If the VP list is narrowed to Tom Perez and Julian Castro

[Eric J in MN]

...then which of those two would you want Hillary Clinton to pick?


(This is a hypothetical. As far as I know, other people are also being considered.)

[B Calm]

1. Not much we know about either one of them on the issues.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Thomas_Perez.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Julian_Castro.htm

[TwilightZone]

8. On The Issues uses mostly statements made while in political office.

One can find plenty of other information on their resumes and careers if one bothers to look.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Perez
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Castro

In addition to the main bio info, there are plenty of links to sources for more info at the bottom of each one. Happy reading.

Also:

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/osec

http://www.mayorcastro.com/bio

[Mz Pip]

9. Perez n/t

[RobertEarl]

16. No to Both. Bernie is the best ever for VP.

[Hortensis]

2. Tom Perez. For sure. No one would be calling

him "Little Tommy Perez" in "Little Danny Quayle" comparisons. He's in his mid 50s and, from what I've read, is a redoubtable man with a lot of admirers in Washington. He has a long and very impressive progressive and social justice resume that just doesn't happen to include significant elective office.



Right now Sec. Castro has lost the confidence of a good part of the "it's not fair! left" and some Hispanics for decisions regarding foreclosed homes, which is to say he'd have to be dragged out from under the bus and cleaned up. He's the same age Dan Quayle was when he was picked for VP and, while his IQ might be virtually twice Danny's, his resume is only somewhat better. The GOP would make a lot of nasty hay out of his mayoral record of bike paths and a preschool education program. Plus, Hillary said she will choose someone who can step into the Oval Office, and he doesn't fit that picture at all. Some day.

(By the way, just try to find a picture of Sec. Castro scowling or even one that makes him look like he's no longer in his 20s or 30s.)

[tallahasseedem]

15. +1

Awesome analysis!

[JustAnotherGen]

3. Castro

[Bohunk68]

4. You can bet that Herr Trump would be calling Mr. Castro, "Fidel."

Which would be a dog-whistle for the right. The filth that would follow that.

[geek tragedy]

5. Perez because there's a lot more substance with him nt

[Starry Messenger]

6. Perez.

Hard call on personal qualities, but Perez being Labor Sec running with Hillary would be stellar.

[PragmaticLiberal]

7. Perez by a mile.

[Vattel]

10. I don't know much about their positions. Are they hawks?

[Yupster]

11. Castro

Only thing I've seen of Perez is his Fiduciary Standard for IRA accounts, and the rule that came out will cost many investors more and hurt beginning small investors the most. I can't honestly see any gain to come from it other than it has a cool name.

He is willing to move though as some of the completely unworkable proposals were left out of the final rule after they were laughed at when they were in the original versions.

[Eric J in MN]

12. How will the Fiduciary Standard for IRA accounts

...cost investors?

[Yupster]

14. This is going to be a long answer

Let's say you're my broker and I come to you with $ 10,000 I want to put in my IRA next March - $ 5,000 for 2016 and $ 5,000 for 2017.

You would ask me what I want to do with the money? I say I don't know, what choices do I have?

You make a handful of suitable investment suggestions.

A. A two year CD paying 1.2 %
B. A 30 year Coca Cola bond paying 4.2 %
C. 100 shares of Exxon stock.
D. A stock mutual fund.
E. or any other kind of mutual fund.

__________________________________________________

I look at the list and say, you know I have lots of mutual funds already and cd's don't pay enough. Let's buy the Exxon stock while it's down.

You explain to me that the trade will cost me about $ 100 or 1 %, but then I can keep the Exxon stock for the next 25 years and it will never cost me anything to hold it year by year until someday when I want to sell it and it would cost me another 1 %. A pretty darn cheap investment for the long term.

________________________________________________________

So here's the problem. Was the Exxon stock the investment that was in the best interest of me, the customer? The old standard was that the choices you offered me had to be suitable. You offered me a handful of suitable choices. No problem.

But the investment companies are at a loss as to how to figure out which of those options is in my best interest. Is it the one that five years later made the most? The one that never lost? The one that made the broker the least commission? How do you tell which investment is in the customer's best interest?

So the companies have settled on Managed Money accounts as a solution. I put my $ 10,000 in and you as the broker charge me the same amount regardless of which investments I choose. The typical cost is around 1.5 % a year. There is no conflict of interest as you as the broker don't care which investment I choose. You make the same either way. Even better, you can suggest I go into investment package D, a package of mutual funds that is diversified and pre-approved by the regulators. For the 1.5 % fee, you get a meeting or two guaranteed each year, and a free retirement projection each year.

So what's wrong with all that?

I don't want to pay you 1.5 % of my money every year (in addition to mutual fund expenses). I just want to buy 100 shares of Exxon stock. I can do that too you say, but it will cost me 1.5 % a year for you to watch it for me. Selling it someday will be free though. But 1.5 % a year for 25 years is way, way more than I'm paying now.

The change to Managed Money accounts has been going on for a long time. This Dept of Labor ruling is greatly accelerating the process and making the firms that have resisted it go for it too. You as the broker will be making way, way more money, but you still may not like it because it's taking choices and money away from your customers, many of whom are your best friends, your family and families you have worked with for three generations.

The other change is that small investors will lose their advisors. Again, this is a trend that's been going on for a while of companies wanting minimum investments to open an account. The firms which resisted that are now telling their brokers that they will soon be doing that too. If someone has a $ 3,000 account it just isn't possible for the broker to spend two hours a year running projections and documenting meetings for the $ 45 annual fee of which the broker may get to keep $ 20.

Hope that helps. Sorry it was so long.

[okasha]

13. Castro.

Perez for SCOTUS.

[firebrand80]

17. Not particularly impressed with either one

But I would go with Perez because Castro is more unproven