When Newt Was for the Individual Mandate

American Spectator ^ | 112911 | Joseph Lawler

[Fred]

So now there's video of Newt explicitly recommending an individual mandate. Hard to see this enhancing Newt's appeal as the not-Romney.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcSjLvWLcxE&feature=player_embedded

[Fred]

Hillary/Gingrich 2012

[Snickering Hound]

He was also for Cap and Trade.

[thatdewd]

Didn’t he run as a flaming liberal his first attempt at office, and Then suddenly ‘found’ the truth of Conservatism after being thoroughly trounced at the polls?

[thatdewd]

Didn’t he run as a flaming liberal his first attempt at office, and Then suddenly ‘found’ the truth of Conservatism after being thoroughly trounced at the polls?

[JohnKinAK]

A partial list of Newt’s Record:

04/02/1987 – He cosponsored the 1987 Fairness Doctrine
10/22/1991 – He voted for an amendment that would create a National Police Corps.
03/–/1993 – He Voted for sending $1.6 Billion in foreign aid to Russia.
11/19/1993 – He voted for the NAFTA Implementation Act.
11/27/1994 – He supported the GATT Treaty giving sovereignty to the U.N.
08/27/1995 – He suggests that drug smuggling should carry a death sentence.
04/25/1996 – Voted for the single largest increase on Federal education spending ($3.5 Billion)
04/10/1995 – He supported Federal taxdollars being spent on abortions.
06/01/1996 – He helped a Democrat switch parties in an attempt to defeat constitutionalist Ron Paul in the 1996 election.
09/25/1996 – Introduced H.R. 4170, demanded life-sentence or execution for someone bringing 2 ounces of marijuana across the border.
01/22/1997 – Congress gave him a record-setting $300,000 fine for ethical wrongdoing.
11/29/2006 – He said that free speech should be curtailed in order to fight terrorism. Wants to stop terrorists from using the internet. Called for a “serious debate about the 1st Amendment.”
11/29/2006 – He called for a “Geneva Convention for terrorists” so it would be clear who the Constitution need not apply to.
02/15/2007 – He supported Bush’s proposal for mandatory carbon caps.
09/28/2008 – Says if he were in office, he would have reluctantly voted for the $700B TARP bailout.
10/01/2008 – Says in an article that TARP was a “workout, not a bailout.”
12/08/2008 – He was paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac to halt Congress from bringing necessary reform.
03/31/2009 – Says we should have Singapore-style drug tests for Americans.
07/30/2010 – Says that Iraq was just step one in defeating the “Axis of Evil”.
08/03/2010 – Advocates attacks on Iran & North Korea.
08/16/2010 – Opposes property rights of the mosque owner in NYC.
11/15/2010 – He defended Romneycare
12/05/2010 – He said that a website owner should be considered an enemy combatant, hunted down and executed, for publishing leaked government memos.
01/30/2011 – He lobbied for ethanol subsidies.
01/30/2011 – He suggested that flex-fuel vehicles be mandated for Americans.
02/13/2011 – He criticized Obama for sending less U.S. taxdollars to Egypt.
02/15/2011 – His book said that he believes man-made climate-change and advocated creating “a new endowment for conservation and the environment.”
03/09/2011 – He blames his infidelity to multiple wives on his passion for the country.
03/15/2011 – Says that NAFTA worked because it created jobs in Mexico.
03/19/2011 – He has no regrets about supporting Medicare drug coverage. (Now $7.2T unfunded liability)
03/23/2011 – He completely flip-flopped on Libyan intervention in 16 days.
03/25/2011 – He plans to sign as many as 200 executive orders on his first day as president.
04/25/2011 – He’s a paid lobbyist for Federal ethanol subsidies.
05/12/2011 – He was more supportive of individual health-care mandates than Mitt Romney.
06/09/2011 – His own campaign staff resigned en masse.
07/15/2011 – His poorly managed campaign is over $1 Million in debt.
08/01/2011 – He hired a company to create fake Twitter to appear as if he had a following.
10/07/2011 – He said he’d ignore the Supreme Court if need be.
11/16/2011 – Was revealed he actually received 1.6 million from Freddie Mac, vs. his previously stated $300,000
- Gingrich voted for an increase in the debt ceiling in 1979, 1980, 1981, and 1984
- Gingrich voted to permit the Federal Reserve to purchase Treasury Debt
- Bailed out savings and loan institutions in 1991. $40B Bank bailout
- Gingrich voted to strengthen the federal home loan agencies
- Gingrich voted for increased powers to the FDIC to bail out struggling savings and loans through reorganization, purchase of bad assets, or recapitalization.
- Gingrich voted in favor of the Chrysler Bailout in 1979
- Gingrich voted for an oil windfall profits tax in 1979, which was signed by Jimmy Carter.
- Urged the House to repeal the War Powers Act and give the Presidency more power.
- Urged Clinton to expand military presence in Bosnia.
- Gingrich voted against a provision requiring congressional approval prior to deployment of U.S. troops into Central America in 1983.
- Gingrich voted to increase CIA secrecy and against any requirement that the President report covert activity to congress before it is initiated.
- Gingrich voted for Jimmy Carter’s “Energy Mobilization Board.”
- Gingrich voted for an increase in taxes on coal producers in 1981
- Gingrich voted for a 5-cent increase in the gas tax to fund highway and other mass-transit projects.
- Gingrich was one of the few who voted against the 1984 bill requiring the President and Congress to submit a balanced budget
- Gingrich voted for a congressional pay raise
- Gingrich voted against a bipartisan 1% cut to the Department of Defense budget for 1983
- He was a draft-dodger during the Vietnam War, yet pushed aggressive foreign interventionism his entire political career, and did say that Vietnam was the “right battlefield at the right time.”

[cripplecreek]

He’s a repudiation of everything the tea party stands for.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Let me just say, look at my moniker. I used to be liberal. Many of us have changed and altered our positions over the years.

I believe there is a big difference between a RINO and a person who USED TO BELIEVE certain things and who now believes differently.

I know many here on FR would like to have us all believe they’re the ones who’ve never changed their mind on social and economic beliefs. Which is fine...they can POSE all they want to pose.

My question when assessing a politician is: Are they moving in the right direction? If so, then they’re more likely to get my vote.

For this reason, Jon Huntsman in my opinion is a worse candidate than Mitt Romney. Romney is accused of moving to the right for political convenience....but Huntsman has been moving to the left while still proclaiming to be a Republican!

Consider: Huntsman went to WORK for Hussein right after Hussein took over. That disgusts me....and to think he NOW wants to represent us?!

I also saw Huntsman speak to a group of Republican activists in Florida. He openly spoke of wanting to appeal to liberals. He is definitely worse on the issue of flipping and flopping than Romney.

Huntsman is kind of like the Charlie Crist of national politics...calls himself a Republican, but publicly embraced Hussein when it was good for him.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Let me just say, look at my moniker. I used to be liberal. Many of us have changed and altered our positions over the years.

I believe there is a big difference between a RINO and a person who USED TO BELIEVE certain things and who now believes differently.

I know many here on FR would like to have us all believe they’re the ones who’ve never changed their mind on social and economic beliefs. Which is fine...they can POSE all they want to pose.

My question when assessing a politician is: Are they moving in the right direction? If so, then they’re more likely to get my vote.

For this reason, Jon Huntsman in my opinion is a worse candidate than Mitt Romney. Romney is accused of moving to the right for political convenience....but Huntsman has been moving to the left while still proclaiming to be a Republican!

Consider: Huntsman went to WORK for Hussein right after Hussein took over. That disgusts me....and to think he NOW wants to represent us?!

I also saw Huntsman speak to a group of Republican activists in Florida. He openly spoke of wanting to appeal to liberals. He is definitely worse on the issue of flipping and flopping than Romney.

Huntsman is kind of like the Charlie Crist of national politics...calls himself a Republican, but publicly embraced Hussein when it was good for him.

[South40]

Was?

We don't believe Mitt when he says he has changed on issues, why would we believe Newt?

FReepers of every stripe were critical of John Kerry for his flip-flopping on issues. Why is it acceptable when Newt Gingrich does it?

[Parley Baer]

Seeing what has happened in Massachusetts and ObamaCare I would be interested in hearing what Newts position is on the subject today. Same thing with Cap and Trade with all the new information on the subject that is out. Has he “grown” with the new information or is he stuck in the past? Romney is still defending Romney Care as an example. Newt has been on the political scene for a long time and there is a ton of material out there on him. I want to know what his current position is about a subject. Has he learned or is he still stuck in the past.

[over3Owithabrain]

Yet tea party leaders and followers are flocking to him.

Sad

[cripplecreek]

Teenage girls are less fickle.

1989: Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA) co-sponsors the ambitious Global Warming Prevention Act (H.R. 1078), which finds that “the Earth’s atmosphere is being changed at an unprecedented rate by pollutants resulting from human activities, inefficient and wasteful fossil fuel use, and the effects of rapid population growth in many regions,” that “global warming imperils human health and well-being” and calls for policies “to reduce world emissions of carbon dioxide by at least 20 percent from 1988 levels by 2000.” The legislation recognizes that global warming is a “major threat to political stability, international security, and economic prosperity.” [H.R. 1078, 2/22/1989]

1992: Gingrich calls the environmental proposals in Al Gore’s book Earth in Balance “devastatingly threatening to most American pocketbooks and jobs.” [National Journal, 9/5/92]

1996: At a speech for the Detroit Economic Club, Gingrich mocks “Al Gore’s global warming,” citing “the largest snowstorm in New York City’s history”: “We were in the middle of budget negotiations; the football games were coming up and we noticed on the weather channel that an early symptom of Al Gore’s global warming was coming to the East Coast. And it does make you wonder sometimes, doesn’t it, how theoretical statisticians in the middle of the largest snowstorm in New York City’s history could stand there and say, ‘I don’t care what it’s doing. It’s going to get very hot soon.’” [FDCH Political Transcripts, 1/16/96]

1997: As Speaker of the House, Gingrich co-sponsors H. Con. Res. 151, which notes carbon dioxide is a “major greenhouse gas” that comes from “products whose manufacture consumes fossil fuels” and calls on the United States to “manage its public domain national forests to maximize the reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.” [H. Con. Res. 151, 9/10/1997]

2007: Gingrich calls for a cap-and-trade system with tax incentives for clean energy. “I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.” [Frontline, 2/15/07]

February 15, 2007: “I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.” [Frontline, 2/15/07]

In a debate on climate policy with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Gingrich says “the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon-loading of the atmosphere,” and that we should “do it urgently.” [ThinkProgress, 4/10/07]

In a Washington Post chat, Gingrich rejects a cap-and-trade system, saying it “would lead to corruption, political favoritism, and would have a huge impact on the economy.” He says he supports “tax credits for dramatically reducing carbon emissions.” [Washington Post, 4/17/08]

2008: In an advertisement made for Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, Gingrich sat with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and said that “we do agree our country must take action to address climate change.” [We Campaign, 4/18/08]

“I don’t think that we have conclusive proof of global warming. And I don’t think we have conclusive proof that humans are at the center of it.” [Newt.org, 4/22/08]

April 4, 2009: “And now, in 2009, instead of making energy cheaper—which would help create jobs and save Americans money—President Obama wants to impose a cap-and-trade regime. Such a plan would have the effect of an across-the-board energy tax on every American. That will make our artificial energy crisis even worse—and raising taxes during a deep economic recession will only accelerate American job losses.” [Newsweek, 4/4/09]

[South40]

Ouch!

[Zevonismymuse]

Why is it acceptable when Newt Gingrich does it?

Because Newt is not a Mormon.

[libertarian neocon]

He is a big government conservative. Just read this interview, it’s all right there http://www.riponsociety.org/forum-newt.htm

Unfortunately, there just arent any other realistic choices. Santorum would be nice but he can’t even sustain 5% support. Even Republican voters in Pennsylvania dont like him. Cain is probably withdrawing. Voters dropped Bachmann the second Perry got in. Perry is in over his head. Hunstman is too much of a dove on foreign policy and was for cap and trade.

If it is Newt vs Romney, I choose Newt.

[thatdewd]

That list would make Chuck Shumer proud! Excellent research!

[bwc2221]

With Cain misfiring on all cylinders, it’s not looking good for conservatives.

But then, not everyone who posts at FR is a conservative; lots of establishment Republicans are running around,

[bwc2221]

With Cain misfiring on all cylinders, it’s not looking good for conservatives.

But then, not everyone who posts at FR is a conservative; lots of establishment Republicans are running around,

[DannyTN]

Any chance we can get a DINO to run?

[Sudetenland]

Actually the Heritage Foundation was the parent of that concept. It was a proposal by their health care analysts back in 1989. It was published in a book,"A National Health System for America" by Stuart Butler and Edmund Haislmaier. Newt simply adopted their recommendations, as did many conservative Republicans, as a response to Hillary Care.

History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010
Republican Origins of Democratic Health Care Provision

Two separate bills were introduced by the Republicans in 1993.

The first was SB 1743 - Consumer Choice Health Security Act. It was sponsored by Senator Don Nickles and co-sponsored by:

"Mr. HATCH, Mr. MACK, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BROWN, Mr. BURNS, Mr. COATS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. COVERDELL, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. DOLE, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mr. GREGG, Mr. HELMS, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. LOTT, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. SMITH, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. WALLOP, and Mr. GRASSLEY."

The Second was SB 1770, The Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act. It was sponsored by Senator John Chaffee and co-sponsored by:

"Mr. DOLE, Mr. BOND, Mr. HATFIELD, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. HATCH, Mr. DANFORTH, Mr. BROWN, Mr. GORTON, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. COHEN, Mrs. KASSEBAUM, Mr. WARNER, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. DURENBERGER Mr. BOREN, and Mr. KERREY

The argument Newt is putting forward is not simply requiring all citizens to purchase insurance. Under Newt's plan, it is up to the individual to either purchase insurance or provide proof of his ability to pay for his own healthcare by posting a bond or some other proof of financial sufficiency.

How else do we deal with what Newt calls a "free rider?" Liberals are right (occasionally they stumble across the truth), every time an uninsured person goes to an emergency room for treatment and is unable to pay and has no insurance, everybody else gets stuck with the bill. It's a fact of life.

By law, hospitals are required to render aid to anyone who seeks it. Those costs have to be defrayed in some way. The way it happens currently is for hospitals to charge those of us who are fiscally responsible more for the services they provide.

There are two ways of dealing with that situation. The first is to repeal all laws which require hospitals to provide aid to anyone who seeks it. This is the "let them die on the street" plan and, though it is a perfectly valid if somewhat cold-blooded means of coping with the situation, good luck with getting that passed through any Congress be it a veto proof Republican Congress or a veto proof Democrat Congress.

The first time the MSM puts their cameras on some poor slob lying outside of a hospital emergency room dying, that plan will disappear altogether. Like it or not, we have passed beyond the point of return on achieving that level of self-reliance/rugged individualist society.

The second way of dealing with the "free rider" problem is some variation of what Newt, and Mitt, and yes--the Democrats--have put forward. You have to find some means of getting those who are financially able but unwilling to pay for their healthcare to do so. I think it is well within reason to require, at the minimum, every citizen to furnish proof of their ability to pay for their own healthcare. If there is another reasonable means of solving the problem, I am certain Newt would be all ears.

It is easy for someone to attack the plans of another, but they sure as heck better have an alternative that is at least as practical as and meets the needs as fully as the plan they are blasting.

The one solution used in the past was to fund a "charity" hospital system, where care for the indigent and the uninsured was provided by only certain hospitals.

We moved away from that system to the mandatory treatment system because people were dying when they went to the wrong hospital and were then told to go to one of the charity providers--sometimes in an ambulance that the first hospital provided. The MSM had a hay-day with the stories--which is why we are where we are.

The question remains, how do we deal with the "free rider" problem other than, as we deal with it in auto insurance, by requiring a surety bond as proof of fiscal responsibility?

It can certainly be one of the problems that we return to the purview of the states, but ultimately the only viable solution I see is one like Newt is suggesting.

I simply don't see America returning to a place where failure to provide for one's healthcare results in a person's death. I don't believe that the American electorate has the stomach for it, once those cameras get rolling.