Marco Rubio is said to be the favorite presidential candidate of the Republican “establishment.” According to NPR, he has more endorsements from members of Congress than any other Republican nominee (Donald Trump has none).  Rubio could well break from the pack if primary voters eventually decide that they can’t stomach either Trump or Cruz. So let’s take a look at his stances, particularly in so far as they might affect common-sense seniors.

The most important thing to understand about Rubio is that his proposed tax cuts and defense spending increases are going to cripple government. In our vision statement, we pointed out that seniors have an interest not only in government programs that benefit them directly, such as Social Security, Medicare, and medical research; but also in programs that strengthen education, rebuild the nation’s infrastructure, and help those coming after us to prosper. If Rubio’s tax and spending plans were implemented, it’s difficult to see where the money for beneficial government programs would come from. Cuts would almost be certain.

Rubio’s tax proposals are nicely arranged to benefit the rich. He would slash tax rates for the wealthy and corporations, and eliminate taxes on capital gains as well as dividends. Former congressional budget expert Mike Lofgren, a self-described “recovering Republican,” noted recently in the New York Times that 79 percent of revenue generated by the capital gains and dividends taxes comes from the top 1 percent of earners.  Just repealing the capital gains tax would cost the government $1 trillion over 10 years, according to Lofgren.  Rubio would also abolish the estate tax, which falls only on the richest Americans. Just 5,400 estates owed federal tax in 2015.

Meanwhile, Rubio would open the floodgates on defense spending. He would give the Navy two additional aircraft carrier strike groups — we have ten already. Each group includes a carrier, costing $13.5 billion, with 44 strike-capable aircraft; accompanied by five destroyers and a fast-attack submarine. The Center for a New American Security points out that 6,700 men and women are needed to crew a carrier group, and operating costs come to $6.5 million per day.

The carrier groups are just the beginning of Rubio’s military spending dreams. He wants new amphibious assault ships, new ballistic missile submarines, nuclear weapons modernization, new long-range manned bombers, and a troop buildup in the Army and Marines.

But when it comes to programs that help seniors, Rubio is tightfisted. He wants to “transition” Medicare out of existence, replacing it with an annual fixed amount provided to seniors so they can purchase health insurance. Common-sense seniors would rather have guaranteed health care under Medicare than an insurance policy.

Some of Rubio’s Social Security ideas sound appealing at first glance, but don’t stand up to scrutiny. For example, he would exempt workers over 65 from paying the payroll tax that funds the Social Security system. That might be a nice idea for those seniors who find themselves working as Walmart greeters, but in fact, many of those who continue to work past 65 are professionals  — lawyers, doctors, judges, and college professors, not to mention hedge fund managers and business owners. Why should they be exempt from the payroll tax? And anyway, won’t this proposal tend to weaken Social Security rather than putting it on a sound financial footing? Rubio advocates raising the retirement age, which is just a way of cutting benefits. He does say that over the long term, he would reduce benefits for the wealthy. It would be interesting to see how that proposal would fare in Congress.

Many of Rubio’s other ideas also fail the common-sense test. He opposes the expansion of background checks for firearms purchasers, “And on Day One,” according to his website, “Marco will repeal President Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders that infringe on the Second Amendment.” Rubio would re-impose sanctions against Iran, again on “Day One” — a move that is sure to re-ignite Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.

Marco Rubio’s tax cuts and defense spending plans would hobble government. His Medicare and Social Security plans run contrary to the interests of seniors. He is not, in short, a candidate a common-sense senior should choose.

“

Common Sense for Seniors staff have promised to survey the websites of the presidential candidates to see what they have to say about issues affecting seniors. That project is still underway, but we’ve been diverted by the reaction of the candidates to President Obama’s gun regulation speech on January 5.

In our draft 2016 political vision statement, we said that common-sense seniors will be looking for candidates who favor common-sense gun laws. In his speech — coincidentally entitled “Remarks by the President on Common-Sense Gun Safety Reform,” — the President announced measures to tighten background checks in order to keep convicted felons and people with mental health problems from purchasing guns on the internet and at gun shows. He’ll add ATF agents to speed up the background check process and increase federal spending on mental health, That all sounds like common sense to us. We’ll be safer if felons and the mentally ill have a harder time purchasing weapons, and so will our loved ones.

Three candidates, all Democrats, share this view. Bernie Sanders said “As president, I will continue these executive orders because it’s past time to end the moral outrage of Aurora, and Newtown and Charleston.” Hillary Clinton tweeted “Thank you, @POTUS, for taking a crucial step forward on gun violence. Our next president has to build on that progress—not rip it away.” Martin O’Malley tweeted his support as well, with a link to seven additional measures he would take.

On the Republican side, the candidates greeted the speech with outrage and a considerable degree of misrepresentation of what the President had actually said.

The reaction of Ted Cruz was perhaps the most over-the-top. “We don’t beat the bad guys by takin’ away our guns,” he said. “We beat the bad guys by using our guns.” (BBC Evening News.)  The Cruz campaign team set up a website, “Obama Wants Your Guns,” featuring a photoshopped picture of the President dressed as a member of a SWAT team.  This despite the fact that the President had explicitly endorsed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing a right to bear arms, adding “this is not a plot to take away everybody’s guns.  You pass a background check; you purchase a firearm.”

Marco Rubio said “this president is obsessed with undermining the Constitution in general, but the Second Amendment in particular.” Rubio was backed by Jeb Bush, who charged the President with “utter disregard for the Second Amendment.”  Carly Fiorina weighed in on Twitter:  “Another lawless, unconstitutional overreach.” Donald Trump pledged that “They’re not going to take your guns away, folks,” but “They’re trying.” Mike Huckabee amped up the bravado with “”I will never bow down and surrender to Obama’s unconstitutional, radical, anti-gun agenda.” Even before the President’s speech, Chris Christie said that Obama was acting like a “petulant child” in planning another “illegal executive action.” “He wants to act as a king, as if he’s a dictator,” Christie charged, adding that the President’s measures would be “stricken” when he becomes President.

The Republican over-reaction to the President’s modest reforms suggests a lack of judgement that should caution seniors against trusting any of the party’s candidates with the highest office in the land. That concern extends to Republican candidates for the House of Representatives. Before the President had finished his remarks, Speaker Paul Ryan issued a statement alleging that “From day one, the President has never respected the right to safe and legal gun ownership that our nation has valued since its founding.” Can the Speaker truly believe that gun purchases by convicted felons and the mentally ill are “safe and legal?”

On the issue of of gun safety, Republican candidates are not responding to the common-sense interests of seniors. We’ll be taking a look at other issues in future posts.

Twenty-sixteen, momentous election year, has arrived. Common Sense for Seniors staff will be monitoring politics right through the year, keeping seniors informed on the issues and candidates. We invite you to participate in this political discussion, using the Leave a Reply and Contact features of the website. What are your views on the issues? What information can you give our readers on the congressional candidates in your district? Which might merit our support, whether moral or financial?

Before launching this political discussion, let’s come up with a vision of what we’re looking for in 2016. What do seniors want?

First and foremost, we want to protect Social Security and Medicare – or even better, to improve these two vital programs. Social Security’s long term future beyond 2034, when funds will start to run short, needs to be assured. Benefits need to be increased – the current average monthly benefit of $1,300 doesn’t go very far, particularly for those who rely on Social Security for most or all of their income. Medicare should be expanded to cover hearing loss, dental care, and routine eye exams. It too, should be put on a sound long-term financial footing, and the program should be empowered to negotiate with drug companies over prescription medication prices.

But seniors have an interest not just in programs that benefit them directly. We are concerned about those coming after us, including our children and grandchildren, our nieces and nephews, and the kids growing up in poverty in our cities, towns, and rural areas.

We want them to be safe and secure, so we’re looking for candidates who favor common-sense gun laws and a common-sense foreign policy.

We want them to live in a country with a first-class infrastructure and good schools everywhere. We want them to have the same economic opportunities we’ve had, or better. Right now, they are falling behind. In constant dollar terms, on average, 18 to 34 year-olds are earning $2,000 less per year than in 1980 and $3,500 less than in 2000, even though the proportion with college degrees has increased from 16 per cent to 22 per cent.

There may be seniors who don’t feel any particular concern for the generations coming after us, but that’s a mistake on practical grounds. Our own financial well-being, our Social Security, and our Medicare are only safe if the economy is strong and growing – and that means we need an economy in which young people are prospering.

What would you add to this vision?

In coming months, we’ll be looking at candidates and their positions on the issues to see how they measure up to the vision we settle on. We’ll be starting with a look at the websites of the major presidential candidates. Stay tuned.