Probably because he has rocketed within sniffing distance of double-digits in the latest polls, people are talking seriously about the threat that Marco Rubio, a lost child in a wilderness of rakes, could be president of the United States. That's why we're hearing all this stuff about his personal finances, and about the Florida Republican party and its credit cards. (Senator Professor Warren made the only point worth making about this subject last night on Chris Hayes's electric teevee show. She wondered why someone who's had the problems with his personal finances that Rubio has had could be so oblivious to the plight of families struggling with debt. That's a question he should be made to answer in specifics.) But I am less concerned with what's in Rubio's wallet, and more concerned with his plans for the public purse because, based on what he's released so far, this country's going to be selling apples on the sidewalk by his second State of the Union address.

First, there's his tax plan, which is a massive shove of wealth upwards.

Estimates have suggested that Rubio's tax cut would increase deficits by anywhere from $4 trillion to $12 trillion over 10 years, depending on how you count. Either way, it'd be a staggering amount of money -- so staggering that even prominent conservatives have blanched at the price tag. But according to the CTJ analysis, the poorest one-fifth of the country would keep just 6 percent of the money while the bottom 60 percent, as a whole, would get just 22 percent. By contrast, the richest 5 percent of Americans would pocket nearly half of the tax cut while the richest 1 percent alone would receive more than one-third.

Second, there is his recently released plans for "rebuilding" our national defenses, which apparently is going to be done for free because, otherwise, together with his tax plan, Rubio would have the country in hock for centuries. It's Reaganomics on blotter acid.

Immediately begin to increase the size of the Navy to a minimum of 323 ships by 2024.

· Work with our allies in Asia to forward deploy a second aircraft carrier in the Pacific while increasing the carrier force from 10 to 12.

· Restore continuous, credible naval combat power to the Mediterranean Sea.

· Build the new Ohio-class Replacement (ORP) ballistic submarine to ensure a credible and survivable 21st century strategic deterrent.

· Build at least two attack submarines every year to preserve America's undersea dominance amid intensifying naval competition.

Two new attack submarines every year? Until when, exactly? Until the threat to our shores posed by ISIL submarines is swept from the sea? A year ago, the Navy ordered ten Virginia-class attack submarines. They cost about $1.7 billion apiece. These were considered a bargain. The Ohio-class Replacement program is priced out at a cool $95.8 billion. Its funding is something of a tangle.

Led by House Seapower chairman Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., Congress in 2015 approved the creation of a National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund (NSBDF), a set-aside account that would accrue funds to pay for the program from now until well into the 2030s. But Forbes, as an authorizer, could only create the account, not fund it. And the question on how to fund the NSBDF came up in all four Navy posture hearings this year to discuss the 2016 budget submission. Appropriators don't necessarily appreciate authorizers coming up with their own funding mechanisms, and a passionate spat has broken out between Forbes and his allies on the House Armed Services Committee, and opponents led by Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J., chairman of the House Appropriations Defense subcommittee. Both Republican chairmen are strongly supported by each subcommittee's Democratic ranking members. The issue was on full display on June 10 as the House debated an amendment that would eliminate the fund. Frelinghuysen noted the fund's structure would allow the secretary of defense to "divert dollars into this new fund from the Army, Marines, Air Force, Special Forces, missile defense, [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance programs], and other types of essential programs. "This is the wrong approach," said Frelinghuysen. "It removes, furthermore, congressional oversight from the secretary of defense.

There's no indication that Rubio would do anything about this muddle except cut a check. And you had to know that our old friend, the F-35 Flying Swiss Army Knife, would make a star turn.

Prioritize returning Air Force readiness to pre-Obama levels. Accelerate F-35A procurement.

How are things going these days with the lemon of the skies?

Not well.

During an ejection from the F-35, the canopy over the pilot is deliberately shattered by an explosive charge. Then the entire seat is blasted skyward with tremendous force. Mannequin tests this summer showed that the lightest F-35 pilots, in particular, face a lethal risk when the F-35 is taking off or landing. The pilots are rotated backward into a position where they face all but certain death from the rocketing parachute's force snapping their heads. This is "potentially fatal whiplash," said Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the manager of the F-35 program, in a previously undisclosed summary of the problem written last month. According to the September documents from the jet program, for F-35 pilots weighing 135 pounds or less, there is a 98 percent "probability of fatal injury" during ejections from the jet at 160 knots, a typical speed at take-off or landing.

The Pentagon is having serious doubts. (It's about time.) And Donald Trump already has said he'd dump the whole program—although the Libidinous Visitor clearly needs to be better briefed so he can distinguish between the various Pentagon boondoggles. But Marco Rubio? Full speed ahead! Accelerate! I really don't care if Rubio brought his kids to Chuck E. Cheese on the Florida Republican Party's tab. I'm worried about what President Rubio is going to put on ours.

Whap.

Charles P. Pierce Charles P Pierce is the author of four books, most recently Idiot America, and has been a working journalist since 1976.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io