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.