Mag, but Rubio isn't Bush lite. 

________

Rubio is not "crazy." His energy policies are what America needs to do in order to bring us a new American century. 

Learning Wage: A published idea

I have published the idea in my local paper.
http://www.abqjournal.com/658359/opinion/learning-wage-would-help-teens-many-ways.html

Rubio's deception? A response to Rubio's critics

A blogger who calls herself 'kelly' has written an article titled: Refresher: Rubio's Deceptions. The article tries to pin Rubio for deception the public, and argues that his Gang of 8 immigration reform bill would harm the country. The article contains multiple errors, fallacies, and is an extremely shoddy piece of journalism. 

FALSE CLAIM #1: Immigration Reform Would Cost Trillions

Kelly writes, "Rubio’s scheme allowed illegal aliens to be legalized immediately. All at a huge cost to the US taxpayer." The source cited is the Heritage Foundation

The problem is that Heritage's report is totally wrong. Heritage uses something called "static scoring," and the Heritage Foundation knows better. Conservatives, especially at the Heritage Foundation, have been urging the adoption of something called "dynamic scoring." The issue arose when government revenue projections for tax cuts showed massive losses, when in reality these losses are likely smaller. The reason is that static-scoring does not take into account secondary and tertiary effects, like economic growth, that would come to fruition from effective tax reform. Static scoring assumes that everything--except taxes--would continue being the same, or stay static. Of course, this is a foolish assumption: in the case of taxes, most things in the economy will rearrange because incentives are changing. 

The same goes for immigration. Heritage, assuming no positive impacts from immigration, is ridiculous! The Heritage model, assuming ceteris paribus, literally makes no sense--by definition, immigration changes everything. Immigration, both legal and illegal, means more consumers, entrepreneurs, and laborers. So the Heritage report must be ignored, and data that uses dynamic estimate should be preferred. 

The Heritage report finds a net-negative in the trillions, which is hugely unrealistic. A CBO report, on the other hand, only found that deficits would decrease if we implemented Rubio's reform. The CBO found that Rubio's S. 744 would "lead to a net savings of about $135 billion over the 2014-2023." A study by the conservative American Action Forum found that comprehensive immigration reform would reduce the deficit by $2.4 trillion over the long-term, using dynamic estimates. 

Conservative columnist Jason L. Riley(in his book, Let Them In), who is not sympathetic to the liberal cause, cites researchers chiding Heritage's simplistic and idiotic model. Rector, the author of the Heratige report, simply compares how much immigrants pay in taxes to the amount of money they receive through social services. But it does not follow that paying less in taxes at any one point means you are a net-fiscal drain. If immigrants create new jobs through their economic impact, creating taxable wealth elsewhere, they are a net-positive using accurate dynamic analysis. The Heritage report, relying on static analysis, is just crazy!

If immigration increases the size of the economy, immigration reform would increase economic growth, leading to higher taxable incomes and more revenue. There is an abundance of evidence demonstrating the positive effects of immigration, both legal and illegal (and even if illegal immigration was bad, making them all legal would be a net-positive, because the typical conservative cop out is "oh, I support legal immigration only." But legalizing them would make them legal! As a conservative myself, the repulsion of anything pro-immigrant in right-of-center circles alarms me.) According to an American Action Forum study, if we were to deport every illegal immigrant in the country, GDP would shrink by an alarming $1.6 trillion. The impact immigrants have on the economy is huge. 

This claim is debunked. Rubio's immigration plan would not increase the deficit--it would likely reduce it!

FALLACY #1: Grover Norquist supports Rubio's plan, and he supports Jihad!!

The links between Norquist and Islamic extremism is tentative at best, and relies on a lot of unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories. Whether or not these claims are true is irrelevant: this ad hominem, and also genetic fallacy, is just that: a fallacy. The conclusion derived from this is illogical. 

Ad Hominem: Personal attack. Accusing Norquist of being a Jihadist is a personal attack. 

Genetic Fallacy: Simply because Norquist may (but probably isn't) be related to Islamic extremism does not, by itself, disprove his claims. Simply because Kelly doesn't like Norquist does not make him automatically wrong. 

She should try using real arguments rather than slander.

**Kelly goes on listing all the special interest groups supporting the bill... which is pretty much irrelevant. It begs the question: does this invalidate the bills plausible effectiveness? Of course not. She ignores other groups, like the CIS, FAIRUS, and NumbersUSA that combated these bills to the death. And I will provide a genetic fallacy of my own, but unlike hers it is substantiated: Most anti-immigration groups have ties to white supremecist groups.)

FALLACY #2: Rubio is a Lobbyist

Kelly writes, "from 1997 to 2005 Rubio himself, was a lobbyist."

Not true. Politifact wrote an article on this claim, and rated it barely true. As their article argues, "[Rubio's] work was not what we traditionally think of as lobbying -- the Gucci-wearing attorney who seeks to influence the state Legislature or Congress. He worked at the local level, primarily on zoning matters." 

Rubio was merely a lawyer representing his clients, and the line of work required him to sign up as a lobbyist, Politifact notes. This claim is untrue, and it is labeled a fallacy because of its fallacious nature: it is an ad hominem (as they equate being a lobyist with something bad.) 

FALLACY #3: Rubio is McCain with an "accent."

This statement, that "He is John McCain with an ‘accent’" infuriates me. What a racist, xenophobic, uneducated thing to say. Although the sentence does not say it directly, but it directly attacks Rubio's heritage as something to be ashamed of. I am half Puerto Rican, my mother's first language was Spanish, and my Grandparents have accents. They are twice as intelligent and caring as this Kelly character seems to be up to now. His heritage is nothing to be ashamed of--our country was built upon multiculturalism, and attitudes like hers belong back in the dark ages. 

The way she finishes the sentence is even worse, "and without a military record of crashing planes." Wow. Just wow. Another ad hominem. 

You know what, I am going to be guilty of the same crime, but this lady deserves it. 



Insulting McCain's war record is cowardly and totally wrong. This lady is overflowing with lunacy. 

FALSE CLAIM #2: Amnesty is against the rule of law

Kelly seems to fulminate against amnesty on the grounds that it legalizes a crime. Immigration, she argues, is a crime. 

But what she forgets is that we, as a society, should not enforce unjust laws. Jury nullification is an integral part of our legal system. Jury nullification occurs when a jury member votes not-guilty on the grounds that he or she sees the law as unjust, not on the grounds of innocence or guilt. During prohibition, 60% of cases brought before court for manufacturing or consuming alcohol was defeated by jury nullification. If we are to take Kelly's position seriously, it would be wrong to have given amnesty to those who drank alcohol during prohibition, and all of those who partook in jury nullification are monsters. This is obviously untrue. We have no obligation to enforce unjust laws; the mere act of immigration is not immoral and is a victim-less crime. 

Amnesty, it should be noted, is more like a plea bargain. according to Rubio's bill, immigrants wishing to become naturalized would have to pay a $1000 fine, rather than being deported under the status quo. They are still punished for commingling a crime by breaking our immigration laws, but by presumably admitting their guilt by signing up for permanent residence, we are simply giving them a plea bargain. Instead of spending billions for deportation, and incurring the economic costs, we are integrating them into our society and instead gaining $1000 of their income. Currently, 97% of criminal court cases end in a plea bargain. There is nothing new here. A plea bargian is not against the principle of Justice in the current system. 

As (1) we have no obligation to enforce unjust laws, and (2) amnesty is better described as a plea bargain rather than amnesty, Rubio's bill does not conflict with the conservative principle of upholding the rule of law. 

FALSE CLAIM #3: Immigrants will vote democrat

Kelly writes, "The massive implications of millions of foriegn invaders being pumped into the electorate was and is detrimental. Rubio was complicit in actively assisting the Democrats in their biggest voter registration drive in history; 30 million illegal aliens is enough to create some 50 new congressional districts – primarily Democrat."

a) There aren't 30 million illegals. The number is 11-12 million, which is a lot, but no evidence backs up claims exceeding 12 million number. 

b) The argument that immigrants will change our institutions, and make them leftist, is untrue. The CATO Institute in a study found that immigration increases economic freedom--in other words, it promotes more open, capitalistic, markets. A peer-reviewed study found no relationship between immigration and weaker institutions that promote "strong private property rights, a rule of law, and an environment of economic freedom." Immigration does not lead to weakened institutions that conservatives support. 

c) The assumption that immigrants are a permanent liberal voting block is simply untrue. As Jason Riley notes in his book, Let Them In, George Bush doubled the percentage of Hispanics voting for Republicans in his 2004 election. It wasn't until 2006 that we struck down McCain's immigration reform and led to the loss of the Hispanic vote for 10 years. It was immigration opponents, like Kelly, that drove Hispanics away. Indeed, Hispanics are conservatives, and if it wasn't for people like Kelly and Donald Trump, the GOP would be the majority party. In fact, conservative ideas have been found to be more appealing to Hispanics than the population as a whole.  To quote Ronald Reagan, "Latinos are Republican, they just don't know it yet." Yes, indeed they are. They vote democrat because people like Obama support amnesty whereas Mr. Romney, Cruz, the CIS, and the tea party oppose it. Rubio and Jeb Bush could win the Hispanic vote--but you seem determined to rob it from them. 

FALSE CLAIM #4: Immigrants cost Social Security!

Uh... No. I already have proven that Rubio's plan would save money. And it would save social security, too. 

The average age of immigrants who have arrived after 2000 is 31 years old. As they tend to be working, and pay into the system (without reaping benefits, or not reaping benefits for another 30 years) they increase the number of workers per retiree. By definition, this will increase the solvency of social security. According to the CATO Institute, "an increase in net immigration by 300,000 per year extends the solvency of the system by about one additional year." 

So no, immigrants have a positive impact on social security and other services. 

CLOSING

This article is full of fallacies, false claims, and relies upon weak evidence. This is an extremely disingenuous rebuttal to the Rubio plan, and cites extremely sketchy sources. Rubio's immigration policies are exactly what this country needs. Kelly thinks we can grow the GOP by dividing and subtracting out Latino support; I want to expand the party by being inclusive, instead adding and multiplying our ties with the Hispanic community. And last time I checked, basic math says my way is how we win elections, not hers.

Kasich announces - Now let's hope he does well

John Kasich, governor of Ohio, has just announced a bid for the presidency. Here is my position on him: I hope he does well. Very well.

He beats Hillary in Ohio by 7% -- the only Republican to beat here there. And Republicans need to win Ohio. So, even if he loses, expect him to be on the VP shortlist. Kasich is moderate, will win Ohio, has appeal in PA, and is probably the most electable candidate we have. So, if your biggest thing is to beat Hillary (its mine), he should be your first or second choice.

His gubernatorial record also proves his success. According to a WSJ article:

In 2014 the real Ohio economy grew by 2.1%, beating all the Great Lakes states—Indiana (0.4%), Illinois (1.2%), Michigan (1.9%) and Wisconsin (1%)—and neighbors Pennsylvania (1.8%) and Kentucky (1%). The jobless rate has fallen to 5.2% from 9.1% when Mr. Kasich took office, while median household income has climbed 1.3% versus 0.6% nationally. The state fisc is now running a surplus. ... He was a leader on welfare reform and helped engineer the 1997 balanced-budget agreement. ... [N]o Republican has ever won the White House without carrying the swing state of Ohio.

Kasich is a moderate. He expanded Medicaid in his state. However, he is no liberal: he balanced the budget on a national and a local level. No candidate can say he or she has done both. Kasich can. Kasich cut taxes... a lot. Liberals hate him because he cut taxes by 3 billion dollars. His tax cut hurt the poor, they say... Then why did incomes rise twice as fast as the national average? Pesky facts getting in the left's way again!

Kasich is obviously right of center. He has the most experience of anyone running, has gotten things done, and can wipe the floor with Hillary. Look, his views are important and I hope that he makes it into the debate in August. His views will broaden the support for the GOP. Kasich can only go up, and he should be a top tier contender. You may disagree with him on some things (common core [and remember that he supports giving more power to the states in conjunction with common core, so it kinda makes up for it] and Medicaid expansion), but he is a good candidate. Trump can talk the talk, but Kasich can--and has--walked the walk.

I hope he gets into the debate and, possibly, gets the nomination.

To learn more about Kasich, go here and here. We all know that Jeb is very conservative. Kasich is right there with him. 

Conservatives must talk about income inequality

The rich are getting richer. And the gap between the rich and poor are widening. This is a simple fact--the rich are going up, but the middle class seems to be stagnating. Currently, liberals (like Sanders and Clinton) are talking about this. The conservatives, however, try to dodge the issue. Here is the thing, though: We shouldn't doge the issue because there are conservative solutions. 

Liberals favor a top down solution. Soak the rich--you will shrink the wealth gap and fix the issue. You bring the rich down. But this is illogical: why punish someone because they simply have more money? Typically, wealthy people are wealthy because they are productive, not simply because they inherited it as many assume. To tax the rich to close the gap would simply punish, and not promote, productivity. This, in turn, would reduce economic growth, reduce investment, and reduce the wellbeing of the average citizen. What conservatives must do is talk about a bottom up approach. 

A bottom up approach preaches the opposite agenda: instead of bring the rich down, we bring the poor up. We need to increase upward mobility so that the poor can become rich; we need to shrink the gap without punishing productivity; we need to fix this issue without hurting the economy. There are a few things conservatives can, and should, propose to fix the issue. 

1. Earned income tax credits

Conservatives already do support expanding the earned income tax credit, or EITC. And it is one of the few issues where Paul Ryan and President Obama can actually agree. Both of them have forwarded plans to expand EITC in order to help the poor. EITC is the most successful government program ever created and has been successful in reducing poverty and increasing income mobility. When the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (here), the conservative Heritage Foundation (here), the liberal Brookings Institution (link above), and the conservative American Enterprise Institute (here) all urge for expansion of the EITC, we can conclude that it probably works. 

Academic research confirms this: EITC reduces poverty and inequality. A $1000 in the EITC reduces poverty 9.4%, increases employment 7.3%, and reduce inequality according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. The EITC increases employment by increasing incentives to work; the program supplements income. And, presumably, someone who is not working has no income to be supplemented. The incentives to work means we increase productivity, which is key to increasing economic growth; and if the EITC increases economic growth and supplements the income of the poor, inequality will surely decrease. 

Other research has found that the majority of those receiving Earned Income Tax Credit change income brackets, suggesting that the policy may increase upward mobility. An older study found that those who lose their EITC eligibility usually lose it because of changes in income. This means that it leads to higher long-term wages and, in effect, increases upward mobility for those affected by the policy. 

Liberals counter to this is that we must increase the minimum wage in conjunction with expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit. However, the issue with this is that it reduces employment. It would likely have the opposite affect (meaning increased inequality) at worst, and no effect at best. This liberal bottom up solution would not work. 

A conservative supporting EITC would be supporting a sensible policy that reduces poverty, increases employment, and decreases inequality. 

2. Cut the taxes for the middle class--including the payroll tax

In some ways, it may be justified to eliminate the payroll tax. No one has proposed this, but it should be an easy vote getter: the paycheck you receive will no longer be reduced because the government took it from you; and, by the way, you will pay lower income taxes. The argument against this--especially reducing the payroll tax--is that we need it to fund programs like social security. But this argument is weak; we fund Medicaid, Medicare, the military, and education without a special tax for each one--we just use revenues in general! There is no reason we cannot do this for social security. Abolishing the payroll tax would increase incentives to work, primarily help the poor who need as much money as they can get, and give the economy a jolt of caffeine as it would inevitably increase consumption. It should also be noted that this, in conjunction with income supplements like the EITC, would make the poor a lot wealthier and increase their income security by helping them pay off debts from schooling and other bills. 

There is really no reason anyone--on the right or left--should oppose the policy outlined above. The only plausible reason is what we always get when a Republican argues for lower taxes: revenue. We would have to pay for it somehow! 

First, reduce the corporate tax rate. Yep, that would increase revenue. This isn't voodo economics like income taxes; chances are, reducing income taxes would also reduce revenue. But this is not true for corporate taxes. In Canada, lower corporate taxes seem to increase revenue; higher corporate taxes reduce revenue in the US, according to the Tax Foundation. It should also be noted that if we eliminated the corporate tax, revenue would probably increase. A study by the AEI has found the revenue maximizing--or the rate at which corporate taxes give us the most revenue--sits somewhere around 26%. The current corporate tax rate is about 39%. This means that revenue would increase dramatically if we reduce the corporate tax rate. Not only would this make up for some of the lost revenue above, but it would cause economic growth (see here and here). 

Second, close the loopholes for the rich. Pretty sure everyone agrees on that...

Third, stop giving out corporate welfare. Again, everyone agrees on that...

Fourth, stop subsidizing the oil and gas industry. Oh, and stop subsidizing renewable energy, too. 

There are a plethora of ways a candidate could increase revenues (by closing loopholes), or decrease costs (by decreasing subsidization) in order to pay for this pro-growth, pro-mobility, anti-inequality policy which would benefit the poor without harming the rich.

3. Fix the education system

This is a long-term solution. Fix the education system, dammit! Increasing the access (probably by reducing the cost) of higher education is the best way to reduce long-term inequality and increase mobility. EITC and lower taxes do this as it makes it easier to pay for, or pay off, student-loan debt. We would also need to improve K-12 public education, which I may discuss in a different post. 

Increasing availability of higher education is essential to increase mobility without harming the rich. Of course, many like Obama and Sanders want to give two free years of community college to the poor. Although this is a novel goal, this may have negative repercussions: as with all free commodities, people will overuse something if they think that it has no costs. The issue with this, however, is that it will lower the quality of education. Further, this may not even fully help the poor: wealthy kids would benefit from this, too. The poor targeting would further reduce the efficacy of the program. This is not a solution. 

The next few policy prescriptions are adapted from here. 

Colleges promise higher incomes and results. So if they fail, they should pay for it. Make colleges pay for the loans on which their students are forced to default, meaning that they are paying for the damages they have caused. This would create an incentive for better quality education so that their promises come true, and that their students can pay back the debt, and to force them to think of ways to reduce college tuition. 

Another way to pay for college should become an option, too. Allow colleges to say "we will take X percent of your income for X number of years" in order to pay for education instead of traditional education. This, again, would make it easier for students to pay (and increase their mobility) while making colleges liable for what happens to their students later in life. 

It should be noted that college has no better alternative. This means that colleges don't really have to worry about other ways of education arising, so they don't need to lower costs. This means conservatives should aim for ways to make it easier for alternative methods of education (apprenticeships, trade schools) to be more mainstream while continuing to provide high-paying jobs for future students of said fields. 

There are more solutions to this problem, but a conservative could easily fix our higher education system. 

Conclusion: Conservatives should--no, must--speak out in favor of reducing income inequality. Not only would it win them votes, but it would end the left's monopoly on the issue, making it harder for them to keep the "empathy" advantage over Republicans. Conservatives must focus on a bottom up solution rather than the liberal top down one. And the evidence suggests that conservative policies can and do work when it comes to reducing income inequality; the liberal solutions do more harm than good. We can turn this issue around; income inequality, if played correctly, could lead to a GOP landslide victory in 2016. 

Donald Trump?!

He did it. He finally announced a presidential bid. Here is an excerpt from a FOX news article:

New York real estate mogul and reality TV star Donald Trump on Tuesday declared himself a candidate for the Republican nomination for president, launching his against-the-odds campaign after teasing one for years. ... And he could be an aggressive -- and interesting -- player on the primary debate stage, should he stay among the top-10 candidates in the polls. ... “This is going to be an election, in my opinion, based on competence,” Trump said. “The American Dream is dead. And if elected president, I will make it bigger and stronger than ever.”

My god. I hope he does not won. There is no way he can beat Hillary. Not only that, he is crazy. Even for people who don't like Rick Santorum (like I do), no one can deny that he is intelligent. Trump is smart, but not only does he hold beliefs similar to candidates like Rick... He acts crazy, too. I hope he does not win. I think the best candidates to beat Hillary are Walker, Kaisich, and Rubio. We will see who ends up taking a front-runner position in the next few months.  

Why I oppose border fences

I may eventually write a full post on this, but here is something I have already written. The other side conceded.
http://www.debate.org/debates/Border-Fence/17/

I argued three things.
(1) Fences harm the environment
(2) Fences cost a lot
(3) Many immigrants do not even cross the border

He argued this:
(1) Fences work
(2) Fences reduce crime
(3) Immigration is bad

I refuted all of his points and my points were not really debunked. 

Sorry, gun control advocates: gun control does not work

Whenever a pro gun control study comes out, the media is quick to pick up the story. Even FOX news, claimed to be a conservative beacon, picked up on the story. The Washington Post also published a much longer, in depth story on the study. 

The study, published by scholars from The Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, concluded that gun licensing laws reduced homicides by 40% in ten years. According to the study, permit to purchase (PTP) laws "may reduce firearm-specific homicides." Unfortunately for the left, the study is bogus. 

According to Economist John Lott: 

As the authors of the study note, from 1995 to 2005 the firearm homicide rate in Connecticut indeed fell from 3.13 to 1.88 per 100,000 people, representing a 40% drop over a ten-year period (“We estimate that the law was associated with a 40% reduction in Connecticut’s firearm homicide rates during the first 10 years that the law was in place“). However, unexplained is that the firearms homicide rate was falling even faster immediately prior to the licensing law. From 1993 to 1995, the Connecticut firearms homicide rate fell from 4.5 to 3.13 per 100,000 residents, which means more than a 30% drop in just two years. This represented a greater decline than the 17% national decline over those two years. Of course, Rudolph and his co-authors do not address this inconvenient fact (though if one looks at their Figure 1 on page 3 this preceding drop is clearly visible). ... Their results are also extremely sensitive to the last year that they pick. ... The longer samples show a relative increase in Connecticut’s firearm homicide rate whether Rudolph et al. had looked at one additional year or five additional years. ... The Webster study also cherry-picks what crime rates to look at. For over all violent crimes as well as robbery and aggravated assault, Connecticut’s crime rate was falling relative to the rest of the US in the years prior to the licensing law and rising afterwards. For murder, there is basically not change in trends before and after the licensing law.

More criticisms of the study are in the link above. 

Sorry, liberals, but the research you use is bogus again. Gun control does not work. And there is one point Lott made not in the quote above: the study looks at one state. But that makes no sense when 10 other states have similar laws. When Lott did his concealed carry research, he looked at *every single* county, state, and city. Increasing the sample makes a better study with more accurate results. Choosing one state is the definition of cherry picking; gun laws don't work. But law abiding citizens with firearms do work.  

Hilary Clinton's rich bashing is not convincing

At least Bernie Sanders believes in the crap he says. Hillary has sprinted to the left because she needs to appeal to her base. She must bash the rich or she cannot be elected. But it would be more convincing if she did not charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for each speech. She claims to hate the rich, even saying that when she and Bill left the White House at the turn of the century that they were bankrupt. Now she is charging $300,000 for speeches.

Yep. $300,000. 300k. 3 + 00000. Three with five zeros. Bankrupt?

Democrats need workers to win. The reason Romney lost was because he was seen as out of touch. Hillary Clinton makes Mitt look like he is a union factory worker in Detroit. It really pisses me off when politicians, like Hillary, claim that the game is rigged, that the rich are too rich, and that we need to tax our economy to hell in the name of equality. But the reality is that she is part of the problem she is complaining about! Ironically, she charged $225,000 on a speech about high tuition at a University!

I am sorry, but if the average household income is $69,000, and only 25.1% of the households make over $200,000 per year, but you make exactly that much for an hour speech and you make 4 times as much as the average American in one day, you should shut up. You have no right to talk about income inequality or what the average American experiences. Sorry.

Clinton is worth over $15 MILLION dollars. I am sorry, but she cannot be empathetic. She does not have the same rising story that Barrack had. Marco Rubio is actually worth the least at $443,000 dollars.

I see pundits all the time saying the Republican party is not empathetic enough. Having self-made men like Ben Carson, whose father left his mother, lived on welfare, and had an illiterate mother and Marco Rubio, who was raised by immigrants (and was made fun of by the NY Times because he has student loan debt!) actually know what poor Americans feel. Even if you disagree with them, there is no doubting that they have experienced what it is like to be poor in the United States. Hillary has not.

I honestly think that Hillary is not qualified to speak about income inequality and the plight of the American worker. But she will anyway. Hopefully, when she casts a republican nominee (who I hope is Rubio) as unempathetic, voters will see through that load of hooey.  

CBO: workers bear the costs of high corporate taxes

Workers "[bear{ slightly more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax. The domestic owners of capital bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden," according to this CBO report.

According to this study by nber, "workers in a fully unionized firm capture roughly 54 percent of the benefits of low tax rates." So, cutting these taxes actually benefits the worker, not the company.
So, I say, lower corporate tax rates--not for the rich, but for the worker!

Have wages stagnated?

The argument often forwarded by liberals in support of minimum wage increases are simple: wages have stagnated, minimum wages, increase wages, therefore we need a wage hike. And the argument has a grain of truth to it: wages rise for those who stay employed. But it fails to take into account the fact that many workers become unemployed by minimum wage hikes, so having people have the wage of zero easily outweighs the beneficial impacts. 
But the rest of it is incorrect. Wages have not actually fallen compared to productivity. This paper by the Heritage Foundation clearly details the problem with that argument. The argument uses wages and not total compensation, which includes benefits. Now, instead of having to pay for your own health insurance, your employer does it for you. Paid maternity leave has become more common, more vacation days, etc. All of this increases the purchasing power of the worker even though wages do not increase. In fact, had all of that gone into wages instead of paying for health benefits, there would have been wage increases. In fact, Walmart has actually lowered wages in order to pay for health benefits. So total compensation, not just wages, must be taken into account. 

The statistics used to prove the point also use different methods to control for inflation and wages, which further muddies the waters. The Heritage Foundation, of course, finds that total compensation has increase 77% over the last few decades. This is a different narrative than what Elizabeth Warren, Paul Krugman, or the Employment Policies Institute announces. But many may counter: isn't the Heritage Foundation a conservative organization? Correct. But economist Martin Feldstein, who works with the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economics, has published a study on the issue as well. He agrees with the Heritage report and says the apparent gap between productivity and pay exists only when improper data is used, and when you correct for that, both wages and productivity change together. Even the liberal, pro-minimum wage think tank the Center for Economic Policy Research found no gap between productivity and pay, as well as coming to the same conclusion as both Feldstein and the Heritage foundation. 

So yes, wages have increased. And even if they didn't, it could be that excessive government regulation, not the evil businessmen, were behind the pay gap. And it is crazy to think that merely raising the wage floor will raise wages when it makes wages zero for thousands of workers. 

Learning wage part two

I already talked about the learning wage, mostly talking about theory. This post will focus on some empirical evidence regarding minimum wages, employment, and long-term effects. 

An important study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, or NBER, has a study on the minimum wage increases from 2007, 2008, and 2009. The study convincingly showed that minimum wage increases reduce employment opportunities for low-skilled workers. These opportunities would exist if we had a learning wage--or a minimum wage of $0--and they would be better off in the long term. The employment effects led to reduce income mobility--in other words, it made it harder to move up the income ladder--by reducing skills which would otherwise have been acquired had the minimum wage not priced them out of the job market. The study found a very large effect on employment, concluding by saying "We infer from our employment estimates that minimum wage increases reduced the national employment-to-population ratio by 0.7 percentage point between December 2006 and December 2012. As noted above, this accounts for 14 percent of the national decline in the employment-to-population ratio over this period." This is no small effect. And all of the studies showing poverty reduction assume no employment effect; this study erases any doubt of there being an employment effect. 

A 2002 study by economists David Neumark and William Wascher found that minimum wages reduce school enrollment. The study also noted how minimum wages also reduce on the job training, which further reduces the amount of skills teenagers gain in the workforce. 

A 2001 study by economists Duncan D. Chaplin, Mark D. Turner and Andreas D. Pape come to the same conclusions that Neumark and Wascher came to. Their study found that higher minimum wages increased drop out rates. The mechanism for this is because teenagers assume they will be paid more if they drop out and get a job. But as noted, in many cases, they are unemployable because their skills are not worth, say, $7 an hour. This means we not only increase the youth unemployment rate, but also the high school dropout rate. 

A 2006 study by Neumark and Wascher found that those exposed to high minimum wages as a teenager work less and earn less in adulthood. This effect is probably driven from reduced training and schooling during their youth. 

There are hundreds of more research studies, but if you read the literature, one thing is clear: increases in the minimum wage always end up harming those who are supposed to benefit from said wage increases. The evidence for instituting a learning, rather than a living, wage is supported by both economic theory and empirical fact. 

Kansas and supply side economics

Supply side economics, or trickle-down economics, is universally praised on the right but loathed on the left. One of the modern successes, or failures, of supply side economics comes from Kansas. Kansas cut taxes for the wealthy in order to incentivize them to invest more, which leads to economic growth and more jobs. This is where trickle-down comes in, because the wealth (in theory) is supposed to trickle-down to the poor and middle class. Everyone gets richer.

Liberals point to Kansas, where taxes were cut but growth was lackluster. They argue that this proves that cutting taxes does not work. They hope to cause Republicans to back down on the issue—in part because tax cuts are a good conservative talking point—and also in hopes to cause voters doing a quick google search to oppose those initiatives, which are usually at the forefront of the GOP platform. So are liberals correct in saying that the Kansas experiment has disproven supply side economics?

Not really. Economist Scott Sumner notes how the tax changes in Kansas were not that large—and definitely not as large as the GOP presidential candidates would make them. “The past two years Kansas reduced its state income tax rates. As a result, the top rate of income tax faced by Kansas residents (combined state and federal) rose from 41.45% in 2012 to 48.3% in 2013 and then fell a tad to 48.2% in 2014 (if they don't itemize.) That's a pretty tiny drop in the top marginal tax rate in 2014, and a much bigger rise in 2013.” You can see that Federal taxes counterbalanced the tax cuts, and tax decreases were very small; 0.1% decrease in 2014. This is hardly a tax cut. Had the Federal income tax stayed the same, the cut may have had an effect. But the increase in taxes nearly offset all of the growth effects. A 0.1% decreases in taxes is not nearly large enough to impact incentives and cause a trickle-down effect. So, no, the Kansas tax cuts don’t disprove supply side economic theory—it only says that if you raise taxes nearly 7% and then decrease them by 0.1%, you aren’t going to get growth. That is not really devastating to the GOP or supply sider economists.

It should also be noted that even the 0.1% tax cut even had some positive effects. Kansas has always been in the lower half of the nation for job growth. Kansas went from 27^th in the nation for job growth to 21^st, now in the top half. Wages also increased by 3.5%, faster than the national average of 1.9%. But unemployment reduction is still slower than the national average (though, that could be skewed by a few outliers like the Dakotas and Texas, which have reduced unemployment a lot). On the other hand, labor force participation has not changed; labor force participation fell for the nation as a whole. So the Kansas tax cuts—even though they are small—have done some good, despite how small the tax cuts were.

There are a few things to take from this:

First, the tax burden didn’t change much. So lackluster effects are to be expected. This does not mean  a 1, 2, or 10% tax cut would have no effect.

Second, it has only been a few years. Tax cuts usually take time to cause growth because the benefits from new companies emerging and investment sometimes take years to come to fruition.

And finally, even over this short time period and the minimal tax cut, the evidence seems to show that a small amount of good can be done.

Supply side economics is not disproven by Kansas and, in the long term, it may end up proving it. 

America needs a learning wage

America needs a learning wage. Yes, a learning wage.

What is a learning wage? As opposed to a living wage, which is typically seen as $15 per hour, a learning wage is when you make the minimum wage $0 per hour. So why would we want this?

Let's first talk about why we wouldn't want a minimum wage at all. Everyone needs skills to succeed in life, and the best way to acquire skills is through work. Gaining work experience is as valuable, if not more so, than a college degree. And the more skills/better skills you have, the more you get paid. Skills act as a ladder. The higher up you climb, the more you get paid. How do minimum wages--including $15 minimum wages like the one in LA--relate to the ladder? Employers only hire people who are productive. Say being a cashier is worth $10 per hour to a small business. The business cannot pay $10; that would mean no profit for the owner. The business cannot pay $15; that would mean hiring that person causes a net loss. But they could pay $7.25, pay the worker, and make profit at the same time. But if we had a living wage you would be pricing someone out of the market. You saw off the rungs of the ladder, and those not tall enough (or, in this case, productive enough) have no chance of climbing that ladder.

That is why we want a learning wage and also why we *don't* want a living wage. Living wages make it impossible for unskilled teenagers or impoverished minorities to get a job and acquire skills. A learning wage is the opposite: everyone, no matter their skill set, can get skills and learn their trade. The more they learn, the more they earn. A living wage makes them unemployable and, sadly, that makes their lives much more difficult. They are destined to live a life of dependency; living on government assistance. That is not how we reduce poverty. A learning wage would allow those people to get jobs and earn more money than they started out with. The wage they start with may be low, but it would increase overtime.

Liberals will respond: how do you know they will get higher wages? Evil capitalists! Well, here is how we know: it is already happening. For those who do get hired, despite the minimum wage being above zero, people usually do get paid more within 12 months of employment. According to one study, two thirds of those who are paid minimum wage receive a wage increase after working for 12 months. Further, according to the BLS, only 4.7% of the workforce above 16 years of age earned at or below the Federal minimum wage of $7.25. Why is this important? When I discuss lowering--or even abolishing--the minimum wage to create a learning wage, it is *always* argued that employers will pay as little as possible, maybe even nothing, if we abolished a minimum wage. But the BLS statistics and the previous study refute that. If only 4.7% of the workforce earn minimum wage, that means 95.3% of the population earns *above* $7.25 per hour--so businesses already voluntarily pay MORE than the minimum amount required. If businesses arbitrarily paid as little as possible, then there should (1) be no wage increases after one year--there usually are, and (2) everyone would be paid minimum wage! But the fact that the vast majority of people make above the minimum tells us that businesses don't always pay as little as possible. If a worker is valuable, they want to keep that worker (or, in many cases, hire them). Other businesses compete with higher wages and, if one business cannot pay enough, the worker will leave to the job which he or she thinks best compensates their productivity. So, no, employers wouldn't pay slave wages with a learning wage; all it would do is make it easier for the poor, who are now (or will be, if the minimum wage is raised) priced out of the labor force.

America needs a learning wage. Allowing teenagers and the impoverished to learn their trades, which mean higher wages and better lives, is the best way to truly help the poor. 

Why are health care costs so high? The government

Now, there are a lot of reasons health care costs are so high. But a big one liberals always miss is the government. 

According to the CATO institute, regulations cost the health care industry $169 billion each year. Those costs fall solely on the consumer. Profits work like this: revenue - costs = profit. Easy. If you increase the costs, and the revenue stays the same, profits decline. And in many cases, profits aren't large. So the business has two ways to cope: decrease costs or increase revenue. They can decrease costs by paying workers less or replacing them with machines. They can increase revenue by increasing costs. Both of these scenarios impact and harm the health care industry, driving up costs that you and I pay for our yearly checkup. 

And, of course, the solution needn't be more government. Even if we assume the current system is broken--and it is--the argument that a singlepayer nationalized system is the best response is, well, doubtful. Health savings accounts could easily reduce the financial burden of healthcare, without reducing consumer satisfaction. Health savings accounts decrease costs with no adverse effects on health outcomes according to many studies. 

Obamacare and other liberal solutions, like the ones Hillary championed in the 1990s, are not the way to fix our broken system. We need to allow the market to work, not continue to bog it down in regulation like we do today.