Does it matter if our next President is an ex-shopaholic? Few would argue against the fact that it is crucial to vet candidates' backgrounds before they become candidates. This is a process that allows the public to determine that individual's character and suitability for office. However, how far is too far in the vetting process, and how can we determine if something falls into the "need to know" category for public information or if it should ultimately be left out of today's media frenzy, a frenzy that tends to overblow information in order to garner extra money and mouse 'clicks.'
In the case of Marco Rubio's past financial struggles, I argue the former. This is "need to know" information that provides voters with key insight into a candidates' financial skill, or lack thereof. Rubio's years of money blunders and missteps speaks volumes about his ability to be responsible, his ability to lead a nation's economy when he has demonstrated that he couldn't even handle his own personal finances, and about his impulsivity of character. He was not just a guy who succumbed to buying his dream speedboat and ran into some college loan debt; Rubio made multiple, one right after the other, bad fiscal decisions that make me worry about how rash he will be with our nation's money or how impulsive he will be with government issues in general given what his financial history says about his character.
According to the New York Times article entitled, "Marco Rubio's Career Bedeviled by Financial Struggles," Rubio did not make a few isolated mistakes, but instead made copious bad monetary decisions over time. As stated in the article: "A review of the Rubio family’s finances — including many new documents — reveals a series of decisions over the past 15 years that experts called imprudent: significant debts; a penchant to spend heavily on luxury items like the boat and the lease of a $50,000 2015 Audi Q7; a strikingly low savings rate, even when Mr. Rubio was earning large sums; and inattentive accounting that led to years of unpaid local government fees.
In addition to this history of questionable financial decisions, Rubio in just recent weeks, was reported to have liquidated an early retirement fund of $68,000 dollars, which experts say will cost him 24 grand in penalties and taxes. As a very well-educated and intelligent man, one who is attempting to be the leader of our country, one might expect more from Rubio in light of these seemingly ignorant, uninformed, impulsive finance decisions. Not only do these missteps not match up with Rubio's political position and intellect, but they also are at odds with his campaign speeches. Rubio has been quoted saying, “We have a country that borrows too much money. If you allow politicians to spend money, they’ll do it.” He is certainly one of those politicians that 'did it', since he was also found using a party credit card to buy groceries and home repairs. Link
Despite this pile-up of blunders, one might argue that Rubio's financial decisions aren't accurate or fair predictors of how he would handle the nation's more serious finances. His faulty mortgages, Audi leases, and early retirement liquidations seemingly have no equivalent action that could be found in the case of the national economy, and we should not hold his past impulse buys against him.
However, even though these decisions are on a much smaller, personal scale, I believe that they are valuable vetting points that show voters some need-to-knows about Rubio's personality/character. In Matt Bai's book All the Truth is Out, he brings up a vital point about this type of controversial candidate vetting when he interviews Tom Fiedler, one of the Herald reporters who followed Gary Hart and published the story of his affairs. Fiedler said of the story, one that marked a critical turning point in candidate reporting, that it was ultimately up to the public to decide how much weight, or value, they grant to this information. It is up to the people to decide if they care about Hart's affairs, and it is the job of the media to get the information out there. Much the same, it was appropriate journalistic vetting to air Rubio's financial dirty laundry, and different voters can and may perceive this information however they so choose.
Personally, I do not give too much weight to Rubio's financial blunders, but I do think it is important information and it does, as a voter myself, make me a little wary about Rubio's ability to handle responsibility and to act with prudence rather than with impulse. I think the media did a good job with publishing this New York Times story and with making this information public information. I am a thankful voter.
Megan, I liked this blog and particularly your take on this issue. Even small and private character defects could potentially exacerbate themselves if the candidate were elected. If the flaw in question is irrelevant, then the voters won't care, but it is up to them to decide. Although in Rubio's case the media was under control in it's response, other situations or media outlets might not be so discreet. I thought your writing was really good and had a nice personal point of view, and your referencing of the New York Times article and the Matt Bai book added to credibility. I really like the way your opening sentence set up the rest of the blog.
ReplyDelete