Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
June 19, 2013

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     chris hedges     economy     nsa     politics     robert scheer
Most Read

Reporter Who Brought Down the 'Runaway General' Dead at 33

The Terror Con

The U.S. Military and the Unraveling of Africa

Greenland's Great Melt Is Pinned on Climate Change

Nate Silver vs. Politico: It's on Again

Most Comments
Most Emailed

 * NEW! * Greenland’s Great Melt Is Pinned on Climate Change



The Unwinding


Truthdig Bazaar
The New Old World

The New Old World

By Perry Anderson
$26.37

more items

 
Reports

A GOP Star Is Born

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Feb 18, 2010

By Ruth Marcus

How big a deal was Marco Rubio’s speech to CPAC on Thursday? If you are asking, as former President George W. Bush did jokingly the other day, “Who the hell is Marco Rubio?” you probably won’t be for long. Rubio is the 38-year-old former speaker of the Florida House and a conservative challenger to the state’s Republican governor, Charlie Crist, in the GOP Senate primary. If you are asking, what is CPAC? you probably aren’t a conservative Republican. CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, is, for several days every winter, the epicenter of the conservative movement; Ronald Reagan spoke before the group a dozen times.

So Rubio’s keynote address served as his national coming-out party—an event so important that not only did Rubio post a video preview on the importance of opposing the Obama agenda, but Crist issued a faux advance text of Rubio’s speech. Crist’s Rubio parody depicted him as a “cover boy” lobbyist who talks conservative but acts pragmatic (my word, not Crist’s) on issues from immigration to climate change to stimulus spending. Which is, apparently, bad, at least if you are trying to win a Republican primary.

At CPAC, Rubio made Sarah Palin look oratorically challenged. When some in the ecstatic crowd broke into a chant of “Marco, Marco,” Rubio flashed his winning smile and said, “I’m always afraid someone’s going to start screaming ‘Polo’ and then it will ruin the speech.”

He wove his only-in-America background—son of Cuban immigrants who fled Castro, his father working 16-hour days, his mother a K-Mart stock clerk—into a larger narrative of American exceptionalism. The 2010 election, he argued, is a “referendum on the very identity of our nation,” with the choice boiling down to this: “Do I want my children to grow up in the country that I grew up in or do I want them to grow up in a country like the one my parents grew up in?”

Rubio handed out more red meat than a butcher before a snowstorm. President Barack Obama and the Democrats, he argued, are “using this downturn as a cover not to fix America but to try to change America,” implementing “statist policies” that would “fundamentally redefine the role of government in our lives and the role of America in the world.” Voters want political leaders to work together, he said, but only for the right results. “The U.S. Senate already has one Arlen Specter too many,” he said to cheers. “America already has a Democrat Party. It doesn’t need two Democrat parties.”

Advertisement

If Evan Bayh was watching, the Indiana Democrat would have thought he made the right choice in deciding not to run again. 

As Rubio was speaking, Obama was preparing to issue an executive order on what I worry may turn out to be the fiscal responsibility commission to nowhere: It will not work without good-faith Republican participation, and that does not seem to be forthcoming. Consider Rubio’s fiscal prescription: “Reduce tax rates across the board.” “Abolish taxes on capital gains, dividends, interest.” “While we’re at it, let’s eliminate the one on death, too.” “Significantly lower the corporate tax rate.” “And, while we’re at it, undertake serious measures that show we’re serious about getting control of our national debt.”

This is not a prescription for responsible governing.

Rubio more than fulfilled the expectations that he is a rising star of the Republican Party. He is young, attractive and appealing; his life story could not be more inspiring. From 30 points or more back in the polls, he has moved ahead of Crist: 46.9 percent to Crist’s 39.7 percent, according to the latest average from Pollster.com. Rubio’s message dovetails perfectly with the take-our-country-back fervor of the tea party movement, without some of the anger. He is someone to watch—and, for those who still believe in the possibility of centrist, bipartisan solutions, to fear.

Ruth Marcus’ e-mail address is marcusr(at symbol)washpost.com.

© 2010, Washington Post Writers Group


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Inherit The Wind, February 22, 2010 at 9:11 pm Link to this comment

Rfidler:
Better bone up on your statistics.  The percentage of wealth has concentrated steadily into fewer and fewer hands.

If one millionaire is created for every dollar in wealth lost by a million non-millionaires, then ONE person has acquired the wealth (albeit a dollar per) of a million people.  It’s not hard to figure out, skeezix.

You also assume, incorrectly, that the revenue increase was due to the tax reduction.  In fact, the revenue increase was DESPITE it. There is NO evidence that the growth in the economy was due in any way, shape or form to the tax cuts, except in the minds of pinheads like Rush Limbaugh. Even Darth Cheney recognized it, saying “Ronald Reagan proved deficits don’t matter”.  Again, the ability to analyze causality of various variables seems to be beyond tea-baggers and neo-cons.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, February 22, 2010 at 10:53 am Link to this comment

ITW:
“It has been tried repeatedly since 1981 and failed miserably every time, increasing the deficit.”

That’s a non-sequitur. The Laffer curve predicts tax revenues, not deficits. Revenues are income, deficits are from overspending- totally unrelated. In fact, following the Reagan tax cuts, REVENUE soared. Unfortunately, so did spending, by more than the revenue increase- hence the increase in deficits (and the national debt) to which you allude. Reagan failed, like all modern presidents, to control spending.

And,
“They have merely accelerated the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands.” Not true. How many millionaires are there today compared to 20, 30 years ago, in constant dollars, and as a percentage of the population?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, February 21, 2010 at 1:13 pm Link to this comment

Pezzie, February 20 at 1:48 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

I would like someone to explain to me how you can ” reduce taxes across the board” and at the same time reduce the national debt?  I’m sure there are others that are also scratching their collective heads at this comment.

********************

It’s called the Laffer Curve and it’s based on the idea that lowering taxes SO stimulates the economy to grow that the additional activity generates MORE tax revenue than was lost.  It has been tried repeatedly since 1981 and failed miserably every time, increasing the deficit.  One of Ronald Reagan’s henchman made the mistake of admitting PUBLICLY that they knew the tax reduction would raise the deficit.  His name was David Stockman and Reagan ripped him apart for doing so.  He was, in his own words “taken to the woodshed”.

That was the penalty for telling the public the truth under Ronald Reagan.

The Laffer curve works on the basic premise that if the tax rate is zero, tax revenue is zero, but if the tax rate is 100%, revenue will ALSO be zero as nobody will work for NO take-home pay. 

Since the tax rate is between 0% and 100%, and revenue is greater than zero, there must be a point at which an increase in the tax rate SO dis-incentivizes the public that revenue falls.  This is called the “turning point”.

If the tax rate is ABOVE the turning point, decreasing the rate to the turning point will increase revenue.

If it’s below that turning point, decreasing the rate will decrease revenue.

But the problem is that economists like Laffer like to draw smooth, even curves and that makes the turning point look like it’s at 50%.  Yet, in fact, Laffer had NO evidence that that turning point was there, at 40%, or at 98%.

So these uncontrolled “experiments” in tax cuts as stimulus have NO basis in economic theory or logic.  In fact, the clearest evidence is that we are below that turning point and have ALWAYS been below that turning point as revenue, while having risen, has never risen due to the GOP’s “stimulus”.  They have merely accelerated the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

Report this
Magginkat's avatar

By Magginkat, February 21, 2010 at 11:23 am Link to this comment

C.Curtis.Dillon wrote:  “What rankles me more than anything else is the blatant stupidity with which the rank and file of the party embraces this suicide.”

That’s the thing that continually confuses me.  Surely these people have observed people like Rubio & his flowery lies over & over but still seem to believe that this time it’s going to be different.  If they don’t bow down to the routine lies, out comes religion to finish the job. 

There is no doubt in my mind that this country has been dumbed down to the point of utter stupidity.  Personally I have no idea what it will take to undo the brainwashing that is going on with these conferences and other garbage produced by these so-called compassionate conseratives.

It’s almost enough to make one want to crawl back under the blankets and just give up.

Report this

By Pezzie, February 20, 2010 at 9:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I would like someone to explain to me how you can ” reduce taxes across the board” and at the same time reduce the national debt?  I’m sure there are others that are also scratching their collective heads at this comment.

Report this

By clipper, February 20, 2010 at 6:58 am Link to this comment

I agree with Liberty lady, and I certainly don’t want children to repeat the Bush years that flows over to Obama, or the Facist state Palin/Becks Tea Party is taking us, in which the GOP is funding. We must be careful of whom we follow,—-that may lead to dictatorship as in Germany of the 30’s.

Report this

By Jerry Elsea, February 20, 2010 at 6:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Slash taxes while getting control of debt . . .

Floridian Rubio was a first-grader when Californians launched a series of citizens initiatives based on the same notion. Roughly two-thirds of poll respondents thought it could be done (freezing property taxes in that case) without affecting essential public
services.

Trouble ahead? Marco Rubio seems not to have soaked in the history lessons. Neither have those looking for rising stars such as Marco Rubio and Sarah Palin.

Report this

By Against Hypocrisy, February 19, 2010 at 5:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This guy Rubio, he makes me laugh. If most of these saps who bootlick him knew how the anti-Castro Cubans put the welfare system they complain about so much to their own good use, just as their South Vietnamese “refugee” counterparts did here in Southern California, I doubt they would be voting for him. The anti-Castro Cubans in South Florida have done nothing but hobble and obstruct meaningful amends and dialogue between the US and Cuba, all the while electing the same old GOP nitwits that keep on with the same old tired canard about how life is so hard for the rich if they have to pay a dime more in taxes.

Report this

By Library Lady, February 19, 2010 at 12:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

C. C. Dillon, you’re right, it’s not about the status quo, it’s about making shitty shit even shittier. I was giving them too much credit. :(

For all our sakes though, I hope you’re wrong about the greedy and the nutjobs having won already. It’s not over till it’s over and I sure hope it’s not over yet. The problem is, we’re putting up a really crappy fight. And while I’ve always thought it was better to look before you leap so to speak, now is not the time for patience and compromise. This call for bipartisanship is a dirty trick to stall more and do absolutely nothing and the GOP knows it and they’re abusing it to the fullest.

Report this

By jackwbarnes1, February 19, 2010 at 11:43 am Link to this comment

ISN’T IT A BLAST THAT WE CAN HAVE A LEGAL IMMIGRANT WHO
UNDERSTANDS THE NECESSITY OF TELLING IT LIKE IT IS. MARKO IS THE
TYPE WE NEED IN THE SENATE THAT COULD HELP TO BRING THIS NATION
BACK TO ITS SENSES. I ONLY WISH I COULD CAST A VOTE FOE HIM.

Report this

By C.Curtis.Dillon, February 19, 2010 at 9:28 am Link to this comment

Sorry Liberty Lady, it’s not the status quo.  That might be OK at some level.  These clowns believe that they can reduce taxes to nothing (for the wealthy ... forget the middle class as we are the tax slaves they want for what follows), increase spending for the military and our wars, destroy any semblance of a compassionate government by removing social security, medicare, welfare in any form, the EPA, OSHA and any other agency that stands in the way of their rampant rape and plunder of the nation’s wealth ... you get the idea.  This is the America Ronny Raygun envisioned and the Republican party embraces.  They want us to become like the Chinese where a select few control everything and trample any and all who challenge the system or object to their enslavement.  What rankles me more than anything else is the blatant stupidity with which the rank and file of the party embraces this suicide.  Don’t they see that they too will be sacrificed when the time is right?  So, I would love to provide future generations with the country I grew up in ... one that had compassion for the weak and sick, that believed that there were things more important than million dollar bonuses and which believed that American should be the model for the world and not the master.  But it would appear the right wing and the greedy have won the war and are now just cleaning up the few remaining pockets of resistance.  As I have said in the past ... goodbye America, RIP.

Report this

By Library Lady, February 18, 2010 at 7:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“The 2010 election, he argued, is a ‘referendum on the very identity of our nation,’ with the choice boiling down to this: ‘Do I want my children to grow up in the country that I grew up in or do I want them to grow up in a country like the one my parents grew up in?’ “

Considering my parents grew up in an era chock full of blatant racism and sexism, no, actually, I do not want my children to grow up in the same country my parents grew up in. We can do better. That’s the whole point (or at least is supposed to be the point) of our government. If something doesn’t work, we have the ability to change it. What the hell is the matter with these people? Why are we a nation so staunchly committed to maintaining a crappy status quo?

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.