tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 7, 2015 6:00am-7:01am EDT
they cannot get a gun because nobody i know would want them to have access to it. but i don't think that can control would solve this problem. here is where i think part of the problem is. alienation,ssue is is the deeper issues loneliness. the deeper issue is no attention to an individual who is struggling. i was in aisle at this place called the house of hope the other day. a nondenominational, no government house for women who edge of a breakdown i said why is this house here? families are not connected. we do not know who our neighbors are. this lady was actually waging a
lonely battle by herself. ,o, we can talk about the guns but there is a much deeper issue. it is who are these people, why are they so alienated, why are they so alone. when we deal with that, then we get to the root of the problem. so, the idea that if we just are , we will not take what everybody's guns. it is not practical. who want topeople commit violence will still do it. i think we need to look deeper. everybody was to talk about mental illness, i am open to that. there are supposed to be a way in which you will have automatic access to a gun dealer to understand that somebody has and issues mental illness. need to do that, there does not need to be a loophole. the bigger issue is something we all need to think about. what is our responsibility echo what a society's responsibility to end this drift into
isolation. does government have a role in preventing gun violence? it's part ofch: the reason i expanded medicaid, so that people could get help. so that the mentally ill could get some help. i think it is very important for all of us to think about the things that we can do to try to toach ourselves more building the community from the bottom-up. there is another element and all of this. i want to tell you, when i talk that secularism, i think to some degree, not completely you can be a humorist -- humanist and want to change the world. , but when we do not understand that we have a responsibility to our neighbors, it all breaks down.
try to run programs in ohio on mentoring in schools. on fighting drug addiction. i expanded medicaid so that we could have mental health treatment at the community level. the number of medications available for people in a crisis. specifically out of the problem in virginia where that man was stabbed by his son. there are things we can do. to have that database very effective. the deeperrecognize issue, it takes a lot more complicated and comprehensive answer the just a simple law. >> ladies and gentlemen we have to go. i apologize. >> do you think more people -- on guns, do you think more lives would be saved with more people armed in colleges and schools that others have suggested. armed students and teachers echo
-- teachers echo -- teachers? 1 there ar governor kasich: there are school districts that have submitted safety plans. .t can happen anywhere i talk to the principle of my daughter's school about the nature of how their part in the school. everybody can do it in their own way. whatever they feel the most comfortable with, you just cannot sit there and hope or assume it will never happen to your neighborhood. thank you. [applause] >> our road to the white house coverage continues today with the congressional hispanic caucus institute. where democratic residential candidates bernie sanders and martin o'malley are scheduled to speak. watch more 3:00 p.m. eastern time.
british prime minister david cameron addresses the conservative party conference today in manchester. watch it live at 6:30 a.m. eastern. all campaign long, c-span takes on the road to the white house. unfiltered access to the candidates, at town hall meetings, and speeches. we are taking your comments on facebook, twitter and by phone. campaign wevery cover is available on our website at c-span.org. republican presidential candidate marco rubio talks about the on demand economy that includes companies like grouper and airbnb. he spoke with technology innovators in new york city. this is 50 minutes long.
>> good morning. i am the founder of civic call. welcome. for those of how have never been here before, civic hall is a community center and event space focused on civic innovation and a collaborative workspace for people who believe technology can make the world a better place. it's with great pleasure today that we're able to host this event and so without further ado, i would like to present to you the junior senator from florida and presidential candidate 2016, senator marco rubio. [applause] mr. rubio: thank you, i appreciate that very much. i want to thank you all for participating in this -- a little loud. is that better? so i'm here today not to just tell you my ideas, but to listen to yours. i think that the big part of what a campaign should be all about is the listening part. no one understands the needs of the on-demand economy as well as those of who you are building it. coming into the discussion,
here's something i can state to you with absolute confidence. if there's one thing that matters in the 21st century, it's innovation. in order to be the leading economy on earth, america must be the most innovative economy on earth. it's that simple. whenever we talk about innovation, what we're talking about is problem solving. we're talking about finding ways to do things more efficiently, more affordably and more conveniently than ever before. i want to begin by telling you about a problem that i had earlier this year that american innovators, including many of you in this room, are attempting to solve. and then i want to tell you something you already know. which is that the government is often getting in the way of solving it. so my problem was this. a few months ago my refrigerator at my home broke. it just stopped working. it died out. with four growing kids home for summer break in florida, you can imagine i was facing some pressure to get it fixed.
so, i googled appliance repair companies in miami and i made some calls. first of all, it was frustratingly difficult to get anyone to take me off hold or even to call me back. when i finally got in touch with a real person they said, no problem, we can have someone out to your house in three or four days to look at it. that just can't be how our economy works in the year 2015. other things that took three days in the old economy now take three minutes or three seconds. what struck me in that moment was the following realization. inevitably, somewhere not far away from me, there was someone who was capable of repairing appliances, someone who is just as eager to make extra money that day as i was eager to have a functional refrigerator. the only problem was this person and i had no way of finding each other or connecting. this is a problem that will not exist within a year or two. at least not if american
innovators have their way. the reason is because of the on-demand economy. this is a revolution that's happening right before our eyes. also known as the sharing economy or the gig economy. the on-demand economy is allowing millions of professionals across multiple industries to connect directly with consumers. the most obvious examples, folks, are companies like uber and airbnb. last week it was announced that amazon and google would be entering the on-demand market. right behind these giants are thousands of small innovative startups and if you haven't heard about them yet, just wait. the on-demand platform is one example of an important truth facing us in this election. which is that the american economy, as the global one, is fundamentally being transformed. uber didn't even exist when our current president was sworn into office. and today it is worth over $51 billion.
and it's not just the fact that the economy is changing. the fact is that the economy is changing faster than it has ever changed. for example, it took the telephone 75 years to reach 100 million users. it took candy crush one year to reach 100 million users. and yet while our economy is changing and changing fast, our government and its policies are not. quite frankly, both parties are to blame. never before, at least in my lifetime, has the political establishment in this country been more out of touch with the american people than it is today. the result is a worsening friction between our 20th century government and our rapidly changing 21st century economy. and nowhere is that friction more apparent than in the on-demand economy. here you have innovative companies who are running up against an antiquated tax code, burdensome regulation and numerous, numerous outdated politicians. that's not all. the companies are also victims of a coordinated attack from
established businesses which influence the political process to pass new regulations that block competition. we've seen this play out with taxi companies lobbying to stop uber and here in new york the government is spending millions to try and stop airbnb from threatening hotel chains. i want to give you another example today. i want to tell but a growing company based right here in new york that, like all businesses in the on-demand economy, is facing unnecessary challenges. as a result of the outdated government. it's a company called handy. and its c.e.o. is here today. handy is a online platform that allows consumers to connect directly with home cleaners, handymen, plumbers and other home service professionals. it's quickly growing, it's now operating in 37 cities with over 11,000 professional as registered to use the platform. handy is grown breaking for consumers for obvious reasons. it provides simple booking at
the tap of a finger, a rating and review process that helps people find the best contractor for their needs, and an easy online payment system that eliminates haggling over prices. but it isn't just great for consumers. one of the things i love most about the on-demand economy is the way it promotes upward mobility for the professionals who use it. through handy, workers without the resources to start their own cleaning business, they can now have all the independence of self-employment and the customer base of a large established business. professionals who use handy can earn an average of $18 an hour, which is more than the typical worker in the field. best of all, they set their own hours. checking into the app whenever they have time to take on a job and signing out when they have other obligations.
many workers use this flexibility to pursue higher education, which is central to upward mobility in this new century. others use it to spend more time with their children or work other jobs. innovations like handy are part of the reason why i'm so optimistic, not only about saving the american dream in this century, but actually about expanding it. to reach more people and change more lives than ever before. in the last century, my mother worked as a maid in hotels. she had no control over her schedule. no influence over how much she earned. and few opportunities to set herself apart. and yet she achieved the american dream. just think what she could have achieved cleaning homes through a company like handy. she would have had total control over her own financial life. the on-demand economy is a miracle that only american free enterprise could produce. that is why it is so shameful
that the biggest obstacles to the growth of this platform is our very own government. in fact, think about this. i met the c.e.o. of an on-demand startup a few weeks ago and he asked me not to mention his business today out of fear, out of fear that he would attract attention from legislators, from lawyers and from competitors. what does this say? do we want america to be a place where honest, innovative businesses have to hide their success? of course we do not. we need to be the most business friendly economy on earth. but right now with the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world and a regulatory structure that's directly hostile to innovation, that's quite nearly impossible. here are some of the obstacles that handy and companies like it face every day. first, an outdated tax code. companies like handy have only two options for how to classify their professionals who utilize their services. they can either be classified as full w-2 employees or they can be classified as 1099 independent contractors. but neither one of these makes perfect sense.
if handy's c.e.o. classifies the workers as w-2 employees, then much of the flexibility that makes working with handy so appealing would disappear. he'd have to regulate the workers' hours and he'd have to comply with a litany of expensive regulations that would stunt the growth of the company. so instead the c.e.o. makes sure that the relationship complies with the 1099 independent contractor requirements. but this causes other complications. for example, the company can't provide training to its contractors. they can't even make recommendation as to them based on customer feedback. they can't even ask them to wear a shirt or uniform with a handy logo on it. the c.e.o. is also prevented from providing the perks and benefits that would allow them to attract more high quality professionals to the platform. think about how ironic that is. our outdated politicians bash the on-demand economy for not taking better care of workers yet our outdated government is , the exact force preventing it
from doing so. that's why i've proposed a comprehensive tax reform plan that is both pro-growth and pro-family and today i'd like to discuss with all of a you some additional ways to make the tax code more welcoming to on-demand companies. some ideas i've had are to maintain the physical presence standard for taxation a, for online purchases. to stop discriminatory taxation of digital goods and services like app downloads and to ensure that the internet remains tax-free. but on-demand companies aren't the only ones hurt by our tax code. they also face the uncertainty of a volatile regulatory environment. just last week, last friday actually, the chairwoman of the federal trade commission said that the on-demand economy would require, quote, targeted regulatory measures, unquote. we have to realize that all the best innovation in our economy
is happening in the unregulated space. yet washington has imposed 60,000 pages of new federal regulations just this year, costing our private economy almost -- over or almost $70 billion in total compliance costs. as president i will put an end to this. i will place a cap on the amount of regulations -- on the amount regulations can cost our economy each year. i will also require federal agencies to include an analysis of exactly how much proposed regulations would impact competition and ovation. i believe the more america regular late -- regulates, the more we create an opening for other countries to deregulate and draw jobs away from our shores. other nations are already scrambling to cater to the on-demand economy. germany, for example, has created a middle ground between full time employees and independent contractors.
this classification is called independent contractors. -- d pendent contractors. it allows professionals to work for a sickle company, receive benefits and protections and yet retain control over their own work. whether this model is the best option for america or not is something we should figure out. but here's what i know for sure. we have to change the way the political establishment in this country thinks about the new economy. right now they recognize that the new economy doesn't fit our current tax code and our current way of doing things, so they ask themselves, how can we force the new economy to adopt to our old policies rather than asking, how can we change our old policies to adapt to the new economy? this has always -- that has always been the american way. we are a unique nation in all the world's history. a nation founded on the idea that government doesn't get to choose what our economy looks like. the american people and the
private sector get to choose. and guess what? the american people have chosen. they have chosen a convenient, fast, tech-driven economy, one with direct lane of access to the product and the services they want and need. the american people have chosen an economy in which the most valuable retailer in america, amazon, doesn't own a single store. they have chosen where the largest transportation company, uber, doesn't own a single vehicle. and where the largest accommodation provider, airbnb, does not own a single hotel. free enterprise has brought us these developments and free enterprise will bring us even more developments in the years ahead. in fact, i believe free enterprise will work better in this century than it did in the last century. because the new economy is all about innovation, creativity and productivity and we americans are the most innovative, creative and productive people on the earth. i believe the 21st century not only can be the american century, i believe it will be the american century. it will be as long as everyone in this room keeps doing what they're doing and as long as we can get washington to stop doing
what its doing and start looking for a better way. with that i'd like to hear your ideas and answer your questions. i thank you for the opportunity to talk about that today. thank you. [applause] >> we're going to do a little bit of a question and answer session. i'll start. if you have a question you'd like to ask, in about 15 minutes, there are two microphones in the aisles. we're going to do it based on alternating between, so i'll give you a signal when we're about to take questions.
senator, thank you very much for coming to civic hall and for talking about this issue. there's been lots of cases where incumbent market forces who have political influence have reacted to the competition that the sharing economy companies are giving them. and a they're using their political connections to try and stop these innovative companies. this is all eventually tied to money and politics. it's great, and i hear you when you say that government is targeting, but if you follow the money, it goes back to the incumbent market. how do you break that cycle? mr. rubio: that's exactly right. i think part of it is to explain to people, we're not experiencing an economic down turn. we are experiencing a mass of economic restructuring. it's like the industrial revolution happening every five years.
so our policies need to reflect that. and in reflecting that, that's why it's so important for us not to ascribe to the new economy attributes of the old economy. so that's why i believe a limited government is the best approach for the 21st century. the larger the government, the more powerful the government is, the more influence the government has over the economy, the more the people or the companies that can influence the government win at the expense of everybody else. so you have massive -- that's why, for example, regulatory budget is so important. the favorite way of established industries to block an innovative competitor is to create a regulatory impediment to that competitor, to enter the space. i always use this example, it may not be perfect, but imagine a blockbuster who, if you're looking around this room, some of you probably don't know what that is, a blockbuster video had convinced federal government to pass a regulation saying, in order to rent movies you must come into a physical store and show your i.d. buzz we want to prevent underage kids from renting rated r movie, they'd still be in business and we wouldn't have downloading. that's the mentality that exists in established industries. they find some sort of argument and they use it to create a road block that the innovator can't meet. >> the reason they're able to do that and create that is because
they have access and that access is tied to giving money to political candidates or officials. mr. rubio: part of it is electing people who won't fall for that and understand that that's an impediment to economic growth. that's why the regulatory budget is one of the proposal as i have. >> yesterday a new report came out from the freelancers union that states that 54 million american, almost 1/3 of the work force, is doing freelance work. it's not just in urban areas, it's in rural areas, throughout the country. 86% of the nation's freelancers are likely to vote in 2016. 62% are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports freelancers' interests. some of these people are not necessarily working for handy or for uber or any of the sharing companies, they're just working on their own but they care about things like retirement savings, health care, legal support for nonpayment because somebody's not paying them. and other issues unique to this group.
whatever a worker really wants is flexible work but also stable work. what would you do as president -- mr. rubio: you raise a couple of interesting points. our 21st century health care is on the worker model. we work for somebody, those people offer you an insurance plan, that's how you get your health insurance. in the 21st that cannot be the century corner stone of our , system. we have to have a portable system of health insurance, which is why i believe every american should be allowed to control their own pretax health care money, whether it's an employer that gives it to you, whether it's your own money or a tax a credit. depending on how much money you make, and you can use it to buy your own health insurance from any company that will sell it to you. that's an important issue. i've argued we should open up the congressional retirement plan. the congress, as a member of congress you're allowed to contribute to the federal 2015 savings plan. that's only available to federal government employees and members of congress and it's a plan that
actually performs well. i've argued we should open up that plan to anyone who doesn't have a retirement plan offered to them by an employer. so they too can pay into and have access to congressional retirement plan as a contributor to that program. i think we need to figure out ways to provide that sort of stability, that once came from a traditional employer. in the 21st century we're going to have to account for the fact that a growing number of americans won't be that traditionally employed. >> you came out against the federal minimum wage. in the sharing economy, what's to keep from us having a race to the bottom? the person who is willing to deliver food for $4 is beaten out by the person willing to do it for $3 an hour. mr. rubio: i'm not in favor of getting rid of the minimum wage completely. i've argued against increasing it for two reasons. one, i don't want to make people more expensive than machines. the second point, it is clear that there are businesses, especially those who cannot pass through the cost, that will adjust to a higher minimum wage by either hiring less people, cutting hours, cutting benefits. and i don't want people harmed by.
that i just don't think it's the best way to raise wages. i think the better way to raise wages is a combination of creating an economy that creates jobs that pay more but also making it easier and cheaper for people to acquire the advanced education they need to qualify for the best paying jobs of the 21st century. so, for example, i've argued about opening space for competency-based learning. in a bipartisan bill, with mike bennett of colorado and myself have offered an alternative accrediting model that will allow people to get the equivalent of a college education but do it by a means that allow you to package learning from a variety of experiences. we should open up pell grant and student financial aid to high school students who dual enroll. i also think we'll have traditional four-year education. but i've argued that students deserve to know how much they're going to make when they graduate from that school with that degree before they borrow money to pay for it.
so i have a bipartisan bill called right to know before you go with ron white of oregon that requires that before you take out a loan, you are told how much people make when they graduate from that school. that's a better way to raise wages. is to both create the policies that allow america to be the easiest and best place in the world to create better paying jobs and make it easier, faster and cheaper for people to acquire the skills they need for those better paying jobs. >> you mentioned that you want to limit regulation but in some cases these innovative companies have fantastic services but there are collateral effects. for example, airbnb, which many people love, both the users on both sides of the transaction love, but in some cases low income people are using airbnb to subsidize their incomes. their landlords are finding out, they're getting evicted. the landlord takes that apartment to market rent. low income housing drops. there's a collateral effect. you can probably follow a lot of these companies' path and start seeing a wake of collateral effect which may not necessarily be so great, so if you have no regulation, how do you prevent
collateral effects from coming back and biting us? mr. rubio: i want the water we drink to not be poisoned. i fly on planes, i'm glad they're regulated. i'm arguing there comes a point when regulations go too far and they become an impediment to innovation. in the case of a private property owner, if i'm a private property owner, i own my own property, i can place restrictions on how tenants can use property. people do that all the time. that's different from a government policy that places that restriction artificially, as opposed to a contractual restriction. that's a situation you're facing. structural change in the economy has always been disruptive. the industrial revolution was deeply disruptive. we had to work through issues of child labor and safety issues at factories that we never had before as a society. we're going to have disruptions we have to work through. that doesn't mean you walk away from this. this is the future.
we're not going back to the 20th century. the only choice before us is do we embrace the future, harness its promise or allow it to leave us behind. that's the only choice before us. this argument that we're going to be able to go back to the good old days or the way things once were is not going to happen. if we do we're going to be left behind by the fewer. >> sharing economy has become a buzz term. but doesn't fully explain the changing nature of work in america. companies like airbnb and lift and uber are examples, and even handy, are middlemen in effect between someone who is willing to provide a service and someone who is willing to pay for it. wouldn't we be better off just building cooperatives where the people can find each other without having to pay a middleman to do the transaction? because once you build that platform -- mr. rubio: who's going to build that platform? the government? >> citizens could do it and a make it more open so the share hold, -- mr. rubio: i don't think you're going to get innovation that
way. the way you come up with great ideas is someone says, i have a good idea and i think i can make money on, it i'm going to do it. every major innovation in the world has been driven that way. particularly when it comes to providing certains to individuals. you may believe in your idea, but the fact is that the reason why it's created is because there's a profit motive. somebody has made a decision, i think i can do this for a living and so they found these ideas. i think if you're counting on the collective to come up with it on its own, the not an effective way to move innovation. free enterprise has proven that. the great company of the year 2025 doesn't exist yet. someone is probably 14 years old playing mine craft right now and they're going to figure out -- they shouldn't be playing right [laughter] -- no. [laughter] but they're going to figure out how to put this thing together in eight or nine years. but they're only going to do it because they think they can make money doing it. there's nothing wrong with that. there's nothing wrong with the
profit motive involved in driving these. >> some people argue there are new monopolies being created by new tech companies now that are will prevent innovation. mr. rubio: you can very much be a creature of the new economy and once you are established decide you're an incumbent industry. every established industry was once an innovator. i'm not arguing that new economy creatures are going to not behave in the same fashion eventually. that's why we have a system that doesn't allow that to happen. what we should have is a free enterprise system that says this no matter how great your idea, is you can be out of business in two years if someone comes up with a better service, a better idea and can deliver it at a better price. >> what if a company like uber, for example, decides to cut its prices because it can afford to and prevent others in company that may want to create car sharing in a different way, like car pooling, from even being able to enter the market? there's no one to protect them because the first mover made a huge advantage and got a huge amount of money and now they're burning money in order to protect -- mr. rubio: the truth about the new economy is the competitor to uber may not offer a direct exact model. it won't be just a cheaper version of uber. it will be a new system or way of using sharing that is totally different from the model uber is
using. we have examples of this all the time. five years ago, three years ago, whatever it may be, the cutting edge industry or the cutting edge company or firm has very much been replaced by a new one that came in and did kind of what they were doing but an even better and more creative way. i don't think that government interference in that realm is going to lead to the sort of innovation. what it's going to end up doing is setting and concrete and drying the existing innovation that's already in place. >> you mentioned we have a 20th century government but one of the challenges is that this technology continues to evolve and change and seems like some of the regulators are reacting as opposed to staying ahead. if you're president, what would you do to make sure that the government, where it does need to regulate, for example, airlines, making sure they're safe, stays ahead of the technology? planes right now, for example, aren't connected 24/7, we still chase after black boxing when they crash. there is a role for government to stay ahead of technology.
besides just cutting the regulators' budget and limiting the amount of regulation, how do we keep the government on a 21st century path. mr. rubio: the government still has a vested interest in public safety. if you're an uber -- i keep going back to the same companies, i don't want to pick on anybody. but those usual cars are regulated. before that car is on the road it's been inspected, gone through the testing that the federal government requires for motor vehicles. it has regulations locally about how fast you can drive, what the safety features need to be, rules of the road, all those things are still in place. we're not saying uber drivers don't have to observe traffic signals. they still have to follow all of those rules. that's not the issue. the issue is the industry in particular. it's a business model not being regulated. here's the bottom line. there is no way that the federal government could ever keep up with innovation on a regulatory front. it can't move fast enough. >> i'm a little concerned when you say that we're going to limit the amount of regulation when volkswagen is able to play
with their software and basically lie to the world about the efficiency of their cars. somebody has to have the budget to be able to investigate to make sure they don't do that. if you cut regulation, it isn't just going allow for innovative companies, it may create damage to our economy. mr. rubio: a regulatory budget is not just about cutting regulations. a regulatory budget is designed to force prioritization. through a cost-benefit analysis. all it says is that a cumulative impact of federal regulations cannot exceed a certain amount of money. these agencies must decide which regulations are worthy. if we only can have x number of regulations, which are the ones we really need and which are the ones that aren't justified. that's what it's designed to do. >> on a cost-benefit analysis, some people with a say get rid of gas emissions because it's cheaper to make cars that don't save air pollution. a huge cost to the environment. mr. rubio: then those people that make that decision will be accountable to their electorate.
what we have now is a system where you can keep adding new regulations without removing existing ones. it's a system of perpetual regulatory growth. without any cost-benefit analysis. many regulations are being put in place because of the theoretical value of the regulation or because someone hired the right person to influence the government to move in that direction. >> we'll start taking some questions. i just have one more. the white house recently launched a program called the u.s. digital service. which is to bring the nation's top engineers to work inside government, to fix problems. for example, like the v.a. backlog. and save money. in fact, save hundreds of millions of dollars on old antiquated systems that the government currently spends. if you're president, would you continue that program and would you expand it?
mr. rubio: we want to see how it works first. it's been offered as a pilot initially. a very small amount. $0 million. but i think if it proves to be something that's effective, where we can attract some of the brightest minds in the country to dedicate themselves to public service for x number of years, to create solutions to how government provides services, that's something we should definitely be open to. >> i want to ask everybody to please have your questions remain on the topic of today's talk, if you could. questioner: thank you so much for being here today. i very much enjoy your discussion today. especially you mentioned the american dream. i'm a daca recipient. deferred action for childhood arrival. i have a question that's relevant to the topic. i am in the tech industry. you've said our immigration system is broken because it's based on whether you have a relative here rather than married. as president, what will you do
to fix the lottery system to attract and keep the best and brightest talent in america, especially for tech? mr. rubio: first of all, do i believe we need reforms to. that especially because some of it is being abused by existing companies and the other part of it is sometimes the visa, is within three days all the slots are gone. countries like canada are deliberately targeting to steal away some of the best talent graduating from our universities by bragging that you can get the work force to live in canada but not in the u.s. i have a particular piece of legislation that expands the program but also creates rules and regulations so it can't be abused and used against the american worker. but the bigger issue is on the -- we admit a million people a year to the united states permanently. my argument is, if you're in the best -- if you're one of the best people at what you do, i don't want you temporarily here, i want you here permanently. i want to you become an american. i want you to live in this country and become ingrained in our society and a culture. what i've argued is that the permanent legal immigration system needs to become more
merit-based. we start admitting people to this nation permanently, primarily a on the basis what have they can contribute economically, not simply on whether or not you have a relative living here that serves as the magnet that brings you in. that's why i've argued for a merit-based system. it reflects the 21st century much more accurately. questioner: hi, i'm danielle thompson. i have a question for you regarding open government. and government as platform. open government believes that citizens should have access to all the data, laws and other information regarding government. and government as platform, an idea that believes government should make it easy for citizens to plug and play into their governments in order to govern themselves better. as president, how would you promote initiatives such as open government, which, coming from a conservative upbringing, who believes that people should govern themselves locally, how will you support initiatives of open government and government
as platform? mr. rubio: one of the platforms out there is about the online budgeting initiatives or other ideas to make more transparent the way government operates, particularly spending money. by providing that on an easy to use platform where the american people can access the mysterious federal government and understand where it's spending money, how the money's being spent, what the salaries of federal employees are, what the spending priorities are. so i would be open to leveraging technology to provide more transparency so that on an a ongoing basis individual americans would be able to have access to the way government operates and the way government spends money and the size of different programs, agencies, etc. i think technology has easy solutions for that if we're willing to implement it. questioner: thanks for being here. craig aaron from free press. very interested, i appreciate you being in this dialogue, we talked a lot about companies,
users and individuals. i think there's been this incredible upswing in internet activism in the last few years, uniting people across party lines, around issues of personal control. they don't want the government to be in charge of their online experience. but they don't want to handful of big corporations either. i'm curious as president what you would do to protect privacy, people's information and leave them in control of their own online experience. mr. rubio: that's important. part of it is we have a system that's largely -- you have to opt out, for example, the way your information is used as opposed to the presumption being the other way. there's this debate between the private sector which says, if we can't sell consumer information, then we can't offer all these services. the flip side of it is that many american users, people even around the world are not aware that their information, unless they opt out, is being used and sold as a marketable good. that tension is very real. at the end of the day, if we're forced to choose between both, i'd still err on the side of privacy rights of individual americans to opt in to the way their information is used. that meets enormous resistance, especially from banks, who find their consumer spending habits of their clients very valuable. but given a choice between these
two, i think we always are on the side of individuals and the ability of individuals to have their private information protected, from being used in ways they're not even aware of. >> on that topic in particular, i don't know if you knew this, but in bankruptcy the creditors have no obligation to maintain the terms of service that was originally signed even if people opted out when they signed on. mr. rubio: meaning if you have a loan or bank account and you opted out of the information, once someone buying your debt, they don't have any -- >> yeah, any of these services. the companies collected all that data and if for some reason that company goes bankrupt, they have no obligation to that privacy. mr. rubio: this is a 21st century issue that we'll have to confront. questioner: it seems like a lot of these regulatory battles that companies fight happen to be local in nature. airbnb in san francisco or uber
in florida. how does the federal government get in there while preserving some of these local -- mr. rubio: it doesn't on the local issues. you're right. a lot of these are being fought at multiple levels of government. obviously there's nothing the federal government can do to tell a city, you have to allow uber to operate. where we have a role is in the tax treatment and employment issues that i pointed out about how do you treat an independent contractor -- that doesn't mean there's a federal solution to all of this, but we have to ensure that our policies are conducive to innovation at the federal level. in addition to creating categories that allow us to account for the new employment, most american businesses, especially smaller ones, today you pay your tax rate on, that on your personal rate, not on the corporate rate, so that's where you find a large established industry might be paying very few taxes. compared to a much smaller company. i've argued that all a business income, no matter how you're structured, all business income
should be taxed at one flat rate of 25% for everyone. that includes the money you're making in a subchapter s, your business income would only be taxed at 25%. not at 39.5% or 35% or whatever your personal rate might be. that's a huge advantage for a smaller business. i would allow businesses to immediately expense anything they invest. again, a large cooperation can afford to take that deduction on a scheduled depreciation. a small business that may not be around in four years they can't expense capital investments up front right away. these are examples of things we can do at the federal level to create a more even playing field for new operators and startups. questioner: greg waltman. i have a queen energy alternative analytical company do innovations in social economy, professional sports as well. will mr. rubio: that's a pretty
broad portfolio. questioner: going back to access. i was wondering, multibillion dollar wire fraud, there was a big loss in london. >> let's stay on topic. questioner: journalists sit on the wire all day for a company like time warner inc., contributing absolutely nothing to the economy and target people blocking sales and business -- >> i'm sorry. i would like to you respect -- if you don't mind. i would really like -- questioner: \[inaudible] wire fraud with no accountability. how do you plan to deal with fraud? the answer is you can't. you cheated on your wife in florida and -- >> i'm sorry. i'm sorry. questioner: i think you should drop out of the race. your polling numbers are too low to win. >> you're not welcome here. i apologize.
mr. rubio: actually kind of weird anyway. [laughter] >> back to our regularly scheduled programming. please. questioner: i was enjoying this until this last speaker. i'm happy to be here and happy to listen to this discussion. being one of the thousands of independent taxi owners in new york city, i do not have the means to have a research and development component to my business. but i am able to adapt. i am able to adapt. should uber or any other company who has taxi technology, who hasn't bought taxi rights, be able to have those rights that i had to pay for without paying? mr. rubio: i think they're in a totally different business model. their business model is not the same as a taxi cab. it connects the user on a different platform and a
different way to the service that they're trying to acquire. and that's just the result of an economic transformation. it happens, it's unfortunate to some people, because it is disruptive. but every time we've had economic restructuring in this country, it has displaced some people. and our obligation is to ensure that the people that have been displaced can quickly access the benefits of the new economy or the new innovation. so, for example, the invention of the car was very disruptive to the horse drawn carriage industry, yet we had to figure a way to get those people online, and either in a factory building cars or other industry that was created, that allowed them to once again restart their lives and get going and moving forward. but we can't stand in the way of these innovations. they're going to happen. they're going to happen in america or somewhere else in the world. our job is to do the best we can to help people that are caught in that disruption, to either acquire new skills or add to their existing skills so they have access to the benefits of that new innovative economy. i think any effort to stand in the way of innovation, not only is fruitless, it's counterproductive.
>> getting workers retrained brings up the question of education. and our education system being built on the 20th century model rather than the 21st. there doesn't seem to be enough federal money for teacher training or -- mr. rubio: part of it is, if you're a nontraditional student, you're like this gentleman or somebody wholes has to work full time and raise a family, you can't drop everything and sit in a classroom for two years and be retrained in a gnaw profession or acquire a new skill. competency-based learning would allow you to do a number of things. number one, if you had an alternative accrediting model to the existing six big accreditors they would accredit innovative programs. if you have 20 years of work experience, that's worth something.
that should be given college equivalent credit for. and then whatever you're missing you should be allowed to package from a variety of different sources. whether it's community college course work, free online courses, paid online courses, additional work experience. so that people can package together the equivalent of a college degree or the equivalent of a certificate award and use that. >> that's at the high level. mr. rubio: no, the entire economy. in you can use that to retrain people to become paralegals or receptionists, to become a paralegal at a law office. you can create that as an opportunity to allow people to get credit for military service and other work experience to become a welder or someone that works in factory. >> what about our public schools, particularly in urban areas, where they're underfunded and under-resourced and there aren't teachers to train science and math? mr. rubio: the k-12 educational system is a primary obligation of the local and state government. where the federal government gets involved on occasion is helping key segments of our population through funding mechanisms, through the title 1 programs, through head start and so forth. my argument is not to cut those programs. my argument is that money should
follow the child, not the child have to follow the money. i would allow people to use that money to access innovative programs. that's one of the reasons i talked about opening up pell grant to dual enrollment. at the front end i believe that pre-k through 12 education should remain in the control of local jurisdictions. >> what could you do as president to ensure there's more funding for science and math? mr. rubio: i believe that k-12 education belongs at the state and local level. both in its responsibility and its funding. it's never been a federal obligation. you don't want the federal government dictating the local communities. because that money will always come with strings. and i want the -- you're not going to get educational innovation from the federal level. you're only going to get the creation of new programs and approaches at the state and local level. that's where k-12edcation primarily belongs. questioner: can i respond?
>> we want to get as many people as possible. questioner: we have a lot of people losing their jobs. there's a limit to reeducating these people. especially if they're older. using the -- do you think the government has the responsibility to care for these people and create a safety net? mr. rubio: yes. i believe in a safety net. i don't think free enterprise works without a safety net. free enterprise requires you to take a risk in many instances. if it fails, the consequences can't be that you're destitute. i don't think the safety net in should be a life staple or way of life. i believe we should take our -- number two, i think our safety net is failing it. -- it doesn't cure poverty. the purpose of our anti-poverty program should be to cure property, not to treat its symptoms. that's what our safety net programs have become. a better approach is the one i've argued which is we should take our federal poverty money
and allow them to be spent at the state and local level so they can design innovative programs that work in those communities that specifically target the causes or the leading causes of that poverty in that community. the only requirement that i would have, unless someone is permanently disabled and legitimately disabled, the only requirement i would have is that anyone who is receiving public assistance should be working or going to school and so any solution to poverty involves the following. it has to involve -- not just paying their bills in the short term, it also has to involve the acquisition of the skills you need to become employed and find a job that pays more. i've also argued for a wage enhancement credit. which would allow an individual that only makes $8 an hour to receive an extra $4 an hour because at least they're working. they're not home unemployed. now that becomes a stigma on your resume when you get hired years later. the longer you're unemployed the harder it is to get re-employed again. we've offered a num number of innovative solutions to deal with that. the government's obligation ultimately is to create systems where individuals will fall on hard times, can get back up and try again. we don't want -- what cannot become is what it is now which
is in some cases a lifestyle and in other cases a system that traps you. it makes you comfortable in your post but it does nothing to cure it. we need to cure poverty. we're not doing that right now. questioner: thank you for your emphasis on innovation. i am a technology education entrepreneur and i can tell you firsthand that sometimes startups have trouble finding the right talent to fill positions. our local universities do a pretty decent job training a lot of foreign-important students. -- foreign-born students. some of whom are undocumented, like i have been since the first grade. so as president, what would you do to help foreign-born students and dreamers like me who want to stay in this country, who want to work in this country? mr. rubio: i believe we need to pass immigration reform. i just don't believe we can do it in one massive piece of legislation. the reason why i know that is because i tried. we don't have the votes. we don't have the political support. it's actually gotten harder to do it that way.
i think the only way forward is to say to the american people, we recognize that we have 11 million or 12 million people here illegally, we have to stop the problem from continuing to grow from this point forward, this is not going to happen again. so step one has to be to prove that we've brought illegal immigration moving forward under control. step two is we have to modernize our legal immigration system so that it's more merit-based and reflects 291st century. -- reflects the 21st century. tot will be very helpful people who are acquiring skills in school. including the majority in my party would be reasonable how you deal with someone who was brought here as a child who isn't a criminal, if they're a criminal, they cannot stay, but they are not a criminal, what do you do with someone in that circumstance. and depending on your circumstances, you have to come forward and pass a background check and become proficient in english, start paying taxes and you get a work permit.
a legal status that would allow them to be in this country for at least 10 years. after that period has expired i'm open to having people apply for a permanent residency. that would have majority support in this country but that is the biggest impediment. we have 12 million here, if we do it the wrong way, we will have another 12 million. that is what is holding us back. >> this is the last question. to bring back your refrigerator example, where do you stand on the right to repair? john deere prohibits only authorized dealers to repair -- only allows authorized dealers to repair things. same thing for apple. >> you lose your warranty.
if someone else repairs it. audience member: there are restrictive terms of service, is it possible that you brought the wrong brand of refrigerator. many independent contractors are building small repair businesses, but in terms of services and policies of the manufacturers don't allow third parties to repair. senator rubio: i haven't thought about that in depth so i can't give you a great answer. i haven't thought about it. as we move forward in this conversation about innovation and these sorts of services, these are the issues we will have to work through. any economic transformation involves significant disruption, whether to the work force or issues like you have raised and we'll have to work through these. you cannot stand in the way of it and say he are going to try
-- and say we are going to try to go back to the way the things were. that is an impossible task and counterproductive one. doesn't mean it's going to be seamless. i'm sure we can work through many of these, but we have no choice but to do so. this is the u.s. economy and only going to change faster than ever and we need to adjust to it quickly. host: just discovered a new way to think about terms of service. senator rubio: absolutely. so is your refrigerator working now? senator rubio: i bought a new one. host: i have a situation, he said keep the old one and we'll send you a new one, no questions asked. things are changing. senator rubio: that should have been the refrigerator i should have bought. host: thank our senator for joining us this morning.
[applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> all caps and long, c-span takes you on the road to the white house, unfiltered access to the candidates at town hall meetings. rallies and speeches. we are taking your comments on twitter, facebook and phone. as always, every event we cover is available on our website at c-span.org. agriculture secretary is on -- set testifying before the house committee. he is at a hearing on developing 2015 dietary guidelines. we have it live and on a clock eastern on c-span3. baltimore mayor and u.s.
conference of mayors presidents stephanie rawlings blake speaks at the national press club today about living in urban areas. see her remarks live on c-span3. next monday on c-span's new series landmark cases, in 1830 slave to u.s.s a army surgeon dr. john emerson. during his less man army emerson was assigned to duties in several free states. dred scott married harriet robinson, when her daughter died mr. robertson tried to buy his family's freedom, but she refused. he sued. following the case of scott versus sanford at c-span's new series landmark cases, historic supreme court decisions. discovering supreme court rulings i revealing the life and times of the plaintiffs, lawyers and justices. landmark cases, next monday live at 9:00 p.m. eastern time.
for background on each case -- oryou watch, go to your copy of landmark cases book. it is available at c-span.org/landmark cases. live to dance, washington journal is next. the0:00 a.m. eastern time house returns for general speeches. at noon they take up to bills. mortgageng with disclosure, another subcommittee to investigate planned parenthood. coming up and 45 minutes, congressman tim robinson from ohio talks about his concerns with the transpacific parker trading region. at 8:30 a.m. representatives from florida on the republican leadership elections thursday and his own run for the majority went -- with.
policy from the harvard kennedy school of government, he talks about his political article on the deadly hospital strike in afghanistan, and the john afghanistan operations. ♪ host: good morning to all of you on this wednesday, october 7, 2015. a group of conservative republicans met behind closed doors to hear from three candidates who want to be the next speaker of the house. the front runner is kevin mccarthy. he told his colleagues he is no john boehner. will talk about this leadership races on the program. first, we want to begin with your thoughts on afghanistan. whether or not the west should leave more troops in that country to fight a rising inter