Comprehensive list of Newt Gingrich positions

[rambone]

I found an op-ed that said Newt Gingrich advocated building a system of mirrors in space. I did some research and PolitiFact verified it as true. Gingrich wrote about this in his 1984 book, Window of Opportunity: A Blueprint for the Future.

How bold of Gingrich! And undoubtedly expensive!

If you notice, even David Brooks, the op-ed author and outspoken liberal, says that Newt Gingrich loves government even more than he does! Zing!



The Gingrich Tragedy, David Brooks, 12/8/2011

In the first place, Gingrich loves government more than I do. He has no Hayekian modesty to restrain his faith in statist endeavor. For example, he has called for “a massive new program to build a permanent lunar colony to exploit the Moon’s resources.” He has suggested that “a mirror system in space could provide the light equivalent of many full moons so that there would be no need for nighttime lighting of the highways.”

I’m for national greatness conservatism, but this is a little too great.

PolitiFact: Newt Gingrich "has suggested" building "a mirror system in space" could improve the Earth’s habitability -- TRUE!

In the book, Gingrich proposes (among many other ideas) "five simple steps to a bold future" in space, most unusually a lottery in which randomly selected taxpayers would win a spot on a space shuttle flight. But the floating mirror idea isn’t on this list. Instead, it’s included in Gingrich's recap of a June 1979, NASA-sponsored new concepts symposium in Woods Hole, Mass., "where 30 experts brainstormed a range of pioneering options for NASA worthy of Lewis and Clark."

Here’s how Gingrich summarized the idea:

"The climate group at the Woods Hole conference suggested that a large array of mirrors could affect the earth’s climate by increasing the amount of sunlight received by particular areas, citing recent feasibility studies exploring the possibilities of preventing frosts in Florida or enabling farmers in high altitudes to plant their wheat earlier.

"A mirror system in space could provide the light equivalent of many full moons so that there would be no need for nighttime lighting of the highways. Ambient light covering entire areas could reduce the current danger of criminals lurking in the darkness. Mirrors could be arranged to light given metropolitan areas only during particular periods, so there would be darkness late at night for sleeping."

[rambone]

He suggested a manned mission to Mars and a "permanent" Moon base at the NBC Florida debate (1/23/2012).

I guess this qualifies as one of the Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSE's) that Newt favors so much.




Gingrich suggested that the Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) model used for Freddie Mac would be a good way to run NASA and put Americans on Mars.

Freddie Mac interview (2007)

FREDDIE MAC: A key element of the entrepreneurial model is using the private sector where possible to save taxpayer dollars and improve efficiency. And you believe the GSE model provides one way to use the private sector.

GINGRICH: Some activities of government – trash collection is a good example – can be efficiently contracted out to the private sector. Other functions – the military, police and fire protection – obviously must remain within government. And then there are areas in which a public purpose would be best achieved by using market-based models. I think GSEs provide one of those models. I like the GSE model because it provides a more efficient, market-based alternative to taxpayer-funded government programs. It marries private enterprise to a public purpose. We obviously don't want to use GSEs for everything, but there are times when private enterprise alone is not sufficient to achieve a public purpose. I think private enterprise alone is not going to be able to help the Gulf region recover from the hurricanes, and government will not get the job done in a very effective or efficient manner. We should be looking seriously at creating a GSE to help redevelop this region. We should be looking at whether and how the GSE model could help us address the problem of financing health care. I think a GSE for space exploration ought to be seriously considered – I'm convinced that if NASA were a GSE, we probably would be on Mars today.

Mitt Romney has repeatedly called him out on this issue.

[rambone]

Newt Gingrich says he went to a Barry Goldwater organizing session in 1964, in order to pander to the audience and make himself sound more conservative. In reality Newt Gingrich was a State Chairman for Goldwater's progressive Big Government opponent, Nelson Rockefeller.

I think this party, in that sense, is very different party than it was, say, from the fights of the years of the Rockefeller/Goldwater process. A period which, by the way, I was a Rockefeller State Chairman from the south.

"I went to a Goldwater organizing session in 1964. I met with Ronald Reagan for the first time in 1974. I worked with Jack Kemp, and Art Laffer and others to develop supply side economics in the late '70s. I helped Governor Reagan become President Reagan. I helped pass the Reagan economic program and worked with the National Security Council on issues including the collapse of the Soviet Empire," Newt Gingrich said at tonight's debate.

[rambone]

In last night's (1/23/2012) Florida NBC debate, Newt Gingrich was called out for lobbying for Medicare expansion, and he went ahead and openly admitted that he is proud of publicly supporting Medicare Part D, but denied that he was a lobbyist.

MITT ROMNEY: ... that you came and lobbied them with regards to Medicare Part D, at the same time...

NEWT GINGRICH: Now, wait. Whoa, whoa.

MITT ROMNEY: ... your center was taking in contributions...

NEWT GINGRICH: You just jumped a long way over here, friend.

MITT ROMNEY: Well, another -- another area of influence-peddling.

(4 seconds pass)

NEWT GINGRICH: No, not -- now, let me be very clear, because I understand your technique, which you used on McCain, you used on Huckabee, you've used consistently, OK? It's unfortunate, and it's not going to work very well, because the American people see through it.

I have always publicly favored a stronger Medicare program. I wrote a book in 2002 called "Saving Lives and Saving Money." I publicly favored Medicare Part D for a practical reason, and that reason is simple. The U.S. government was not prepared to give people anything -- insulin, for example -- but they would pay for kidney dialysis. They weren't prepared to give people Lipitor, but they'd pay for open-heart surgery. That is a terrible way to run Medicare.

I am proud of the fact -- and I'll say this in Florida -- I'm proud of the fact that I publicly, openly advocated Medicare Part D. It has saved lives. It's run on a free enterprise model. It also included health savings accounts and it include Medicare alternatives, which gave people choices.

And I did it publicly, and it is not correct, Mitt -- I'm just saying this flatly, because you've been walking around this state saying things that are untrue -- it is not correct to describe public citizenship, having public advocacy as lobbying. Every citizen has the right to do that.

MITT ROMNEY: They sure do.

NEWT GINGRICH: And what I did on behalf of Medicare...

MITT ROMNEY: They sure do.

NEWT GINGRICH: ... I did out in the open, publicly, and that is my right as a citizen.

NBC MODERATOR BRIAN WILLIAMS: Gentlemen...

MITT ROMNEY: Here's why it's a problem, Mr. Speaker. Here's why it's a problem. And that is, if you're getting paid by health companies, if your entities are getting paid by health companies that could benefit from a piece of legislation, and you then meet with Republican congressmen and encourage them to support that legislation, you can call it whatever you'd like. I call it influence-peddling.

It is not right. It is not right. You have a conflict. You are -- you are being paid by companies at the same time you're encouraging people to pass legislation which is in their favor.

Dispute Over Gingrich’s Role In Medicare Part D

Medicare Part D is an entitlement expansion that forces the taxpayers to fund prescription drugs for seniors. It was passed in 2003 under a Republican-controlled Congress and Senate and signed by President George W. Bush. It is an economic disaster and was called "the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s" by David Walker, former U.S. Comptroller General. It stands as an unfunded liability to the tune of $15.5 Trillion.

For perspective of how big of an entitlement this is, Bruce Bartlett said that the entire Social Security system ties up 1.3% of GDP, and Medicare Part D ties up 1.2% of GDP.

The 81% Tax Increase: To pay for government's promises on Social Security and Medicare - Bruce Bartlett (2009)

To summarize, we see that taxpayers are on the hook for Social Security and Medicare by these amounts: Social Security, 1.3% of GDP; Medicare part A, 2.8% of GDP; Medicare part B, 2.8% of GDP; and Medicare part D, 1.2% of GDP. This adds up to 8.1% of GDP. Thus federal income taxes for every taxpayer would have to rise by roughly 81% to pay all of the benefits promised by these programs under current law over and above the payroll tax.

Since many taxpayers have just paid their income taxes for 2008 they may have their federal returns close at hand. They all should look up the total amount they paid and multiply that figure by 1.81 to find out what they should be paying right now to finance Social Security and Medicare.

To put it another way, the total unfunded indebtedness of Social Security and Medicare comes to $106.4 trillion. That is how much larger the nation's capital stock would have to be today, all of it owned by the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, to generate enough income to pay all the benefits that have been promised over and above future payroll taxes. But the nation's total private net worth is only $51.5 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve. In effect, we have promised the elderly benefits equal to more than twice the nation's total wealth on top of the payroll tax.

Happy Birthday, Medicare Part D! Now Die! Die! Die! - Reason.com (2010)

The prescription drug plan is about the worst giveaway you could imagine, just a pure, unadulterated sop to a bunch of politically connected voters. When the plan was first being discussed, seniors were paying a whopping 3.2 percent of their income on pills annually - less than they did on entertainment. As Bartlett points out, George Bush and the House Republicans (including Speaker-elect John Boehner and budget whiz Paul Ryan) who voted overwhelmingly for it didn't even bother to pretend they were going to pay for it with tax hikes or spending cuts. Just an awful plundering of the young and relatively poor to give booty to the old and relatively flush.

[rambone]

Conservatives Should Vote "Yes" On Medicare, by Newt Gingrich
Wall Street Journal, 11/20/2003

Every conservative member of Congress should vote for this Medicare bill. It is the most important reorganization of our nation's healthcare system since the original Medicare Bill of 1965 and the largest and most positive change in direction for the health system in 60 years for people over 65.

In a bold and unexpected move, the new Medicare bill includes a decisive shift to health savings accounts, which will allow every American to accumulate tax-free health dollars. HSAs allow account-owners to build savings and earn tax-free interest on their HSA contributions. HSA account owners can use their savings for tax-free spending on qualified health expenses, including health insurance premiums and deductibles, prescription drugs, and long-term care services including long-term care insurance.

If you are a fiscal conservative who cares about balancing the federal budget, there may be no more important vote in your career than one in support of this bill.

[rambone]

[rambone]

One of Newt's nicknames in congress was "Newt Skywalker."

Newt to the Future

Isaac Asimov was shaping my view of the future in equally profound ways. …For a high school student who loved history, Asimov’s most exhilarating invention was the ‘psychohistorian’ Hari Seldon. The term does not refer to Freudian analysis but to a kind of probabilistic forecasting of the future of whole civilizations. The premise was that, while you cannot predict individual behavior, you can develop a pretty accurate sense of mass behavior.

[rambone]

Gingrich and Reagan

Here is Gingrich: “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.” Why? This was due partly to “his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail”; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which “have no strategies to defeat the empire.” But of course “the burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan.” Our efforts against the Communists in the Third World were “pathetically incompetent,” so those anti-Communist members of Congress who questioned the $100 million Reagan sought for the Nicaraguan “contra” rebels “are fundamentally right.” Such was Gingrich’s faith in President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”

Gingrich scorned Reagan’s speeches, which moved a party and then a nation, because “the president of the United States cannot discipline himself to use the correct language.” In Afghanistan, Reagan’s policy was marked by “impotence [and] incompetence.” Thus Gingrich concluded as he surveyed five years of Reagan in power that “we have been losing the struggle with the Soviet empire.” Reagan did not know what he was doing, and “it is precisely at the vision and strategy levels that the Soviet empire today is superior to the free world.”

Newt Rewrites His Reagan Connection

At the Reagan presidential library this fall, Gingrich boasted of how "I helped Reagan create millions of jobs while he was president." And after modestly acknowledging his own less significant role than Reagan's, added, "We helped defeat the Soviet empire." Unmentioned by Gingrich then, or in any of the 2,414 debates during this campaign, was his 1985 criticism of President Reagan's historic meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev as "the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with (British Prime Minister) Chamberlain at Munich in 1938."

"I've done a movie on Ronald Reagan called 'Rendezvous With Destiny.' Callista and I did. We've done a book on Ronald Reagan. You know I campaigned with Reagan. I first met Reagan in '74. I'm very happy to talk about Ronald Reagan."

Just like when Newt went to the House floor during the Gipper's second White House term and declared the president's Soviet policy a "failure." Here is what Gingrich said: "Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire's challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing and without a dramatic, fundamental change in strategy will continue to fail. ... The burden of the failure frankly must be placed first upon President Reagan."

This was after Gingrich, as reported in the Congressional Record, had found Reagan responsible for our national "decay": "Beyond the obvious indicators of decay, the fact is that President Reagan has lost control of the national agenda." Students of Newt-speak will recognize that by "decay," Gingrich was generally referring to factors such as crime, illegitimate births and illiteracy.

Gingrich: Americans don't want more Reagan

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOnWzGB7G1g

[rambone]

Newt wants a brand new Space Race to throw money at. He pledged boldly that he wants to create a base on the moon within 8 years. And once his lunar colony has 13,000 residents, they can apply to be the 51st state.

Gingrich promises moon base that could become 51st state

“By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American,” the candidate insisted. “We will have commercial near-Earth activities that included science, tourism and manufacturing.”

“At one point early in my career, I introduced the Northwest Ordinance for Space,” Gingrich recalled, referring to it as the “weirdest thing” he’d ever done. “I said when we got — I think the number is 13,000 — when we have 13,000 Americans living on the moon, they can petition to become a state.”

[rambone]

Here are Newt's answers to an interview about the Right to Keep & Bear Arms.



Newt Doesn't Get It


HEWITT: "...Do you support allowing individuals to own those weapons labeled assault weapons under that law?"

GINGRICH: "Well, if you remember, there are a number of weapons under that law that are not assault weapons, and the law the way it was written in the Clinton administration is an absurdity. And I think people proved that at the time. And I voted against the law, and in fact, I helped stop it at one point."

Note that he says a number of weapons that were covered by the ban aren't "assault weapons" & that it was written poorly. The first is partially true but I'd have argued that all the weapons covered by the ban were not "assault weapons" as it was a contrived term to facilitate that specific law. The second - well it was written absurdly, but the premise was the absurdity more so than the language, which Newt seemed to imply the latter in his statement.

HEWITT: "And so how would you…what weapons ought Americans not be allowed to own under the 2nd Amendment."

GINGRICH: "Look, I think we ought to draw a clear distinction about a whole range of weapons that are explicitly military, and I have no interest in arguing or defending the right of people to randomly hold weapons that are that extraordinary, except under very, very unique circumstances."

A huh. Basically Newt is saying that he has no clue what the 2nd amendment was about. I do wonder what he would define as extraordinary.

HEWITT: "All right, so basically, return the right for some of these higher caliber weapons, but keep the military weapons away from."

GINGRICH: "Right. I just think, you know, if you said to me would I feel comfortable if my next door neighbor had a 50 caliber machine gun, I would say no."

I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable if my next door neighbor had a radio talk show, or a congressional seat, or a presidential campaign, but does that mean we throw the weight of the law against those people even though they've done no harm to anyone? Of course what would be funny is if one of his neighbors did own a belt fed .50 (since Newt lives in Virginia & Virginia doesn't restrict automatic weapons as long as they're possessed in compliance with federal law).

[rambone]

Newt voted for a Federal Bailout of Chrysler and a 3-year wage freeze on employees.

GovTrack: House Vote #659 (Dec 18, 1979)

[rambone]

MYTH: “Newt balanced the budget.”
FACT: The National Debt went up nearly $1 Trillion while he was Speaker.

Gingrich was the House Speaker from January 4, 1995 – January 3, 1999.

The National Debt went up every year during that time.

The budget was not as balanced as he is constantly bragging about.


1994 - $4.692 Trillion
1995 - $4.973 Trillion
1996 - $5.224 Trillion
1997 - $5.413 Trillion
1998 - $5.526 Trillion
1999 - $5.656 Trillion

(Source: Treasury Direct.gov)

[rambone]

[rambone]

[rambone]

Newt took heat for calling the Palestinian people an "invented" race. But in 1993, Newt met with Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader.


Newt Gingrich's Literal Embrace Of Yasser Arafat

[Joe3113]

These should be pinned.

And we need one on Romney.

[rambone]

Santorum, Romney and Gingrich vow to enforce anti-porn laws

Republican presidential candidates Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich have all told the group Morality in Media that they would enforce federal obscenity laws that prohibit the distribution of pornography.

Those laws, the anti-pornography group said, are being ignored by the current administration.

Gingrich also said he would appoint an Attorney General who would enforce federal obscenity laws.

Santorum and Gingrich previously signed a pledge by the conservative Christian group The Family Leader in which they vowed to protect women and children from “seduction into promiscuity and all forms of pornography.”

[W_BRANDON]

For a better view of Newt's twisted jurisprudence, I encourage people to read his paper titled, Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution. Complete disrespect for the Law.

[W_BRANDON]

MYTH: “Newt balanced the budget.”
FACT: The National Debt went up nearly $1 Trillion while he was Speaker.

Gingrich was the House Speaker from January 4, 1995 – January 3, 1999.

The National Debt went up every year during that time.

The budget was not as balanced as he is constantly bragging about.


1994 - $4.692 Trillion
1995 - $4.973 Trillion
1996 - $5.224 Trillion
1997 - $5.413 Trillion
1998 - $5.526 Trillion
1999 - $5.656 Trillion

(Source: Treasury Direct.gov)

Not to mention, he (and Clinton) defrauded the public by embezzling funds from the social security trust to further this illusion of a "balanced budget."

[rambone]

While in Congress, Gingrich co-sponsored 418 bills with Pelosi

Gingrich co-sponsored 418 bills in Congress with Pelosi during the 12 years they served together in the House, according to the Library of Congress’s THOMAS database.

Gingrich was in Congress from 1979 to 1999. Pelosi has served since 1987.

As a matter of comparison, House Speaker John Boehner, who has served in Congress with Pelosi for more than 20 years, has only co-sponsored 104 bills with her.

Many of the bills Gingrich and Pelosi co-sponsored were hardly divisive: authorizing an award for Mother Teresa, giving a congressional gold medal to former President Gerald Ford and recognizing the 50th anniversary of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

But one piece of legislation could be problematic for Gingrich with conservatives: the Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989, which never made it out of committee.

[rambone]

Gingrich: Iran ‘Should Expect To Get Hit’ If I’m President


"I would also point out that a Gingrich presidency would communicate publicly to the Iranians that if they continue to do what they’re doing, they should expect to get hit, and it will be their fault for having caused it."

-- Newt Gingrich

[rambone]

Yes, even Federal funding for the Atlanta ballet.

[tempest]

I recently understood that besides the moon, Gingrich also happens to be "wild" about the zoo

[rambone]

[TaftFan]

bump

[Christian Liberty]

I agree with the vast majority of this, but just want to point out that "Federalist" does have different definitions. It could be the oppose of an anti-federalist, or it could mean support for state's rights, which is sometimes referred to as "Federalism." I'm guessing its the former in Newt's case, but it isn't always.

[FrankRep]

The Real Newt Gingrich


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnwZ3CLPlnY

John F. McManus analyzes the voting record and actions of former Congressman Newt Gingrich, revealing that Gingrich is not the conservative he portrays himself to be.

Newt Gingrich: The Establishment’s Conservative

An Honest Look at Newt Gingrich

Conservatives Against Newt Gingrich

[compromise]

I don't really see any reason to go after him when he's agreeing with us. If he's acting like Christie and attacking us, sure, but at the moment he doesn't seem to. There are some weird tendencies in this movement to attack people when they praise or defend Ron or Rand simply because people perceive them to be disingenuous, yet whenever a liberty politician has any praise for an "enemy of liberty" (like McConnell or Enzi), he receives a strong bashing from certain members and is accused of being a sellout.

What Gingrich did was actually very useful. I know a lot of Republican voters that like and respect Newt Gingrich and any praise that he gives Rand will help Rand in 2016.

Why go after Gingrich at this time, when you can go after Chris Christie, Rick Santorum, Tom Cotton, Peter King and the rest of the Rand haters?