Are Marco Rubio's Personal Finances Fair Game?

There have been a lot of complaints about the way the moderators handled the GOP debate last night.  While we tend to expect this sort of thing after any debate, I think it is warranted in this case due to some some of the questions posed to the candidates.  I think the low for the night was when a moderator asked Marco Rubio a question about his personal finances – specifically about a foreclosure on a second home.
 
I polled my Twitter followers and found people about evenly divided over whether a candidate’s personal finances should be considered fair game in a political campaign.

Photo by Gage Skidmore

I think that there needs to be some distinction between someone's personal financial misfortunes and the decisions that they make as public officials.  Of course, an exception should be made for business dealings that might have been crooked or willfully unethical, as the public should be able to inquire about these things.  I’m sure even my friend Curt can agree that people should be able to ask questions about Trump’s bankruptcies or about donations solicited for the Clinton Foundation, as these sorts of questions address a candidate's character… but to ask someone about a foreclosure on their second personal home is a bit much.  One might expect something like this to come from other candidates or Super PAC smear ads – but this one came from the moderators!  It’s not much different in my view than if a moderator were to have asked Barack Obama whether he was born in the United States – this sort of talk has no place coming from a professional moderator in a debate setting.
 
I realize that given the results of my admittedly unscientific Twitter poll, some people may not be convinced, so let’s look at this from a historical lens.  There were some great presidents who never would have been able to serve if impeccable personal finances were a prerequisite for serving as president.

Thomas Jefferson was deep in debt  - he had a bad habit of cosigning loans for people (he was known for his faith in people), built an expensive house, lived a lavish lifestyle, and cash crop agriculture was a risky business that also did a number on the finances of Presidents Madison and Monroe. JEFFERSON DIED INSOLVENT, owing nearly $2 million to creditors when he died.  This is the same guy who cut federal expenditures and lowered taxes, running what he called a “wise and frugal government.”  Nothing wise and frugal about the way he ran his own finances but that in no way translated into how he ran the government’s finances.  Imagine a world where the Founders said, "Sorry, Jefferson, your finances are a mess so you can't write the Declaration of Independence!

Abraham Lincoln had a lot of failed business ventures and was poor most of his life.  One time, his assets were seized by the sheriff – a horse and some surveying equipment – yet he’s consistently ranked in the top three on surveys of US presidents, sometimes #1!

Sorry, America... You'll just have to continue on as two separate federal republics because Honest Abe couldn't pay his debts as a young man... and slavery's going to have to wait around for about 20 or 30 more years to become technologically impracticable before we can get rid of it!

Ulysses S. Grant went on a world tour after he left office and ran up a bunch of debt – it’s expensive to travel around the world – and later invested $100,000 (most of his savings) in a crooked investment that got the embezzler put in jail.  

WAIT – GRANT WAS A BAD PRESIDENT WITH A SCANDAL-PRONE ADMINISTRATION.  THIS DOES NOT HELP MY CASE.

Harry Truman refused to declare bankruptcy when a company he co-owned went under.  While he was POTUS, Congress felt so sorry for him that they increased his salary.  About 20 years later, Truman was still poor enough for President Johnson to use him as a PR tool to promote Medicare – he and his wife were the first two to enroll in the program.

Well, America... I guess we can't put an end to WWII because nobody
​has the guts to drop a bomb!

BOTTOM LINE:  Not everyone is great at managing their personal finances and not everyone is lucky in their business dealings (let's face it, a great deal of success in business has to do with luck).  Some people have expensive tastes and live beyond their means - I think this would include most Americans if we're honest with ourselves.  As long as it does not involve crooked business dealings or misuse of public funds, it should not be a major issue in the selection of a president.

For Further Reading:  http://www.bankrate.com/finance/politics/us-presidents-who-were-deep-in-debt-7.aspx​