Fighting to Preserve Liberty in America
As a conservative, I can’t help but admire Newt Gingrich’s performance in the Republican debates and lust for the opportunity to see him debate Barack Obama head to head. But then I have a nagging doubt that if Newt were to become the nominee, which Newt will show up?
I find it extremely disappointing that so-called conservatives have jumped on Mitt Romney about a comment he made about firing people. Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and some others took the comment entirely out of context to score some cheap political points. In their attack from the left they are writing the script for Obama, should Romney win the nomination. I can see Ronald Reagan shake his head and mutter, “Did I teach you nothing?”
As if sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi talking about global warming wasn’t enough, Newt Gingrich seems to have taken a seat next to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to attack free market capitalism.
Photo by roberthufstutter
One of the knocks on Herman Cain is that he has never held political office and therefore he doesn’t have the necessary experience. I, for one, would like to see a lot more people who have met a payroll go into government, than be governed by those who have never done anything other than live off of a government paycheck. They have no concept of the real world, but love to write the rules the real world must live by.
On the one side you have Barack Obama. On the other side you have a field of candidates who are fighting for the chance to take him on one to one. In that field of candidates there is a woman, with another in the wings, a black, and a number of white males with a great depth of experience. With Herman Cain saying, while embracing some Tea Party members, “To those who say the Tea Party is racist, eat your words.” The Democrats are desperate to find another way to create class warfare and divide and conquer. At the New Hampshire debate last night, they may have found their opening.
Newt Gingrich may have just killed his presidential bid in less than a week after announcing it. Aside from his support of ethanol subsidies, the old commercial sitting on the couch with Nancy Pelosi, he tops it off by attacking Paul Ryan’s budget that was approved by all but four Republican members of the House of Representatives.
He says the Ryan plan is too radical. Compared to what? ObamaCare?
While Medicare savings under the Democrats’ health care law and pending proposals would come mainly from reduced federal payments to doctors, hospitals and insurance companies, the budget put forth by House Republicans would cut spending by turning Medicare into a system of vouchers for future beneficiaries to buy private insurance, but in amounts that would not keep pace with the projected inflation of health costs.
The Democrats’ plan is to pay doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies less. How does that work in the real world? Doctors will refuse to accept more Medicare patients as will hospitals. So Medicare recipients may have coverage, but won’t have a doctor to serve them. You cannot bring down the cost of medical care by government fiat.
Ryan’s plan actually brings the free market into play by putting the decision making in the hands of the consumer. Of course, the Democrats say that amount Ryan proposes will not keep up with the rising costs of medical care. Aren’t these the same people who said if we did not spend nearly a trillion on the stimulus, unemployment would rise to 9%, wheras if we did, it would go no higher than 8%?
Paul Ryan showed the courage to tackle entitlements and with a credible plan. It may not be perfect, but it is a solid start. The Democrats’ “plan” is just more politbureau control from Washington dictating to the rest of us their failed solutions. It’s time for a change.
As for Newt, he can go back to the think tank, and re-think some of his positions.
That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.
The New Year has begun and hopefully, we haven’t broken all our New Year’s resolutions yet. There is still a lot of talk about fairness and inequality. It is the last best hope of a message for the progressives and it is time we did take a look at fairness.
With the election safely passed so that nobody can make political hay of it, the poor excuse for courage known as the deficit commission released its preliminary report. I have to give them credit for not leaving a lot of stones unturned but bold it is not.
The Democrats like to point to the Clinton presidency as proof of their fiscal responsibility. It was a period of strong growth, balanced budgets, and prosperity. They then point to the Bush presidency, all eight years of it, and deride it for deficits, and ultimately a very severe financial crisis. But it is worth taking a moment to recall that the federal government is made up of three co-equal branches of government with built in checks and balances. The Congress is not subordinate to the president and it does not work for him. It is an equal branch of government that checks and balances the power of the presidency. For the purpose of this discussion, I will leave out the third branch, the judiciary.
Despite the famous 1992 Clinton campaign slogan, “It’s the economy, stupid,” the recession had already ended in March 1991. When Clinton took office he had a Democratic Congress and he pushed through a massive tax increase in 1993 without a single Republican vote. We know what happened to Congress in 1994, the Republicans took over for the first time in 40 years. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich tried to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which was included in the Republicans’ Contract with America. It passed in the House but failed by one vote in the Senate. After losing this round, Gingrich met with the Republican leadership and put forth the idea of acting as if the amendment had passed and just start submitting balanced budgets. They succeeded in the last three years of the Clinton presidency to produce budget surpluses and decrease the national debt. This included a tax cut by the Republican Congress in 1997, and the economy grew much stronger after the Republican takeover of Congress than under an all Democratic government.
In the 1996 election, the Democrats regained control of the Congress under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Up until that point the economy had grown steadily under President Bush despite two wars. With Bush in the White House and the Republicans in control of Congress we had tax cuts and seven years of economic growth. In December of 2007 the economy went into recession, almost one year after the Democrats regained control. Now with a Democrat in the White House, and the Democrats in control of Congress we are looking at massive growth in government, a whopping tax increase bearing down on us that will hit on January 1, 2011, and a growing debt that may eventually bankrupt us.
So what is all this talk about eight years of failed Republican policy? Under Clinton and a Democrat Congress it was two years of a tax increase and modest growth. Under Clinton and a Republican Congress it was six years of tax cuts, budget surpluses and strong economic growth. Hmmm….same president, different parties controlling Congress. Under Bush we had seven years of growth and tax cuts with a Republican Congress. Under Bush and a Democratic Congress, recession, fiscal crisis. Hmmm…same president, different parties controlling Congress.
But don’t expect honesty on the campaign trail from the Democrats. It’s just not the Chicago way.
