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.