Gingrich Policies Would Create 6.6 Million Jobs in First Two Years; Balance Budget in First Term

newt.org ^ | February 23, 2012 | Peter Ferrara

[An.American.Expatriate]

1. We have been deficit spending for over 50 years - not once in all of those years did we ever spend ONLY what we took in in revenues.

2. If Newt wont cut “Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, debt interest, and federal employee retirement benefits” he has a major problem - the total cost of these programs exceeds current revenues (2.7 Tr vs 2.3 Tr) - add the “2007” levels of the remaining programs and you will still exceed 3 Tr. AND he wants to cut taxes as well! IOW he is expecting at least 700 Billion in additional revenues from “royalties” annually(!) within 4 years ...

3. Even if he does “roll back regulatory barriers to energy production, unleashing the private sector to maximize all forms of American energy production.” The Enviro-Wackos will clog the courts for decades before anything can be done - IOW, it is nigh impossible that this promise will bear fruit in time for him to “balance” the budget in his first term...

4. It is all fine and well to have a “Plan” - but that plan must be based on reality, not another version of “hope & change”! What happens when interest rates rise on our debt (and they will!)? We currently pay ~14% of revenues on interest (@ 2.7%). If that goes up just 1%, we will be paying close to 20% of revenues on interest alone (450 Billion) . Just 10 years ago, we paid 5.7% on our debt. Carried forward that would be 680 Billion or 30% of revenues! For comparison - the current DOD Discretionary Budget is 683 Billion ....

[OwenKellogg]

So what’s Newt’s position on algae as an energy strategy?

[Marguerite]

“He may be the only person alive who can put forth such a bold plan, and be immune to the inevitable ridicule, since he’s already proved he’s able not only to be visionary, but to effectively make his vision a reality.”

Newt’s record speaks by itself.
A few highlights from his long career:

Newt started a Young Republican Club at the age 22, when he was still in college.
He never wavered from his conservative convictions. Never been “independent, reformer republican, progressive” like Romney.
His 20-year-old voting record in the House is 98% conservative.
His pro-life voting record is of 98.7% (one of the bill he voted for was taken into consideration, while not linked to pro-life topic).

Voted YES on the Reagan tax cut of 1981
Voted YES on the Reagan tax reform bill of 1986
Voted NO on the George H.W. Bush “Read My Lips” tax hike in 1990
(which unleashed the furor of the GOP elite).
Voted NO on the Clinton tax hike in 1993.
Voted YES on the capital gains tax cut in 1997.

His vote and leadership against the 1990 Bush tax increase is especially praiseworthy, as it exhibited political courage to fight against a bad policy that was promoted by the president and congressional leadership of his own party.

Further, Gingrich can be one of the most clear-eyed and forceful advocates for supply-side economics and the value of free enterprise.

He has most recently favored:

an immediate and permanent repeal of the Death Tax;
elimination of all capital gains taxes;
reduction of the corporate tax rate to 12.5 percent;
a 50 percent payroll tax cut for both employers and employees;
a 100 percent tax write off for businesses’ equipment purchases.

During his time in Congress, he had an exemplary voting record on a lot of the top spending proposals:

Voted NO on the Chrysler bailout in 1979
Voted YES on the Gramm-Rudman balanced budget bill in 1985
Voted YES on a balanced budget amendment (as part of the “Contract for America” effort that he led) in 1995
Led the effort and voted YES to cut $16.4 billion from the budget in 1995.
Voted YES on welfare reform in 1996

Data from:

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=903

[Cincinatus' Wife]

President Gingrich Would Keep the Budget Balanced

Bump!

[Marguerite]

Because the Finance Association released its report on Gingrich plan yesterday, February 23.

[Marguerite]

“So what’s Newt’s position on algae as an energy strategy?”

He called it “fantasy gimmick” for better words :)

[conservaterian]

The main problem I have with these type of programs is that if you have some guy who inherits all his wealth and lives off his capital gains investments he will NEVER pay any income tax. If I’m wrong someone tell me how the rest of us aren’t supporting him with our taxes.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

I guess it’s Mitt’s “safety net.”

[Son House]

An optional 15% flat tax? At least one candidate isn’t stuck on offering a progressive Democrat lite. Or Ron Paul, fail to do any GDP/Revenue projection.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Marguerite.

[airborne]

So what’s Newt’s position on algae as an energy strategy?

I support algae as a source of energy, as long as it's private slime and not government slime!

[airborne]

Don't care where the story is posted (I never understood who would, or why) but comparing a fellow Freeper to a Nazi collaborator is just despicable.

You really should apologize for your choice of words.

[DoughtyOne]

Some of the suggestions sound good.  Others don't.

Replace the Environmental Protection Agency with an Environmental Solutions Agency;

It seems to me that the problem with the Environmental Protection Agency, is that it exists at all, rather than it simply has the wrong name.

Modernize the Food and Drug Adminstration to enable new medicines to be developed and brought to the sick far more quickly and far less expensively.

This is always a real winner with the public.  Sadly, bringing drugs to market too quickly and without enough study, is the best way I know of to wind up killing people and or causing birth defects.  One drug was on the market for years before they found out it was causing damage to the heart.  Another caused serious birth defects. Another was actually killing people. We would all like to think that drugs could be released quickly and save our relatives.  Sadly, they can also be released quickly and kill our relatives, or cause damage they will have to live with for years and or shorten their lives.

Personal savings, investment and insurance accounts eventually expanded to finance all the benefits financed by the payroll tax today, ultimately displacing that tax entirely.

If this is a way of stating that Social Security and Medicare should be privatized I would agree.  I will say that keeping the insurance companies out of this as much as possible, would be the best way of doing it.  I support the quick accumulation of $10,000 in savings when people first start employment.  Once that is achieved, a person can self-insure for a number of things.  Medical, dental, optical, vehicle insurance policies with $10,000 deductables would then become the norm.  These types of policies are the cheapest, and would facilitate the increased accumulation of wealth.  In short order people would accumulate enough money to make a down payment on a home of their own.

This pretty much turns the whole system on it's head, creating a climate where people are much more self-reliant, and not dependent on the federal government for much of anything.

Reform of the Federal Reserve to mandate that it follow a price rule to maintain a stable dollar without inflation.

A price rule?  Sure would like to see that expanded upon.  I don't believe the Federal Reserve in it's present form should exist.  I do think there are times when a controling authority should be out there, but I do not think it should be a 'private' entity, that operates behind closed doors.  I do not think it should be spreading funds around without public scrutiny either.

I would like to see the Fed run by representatives of the banking and lending institutions, but I would like all meeting minutes and decisions to be made publicly available.  If this couldn't be done, then I'd like to see the Fed gone.

[Dan.israel.2011]

Where would Newt best serve in President Rick Santorum’s administration?

He would make a great Chief of Staff !

[Leep]

I’m ready to reelect him already!

[seekthetruth]

I agree with you it shouldn’t be in Breaking News. As for FR being a different place these days, that is probably true too! Things are happening fast these days and it makes us all in a hurry I guess. :)

Hope things are going good up your way. When I see your posts I always think of my beautiful home state! Know your Primary isn’t till April 24th, so we can be sure things will be a lot different by then! I do hope Newt is leading by then, but of course will support anyone against BO!

[mdel747]

[OHelix]

"It seems to me that the problem with the Environmental Protection Agency, is that it exists at all, rather than it simply has the wrong name."

I believe his emphasis is not that he wants a new name, but that he does want to completely eliminate the existing EPA and start an entirely new department with all new people. He's expressed that he does not "reform" the old one, specifically because it is stacked with environmental extremists.

I think his belief is that we do, in fact, need to protect the environment, but we need to do so reasonably and responsibly, with economic consequences and other factors in mind, not the anti-business enviro-wackism that pervades the current EPA.

[Triple]

Newt has my vote...

[nutmeg]

Don't care where the story is posted (I never understood who would, or why) but comparing a fellow Freeper to a Nazi collaborator is just despicable.

You really should apologize for your choice of words.

Thank you, airborne. For the record, I never ran to the Free Republic moderators regarding this thread. I simply posted "Why is this campaign piece in "Breaking News"? in #7 and left it at that.

FReeper seekthetruth replied to me in post #12. I then responded to seekthetruth's post in #17 and American Dream 246 directed his/her vile, bizarre post #18 - comparing me to a Nazi collaborator - to me for some unknown reason.