Political Hay
But What’s the GOP Plan?
Democrats will rue the day they asked that question.
Is the GOP really just the party of no, as Democrat talking points say and the Democrat party controlled media echo? Or do Republicans have a positive vision for America besides their well-justified opposition to the ultra-left Obamacrat agenda?
Gingrich’s American Solutions
The truth is that the emerging leaders of today’s GOP have been furiously projecting positive alternatives to the leftist agenda now reigning in Washington. Start with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who could be going toe to toe with Obama in 2012. The whole point of his grassroots organization American Solutions is precisely to promote a positive agenda of solutions to America’s mounting troubles, prominently featured at the organization’s website. A sweeping agenda of free market, smaller government reforms for just about every problem and issue is also presented in his recent book, Real Change, and in his soon to be released new book, To Save America.
On the economy and jobs, Gingrich is explicitly promoting the four components of Reaganomics. On tax rates, he proposes a 40% cut in the current 25% tax rate paid by the middle class, leaving 90% of workers effectively with a flat tax of 15% or less. He recognizes that America suffers from the second highest business tax rate in the industrialized world, leaving American companies uncompetitive in the global marketplace. So he supports cutting the federal corporate tax rate of 35% to the 12.5% rate Ireland adopted over 20 years ago. The Irish economy boomed as a result, raising per capita income, meaning wages for working people, in that long-time poor country from the second lowest in the EU to the second highest. Our own Treasury Department reports that Ireland raises more corporate tax revenue as a percent of GDP with its 12.5% rate than we do with our 35% rate. Newt writes at AmericanSolutions.com, “Small businesses are responsible for the overwhelming majority of jobs created in America. A reduction in the corporate tax rate would allow them to keep more of their money and hire more employees.”
On capital gains, which effectively double taxes future capital income, Gingrich proposes cutting the rate to zero, following 14 out of 30 OECD countries, plus China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and others, who have already zeroed out capital gains taxes, and as a result create more jobs. He also supports abolishing the death tax, still another layer of taxation on capital. He proposes immediate expensing, meaning a 100% first year deduction, for investment in new machinery and equipment, so that American workers can work with “the most modern and productive equipment in the world.” That means higher wages. Supply-siders emphasize this as a very pro-growth measure.
Ultimately, Gingrich proposes fundamental tax reform involving an optional 15% flat tax similar to the proposals of Steve Forbes and of the Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore. Workers could choose the new 15% flat tax with virtually all deductions and loopholes abolished, or they could choose to stay with the deductions and complexities of the current tax code. (Almost all would pay less under the new option, and enjoy the lower costs of the far simpler tax code.)
Gingrich proposes as well to balance the budget within seven years, starting with the proportional equivalent of Reagan’s 1981 budget cuts, an immediate reduction of $180 billion in annual federal spending. He advocates next a budget cutting federal spending by $1 trillion over 10 years, as the House adopted in 1995 when he was Speaker. This all could be accomplished by returning everything except Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to 2007 budget levels, repealing all unspent stimulus funds, and terminating, not respending, TARP funding.
Gingrich would deregulate energy markets, unleashing the private sector as Reagan used to say, to produce reliable low cost energy supplies, further boosting the economy. This would include expanding offshore and onshore drilling, unshackling coal producers, and liberating nuclear power (safety standards still strictly enforced). Regulatory barriers to alternative energy would be squelched as well. Further deregulation would involve repealing the disastrous mark-to-market accounting requirements and the Community Reinvestment Act, which both contributed mightily to the financial crisis, and replacing Sarbanes-Oxley with far less costly requirements. Gingrich also proposes to break up and privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Gingrich advances as well the same strong dollar monetary policies as Reagan, to maintain the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, ensure lower interest rates and more capital investment over the long run, and avert any return to inflation. This all amounts to a full-blown reprise of Reaganomics, updated for today. It is a prescription for a renewed economic boom for another 25 years, as Reaganomics produced.
For the longer run, Gingrich proposes sweeping entitlement reforms, solving that potentially overwhelming problem with fundamental structural change that averts any need for a tax increase. He advocates empowering workers with the freedom to choose personal accounts for Social Security, eventually expanding the accounts to take over financing of all the benefits currently financed by the payroll tax, allowing that tax to be phased out entirely. He proposes building on the enormously successful 1996 welfare reforms by expanding the underlying concept of block grants to the states to finance mandatory work for welfare to the other 85 federal means tested welfare programs, including Medicaid, food stamps, and public housing.
On health care, Gingrich co-authored a Wall Street Journal commentary with Health Savings Account (HSA) and Patient Power guru John Goodman involving expanding coverage and reducing costs through greater patient control, incentives, and freer markets, including comprehensive HSAs. Gingrich, in fact, heads a whole think tank, The Center for Health Transformation, focused on advancing these ideas.
The Ryan Roadmap
Skyrocketing GOP House Budget Chief Paul Ryan has introduced legislation providing for the increasingly famous Ryan Roadmap — a comprehensive plan that would eliminate long term budget deficits, achieve full solvency for Social Security and Medicare, provide a comprehensive health care safety net for the poor and uninsured, and adopt comprehensive tax reform with low, pro-growth tax rates. The entire Roadmap is officially scored by CBO as achieving these results, with no tax increase. Indeed, the federal budget is balanced over the long run with both taxes and spending at their long run historical average of 18.6% of GDP.
For health care, the Roadmap provides effectively that the tax break for health insurance that currently applies only to employer provided insurance is extended to everyone. All workers would be eligible for a refundable tax credit of $2,300 for individuals and $5,700 for families for the purchase of health insurance. They could buy that insurance interstate nationwide, and would own it directly and individually, making it fully portable from job to job.
Medicaid would provide supplemental payments to the poor besides these tax credits to help them buy insurance. This would benefit the poor enormously, freeing them from the Medicaid ghetto that so badly underpays doctors and hospitals that 40% won’t even take Medicaid patients today, resulting in worse health outcomes for the poor. The poor would instead enjoy the same health care as the middle class, since they would be able to buy the same insurance in the marketplace.
About the Author
Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (83) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Peter Ferrara
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/31/but-whats-the-gop-plan
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Concerned| 3.31.10 @ 6:57AM
Wow! Great article explaining what the GOP is really doing to help with our current crisis in government and the real alternatives they offer. Not to mention the downside represented by the new health care plan, which is not about health care but about the left gathering their minions (many of which are not even citizens) and building their power base. It is good to hear GOP ideals of smaller government, lower taxes and economy helping ideas. Good on you!
Alan Brooks| 3.31.10 @ 5:19PM
the GOP plan is to run Jeb Bush for POTUS in 2012.
Alan Brooks| 3.31.10 @ 5:23PM
... your big mistake is to think the GOP is conservative. It is now merely a business selling GOP candidates.
Gingrich? his interest in futurism makes him untrustworthy. Gingrich's guru Toffler is the Noam Chomsky of futurology.
Quartermaster| 3.31.10 @ 7:46PM
The GOP plan is just another type of socialism. The GOP has never changed its spots since Fremont ran for President in 1856. It started as a left wing party, and it remains one to this day. Conservatism is constitutional, and the constitution does not permit any kind of social welfare or charity.
Ralph Novy| 4.4.10 @ 1:19AM
Uncanny.
My knee-jerk response is also "Wow!"
The only difference seems to be that you're forgetting/ignoring the last 30 years of economic history.
martin j smith| 3.31.10 @ 7:55AM
Let me respond to this article by also referring to another topic related to the " Risk of Violence".
BHO and the Democratic Left leadership has denied real debate to the American people. Clearly the plans outlines deserve to be heard by the voter and let them judge what they prefer.
But instead we get class warfare,we get race baiting, accusations of homophobia, you name it.
And on top of that you have allegations of "violence" or threats without substantiation. There is a long litany of behavior from the Democrat Party leadership including BHO himself that demonstrate a total unwillingness to give the other side a fair hearing-fair ? Forgetaboutit !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So, I am glad to see that there are concrete alternative ideas--however, since the Democrat Left raised the issue--the first goal is to creat an environment where the ideas by Gingrich and Ryan could be examined and compared with Obama care( which was not examined so carefully by voters ) prior to the ram down.
Which brings me to the point: If as I have seen Democrat Left leaders treat voters who disagree with them with arrogance-what in the name of the Volga River do you expect ? And even there as I said the voters are amazinglytolerant.
Ralph Novy| 4.4.10 @ 1:23AM
Martin:
You know, you might have been able to make a positive point if you hadn't descended into name-calling with the first fucking six words of your second paragraph.
Damn.
Do you have ANYTHING other than fear/hatred/indignation to offer?
I'd like to hear it.
Sheesh.
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.31.10 @ 9:06AM
Darn it, Mr. Ferrara, another column in my permanent documents file.
Splendid, sir.
Layne | 3.31.10 @ 9:17AM
Fantastic. But right now, these ideas can't get to the light of day. We need those seats to run this show and save this country.
roger | 3.31.10 @ 10:08AM
ObamaCare making you sick? This podcast will make you feel better! www.cashbeechcroft.podomatic.com
From a rising star in the REAL conservative movement.
Rick V.| 3.31.10 @ 10:32AM
Mr. Ferrara,
I haven't read Congressman Ryan's reform proposals at length, but people and organizations and publications I trust (such as AmSpec)
all appear to be raving about his reform proposals. Let's assume they are
as good and beneficial in the long term as advertised.
I think working Americans are naturally wary about any one-size-fits-all proposal from Washington. I have yet to hear or see anyone offer any type of incremental reform for any government program, so let me suggest one:
Why not initially offer Ryan's voluntary reform proposals to federal employees only, through their TSP (401k) program? Why? Well, they're already on the government payroll, Congress already determines their pay (or if they
get paid), their TSP is subject to government oversight, and their pay and investments are easily monitored over time by the government. And besides, no one in the private sector likes or trusts the public sector, especially at the federal level. If this incremental approach works and the federal employees who avail themselves of it actually see a positive return on their
investment over time, the private sector will scream bloody murder for the same opportunity.
And yes, I am a federal employee. Would I like this opportunity to test an economic theory? Yes. Would I deny the same opportunity to my civilian counterparts? No, of course not, welcome aboard.
C'mon, even Madison Avenue test-markets its new products. They get a bunch of folks together under some semblance of controlled conditions and determine if anybody would actually and willingly eat a new breakfast cereal, let alone buy it if they had the chance. Why not try the same approach with health care or Social Security reform proposals. My idea has the distinction of never having been tried before; I believe my idea is truly a free-market approach.
This was actually the proposal for my Master's thesis several years ago. I conducted an email survey throughout the installation where I
work and asked over 1500 fellow employees if they would be willing to participate in my proposed Social Security Deferment plan. The response was overwhelmingly positive, from recent hires to long-term folks who were near
retirement. When offered the opportunity to defer as little as 10% and up to 50% of one's current Social Security "contribution" into any TSP fund the employee chose, over 90% of my co-workers resoundingly answered "Yes!"
Mr. Ferrara, there are two principal reasons I'd love to get this idea to Congressman Ryan and any elected official who is serious about real reform.
First, it's a great idea - not because it's mine but because it's original, cost-effective, innovative and confined to an easily-monitored test group.
Second, because my college professor only gave me a "B" and said it would never happen. I haven't seen him in years but, when my proposal is accepted and adopted, I'll contact him and we'll have a few beers together. He was a great storyteller. Now I'll have a story of my own.
Thank you, Mr. Ferrara. Blessings to you and the good work you do.
victor| 3.31.10 @ 2:26PM
Hello Rick,
I'm sure that if you were to call his office you might even get to talk to him.
I've heard Paul Ryan on many talk shows from Bill Bennett to Mike Gallagher to Sean Hannity.
This idea would fit neatly with what he has proposed so far.
Rick V.| 3.31.10 @ 5:58PM
Thanks Victor, I'll do that.
Ralph Novy| 4.4.10 @ 1:29AM
Rick:
Can't say I've read Ryan's proposals in detail either.
But, then again, from what I HAVE read, I don't think HE has either.
I'm a Wisconsin boy too -- a bit older than he.
He's from a very disgruntled section of Wisconsin -- Janesville -- that's gotten shafted by GM & Co. as badly as Michael Moore's Flint, Michigan.
Sad, really.
But here's Ryan pandering to those folks' discontents.
And they continue to vote for him.
Pathetic.
He's a nincompoop shill for big business. Period.
Tim| 3.31.10 @ 11:14AM
Gingrich strikes me, politically speaking, as having a glass jaw.
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.31.10 @ 11:51AM
Funny Tim,
You get more said in fewer words than just about anyone I have ever known.
You are right about Gingrich "Politically", but my goodness he is an idea machine. A unique Idea machine in my lifetime experience.
In addition he truly has gathered around him some of the absolute best wonks to outline our course to prosperity and personal liberty you could ever imagine.
Yeah, he got off the track on "global warming", but so did a lot of smart people who bought "the science".
He never has backed off on "drill baby drill" because of it though.
I will give him a, (temporary), pass.
Yeah and he KNOWS he screwed up on the NY representative race. Probably his GOP shirttail hanging out. OOPS!
Petronius| 3.31.10 @ 11:51AM
Forget it! When is the GOP going to learn that their wonkery is just that? Ask any sane middle class American what is necessary for him to prosper. Take out the trash and abolish entitlements. Eliminate the predators, and banish the perverts and parasites who refuse to compete.
Carol Lawrence| 3.31.10 @ 12:03PM
HSA's are fine for healthy people. However, if you or your child has a chronic illness like Asthma or an autoimmune disease, you can NOT save enough to pay for the bills. Medical experts state clearly that HSA's are not adequate for these circumstances.
Al Adab| 3.31.10 @ 12:15PM
...and your point is what? Are such unfortunate people entitled to have their expenses paid by other people's money?
That such circumstances exist is as certain as daybreak. Nonetheless, charity hospitals abound ask the Shriners. Other expenses are just a part of living. Equality of circumstance is chimerical and not to be created through government action.
Ralph Novy| 4.4.10 @ 1:32AM
Al Adab:
YES, they're entitled to have their expenses paid by other people's money -- including YOURS.
If you don't agree, you have no place in ANY decent society anywhere.
Go to a distant island and slit your own throat, asshole -- Oh, and please invite Rush Limbaugh to accompany you.
Jeez Louise.
Ted| 3.31.10 @ 1:27PM
Carol,
That is why HSAs are coupled to high deductible medical insurance policies. If one were to experience a chronic illnesses such as the ones you mention, you can pay the deductibles involved with HSA money; then the policy kicks in. Sometimes these high deductible policies are known also as catastrophic insurance policies.
Valerie| 3.31.10 @ 1:34PM
It should be that we use HSA's combined with insurance. Pre-tax HSA money should cover routine care up to a deductible, then insurance should kick in when chronic illness or serious emergencies happen. The free market advantage to doing it this way would be to put the individual consumer back into familiarity with the true costs of health care services. This would encourage price shopping and competition. For example, my husband decided to see what an MRI would cost if we paid out of pocket instead of using insurance. When offering to pay cash up front, the price tag went from $350 to $50. Try it.
victor| 3.31.10 @ 2:30PM
Under your new ObamaCare© policy, that would most likely be against the law.
What a great idea, as a lot of doctors do not take insurance.
An opportunity to be a doctor without red tape.
GRgrandma| 3.31.10 @ 12:41PM
Nope don't think Gingrich is the right choice. I want to see ALL career politicians and lawyers removed from government. I don't care whether they are Republican or Democrat. We need people with business background and common folk who know how to run a household and/or business and keep it in the black.
Valerie| 3.31.10 @ 1:26PM
Very nice, THIS IS WHAT I WANT, but can we trust them to actually do it? We gave the damn GOP a mandate in 2004 and they squandered it. If they had implemented these reforms then instead of sitting on their lazy butts, we wouldn't be in this God-awful mess in the first place. I'm still voting GOP, but they better sit up and show me they've learned something because I'm very active in the Primary process from now on!!!
sre| 3.31.10 @ 2:04PM
Amen. When I pick the culprit for our current minority status and the squandered opportunity we had for 10 years, it isn't Bush, Cheney, Rove, or Gingrich.
It's Hastert.
MacAoidh | 3.31.10 @ 10:29PM
Amen to that. Denny Hastert gets NOWHERE NEAR the scorn he deserves for his absolutely disgusting performance as House Speaker. Scumbag Chicago pol through and through.
Ralph Novy| 4.4.10 @ 1:40AM
sre & MacAoidh:
So you're willing to let the "big fish" off the hook and try to reel in Hastert instead, eh?
Talk about backward-bending apologetics.
You sound like WWII SS officers blaming some dumbass/insane schlub like Hess for your own moral failings.
Shame.
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Bolton/Addington -- at a minimum -- ought to be in the Hague brig as we speak.
Northern Rebel| 3.31.10 @ 2:28PM
Surely republicans must be aware that nobody knows they have ANY message, but no.
That is designed by the alphabet media, and unless conservatives find a way to break through the stonewall, it won't matter what ideas it has.
Margie| 3.31.10 @ 3:08PM
I was mad at Newt too for his foibles and before somebody says to me, "Foibles?!It was a lot worse than that, harumph!"
I would vote for him in a nano second. Why? Because I'm voting for his BRILLIANT ideas for America. And if another candidate were to run with his ideas, I'd vote for them too. What excellent ideas, and how they would correct and heal this country!
Excellent indeed.
Lew| 3.31.10 @ 9:32PM
I believed him when he came up with the Contract for America, then he and the party fell flat on its face.
Now we're paying for those great ideas that went nowhere.
I'm not falling for it again.
victor| 3.31.10 @ 10:02PM
Hey, so vote for a Democrat. Nobody's stopping you.
MacAoidh | 3.31.10 @ 10:32PM
I don't know if Newt is the right guy as a presidential candidate. I wonder if he wouldn't perhaps be the right guy as a chief of staff, though. Nobody in either party is as adept at crafting an agenda as Newt is; it's the other aspects of leadership that I'm not sure he has.
Margie| 3.31.10 @ 11:48PM
I agree. I hope we have a nominee that would not have the baggage Newt has as it is obvious that so many can't stand him. But who knows? Some conservatives can't even stand Sarah Palin! How much more conservative can you get than her? We eat our own. We demand perfection. Look at the Democrats, they'll sell out their principles at the drop of a hat. Case in point: Stupak. He's toast. Compare that to any of the Republicans that met with Obama~ Ryan, Boehner, Cantor, Coburn, and others. Conservatives who stand up for conservative principles.
Ralph Novy| 4.4.10 @ 1:43AM
Margie:
What -- PRECISELY -- are those "brilliant" ideas?
I was alive and aware back then and I did NOT hear them.
Spit 'em out......
Glenn Warner| 3.31.10 @ 3:56PM
The libs don't have time for ideas, they are too busy protecting us from christian militia. The party of No is so yesterday, now its the party of incitement.
Radegunda| 3.31.10 @ 4:17PM
Margie, the GOP would be committing suicide to nominate a man who has dumped two wives, and in the latest case (at least) it was to marry the younger woman he was having an affair with. This would hand the Dems an extremely potent weapon, and it would drive away many women who might otherwise vote GOP.
It's disgraceful that Hannity keeps giving Newt such fawning treatment after he (Hannity) kept repeating "It's about character!" in reference to Clinton's Monica problem (while overlooking much of Clinton's more serious malfeasance).
Margie| 3.31.10 @ 5:21PM
Hi Radegunda,
To make it more clear, and it's how I think and what I believe is the best thing to do, for my country~ if Newt Gingrich were to become the nominee, I would vote for him. IF. I will vote for the best ideas for the country, and those that e has are to me, nothing short of fantastic. I would be willing to put aside everything else and pull the lever for him BECAUSE those IDEAS put into policies would SAVE the country from the bottomless pit to which we are sailing swiftly. When I vote, I vote for the ideas of the platform and the policies of the party that I believe are best for the country. I don't look for a perfect person. It's the same reason I voted for McCain. He wasn't my personal choice, I wanted it to be Fred Thompson, I liked him mucho! Both the ideas AND the man, and that is the ultimate candidate. So I look at the big picture~ I will always vote Republican because I am voting for the ideas and planks of that party as being the best we've got for the country. If it's good enough for Sarah Palin (she has said the same thing) it's good enough for me.
Right now we don't know who the nominee is going to be but that is why we have to get out in droves to vote in the Primaries. I am really looking forward to seeing who's going to run because if whoever they are are as stoked as we all are to hound the Democrats out of office, it's gonna be an exciting next couple of years.
Lew| 3.31.10 @ 9:35PM
That is the problem. They are just GREAT IDEAS like his Contract for America.
Ideas don't help us. Action does. And his actions have proven that he's not who he says he is.
MacAoidh | 3.31.10 @ 10:36PM
Actually, there were real accomplishments as a result of the Contract for America. Real polices were enacted which did a lot of good for a lot of people.
Gingrich's successors certainly ran the majority into the ground, but his speakership was, on balance, highly successful. He's not without his warts and I find he shoots himself in the foot far too often, but the man deserves his due.
Ralph Novy| 4.4.10 @ 1:50AM
MacAoidh:
Appreciate the tone of this comment, but when you say "Real polices were enacted which did a lot of good for a lot of people," I have to wonder what you're talking about. NAFTA? Repeal of Glass-Steagall? All-out impeachmant attack on Bill Clinton? What?
Margie| 3.31.10 @ 11:39PM
One huge reason the Democrats win is because they always vote Democrat. When do you ever see them complaining and eating their own the way that we do?
If you want good candidates then find the ones who are running and back them. If we continue to blame the Republican party for the misery caused by the Left in this country we are fools in my opinion!
Observe Liberal Reader's comments below~he LIVES to demonize the Republican party and conservatives. I'm not going to help him.
Cybercorrespondent | 3.31.10 @ 4:22PM
Two Points of View
Conservative
In 2009, the United States printed $2 trillion and guaranteed it with IOUs. As the Obama administration continues to print more money, the liberals try to make everyone believe that their actions will get us out of debt and recession. By printing more money, their philosophy is to hand out free money as it was easy to come by and as a result make people believe that getting it for free is better than working. Eventually, more jobs will be lost, people will stop looking for work, and when there are more takers than givers, the capitalist system will totally collapse.
Liberal
While the workers who work hard are getting stressed out, those who collect unemployment can lay back and enjoy their free time. With the healthcare bill signed into law, you now can stay home and enjoy hobbies like art. If you are under 26, you can stay under your parent’s insurants with nothing to worry about. After the cap and trade bill is passed, things will get even better. The darn capitalists will be forced to lay off more people and you’ll have more friends to hang around with. And if you do decided that you want to work, the government is hiring 16,000 new IRS agents to enforce the President's mandate on the American people. Those will be jobs created. No need to worry about collage. We’ll make those who work pay for it.
Capitalists are nothing but whiners. After the healthcare bill was passed, AT&T started whining that they already lost $1 billion because of the passage, two of the nation’s largest employers, John Deer and Caterpillar, claim it will cost them billions and to top it off, Towers Watson whined to the Wall Street Journal that the total hit this year for them will reach nearly $14 billion. What are they going to do? Lay off more people? Don’t they know that we have printing presses rolling and will never run out of unemployment money? Henry Waxman already called in the CEO’s of these companies to Washington and will put them in their place for whining about it.
Another organization that needs a lesson thought is the Heritage Foundation. How dare they say that according to their research, “President Obama's health approach is financially unsustainable and will ultimately lead to health care rationing, a lower quality of care and a greater degree of dependence on government?” Government dependency, isn’t that what we want? No need to worry. Senators Lindsey Graham and Joseph Lieberman outlined U.S. climate-change legislation that would have power companies buy and sell pollution rights in a carbon market and force oil and energy companies pay fixed fees for emissions. Our senators and congressman are the finest and will make sure that after the capitalist system collapses, we the new communist party will get total control of the private sector.
How can we loose? With gas prices at $7.00 a gallon and outrageous energy bills, everybody will be forced to ask the government for a hand out. As a Democratic Congressman, Alcee Hastings, had articulated so perfectly, "There ain't no rules here, we're trying to accomplish something. . . .All this talk about rules. . . .When the deal goes down . . . we make 'em up as we go along." Translation, “The road for those who know how to milk the system will be paved with gold. A better quote to summarize this point of view comes from a comment to Cybercorrespondent’s article entitled, “Unite Against Tyranny or Relinquish Liberty.” Quote, “I think we should Unite FOR Tyranny. It will make your dreams come true! Or kill you. One of the two.”
Cybercorrespondent
http://cybercorrespondent.wordpress.com
Paul| 3.31.10 @ 5:14PM
Romney made a mistake with his state health care plan but he has economic brains and can solve our fiscal problems...Romney for President in 2012!
Liberal Reader| 3.31.10 @ 6:26PM
Don't forget the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the congressional Republicans back in the 90s -- they ALL contributed to the basic ideas of Obama's evil social Stalinist communist government takeover of health care Apocalypse.
Nick| 3.31.10 @ 7:55PM
It doesn't compare to the widely reported acts of liberal democrats spitting and making racist remarks to Tea Pariers over the weekend, Frothy Reader.
Why haven't you denounced these racist acts committed by your democrat party?
victor| 3.31.10 @ 10:14PM
Loonie Liberal Reader:
"they ALL contributed to the basic ideas of Obama's evil social Stalinist communist government takeover of health care Apocalypse."
How the heck do you even get up the nerve to say that? What is your proof?
Got any citations?
You're lying again, as usual, without any facts or figures.
Why are you even here?
When you get some facts, much less a clue, then you can talk.
Otherwise you're just a waste of protoplasm.
BTW, you never, ever refuted me on the proof that the democrats are the party of Satan and Evil.
Liars go to Hell and you are leading the parade.
Liberal Reader| 3.31.10 @ 11:05PM
Victor --
The health care bill is the result of years of study by health care economists, many of whom have also had positions at these conservative think tanks. This has been widely reported, and I don't think it is seriously disputed by anyone. I've seen Republican leaders confronted by questions that presume these facts, and they haven't challenged them. But more importantly, victor, I'm not your secretary. You'll have to do a little more than listen to Glenn Beck if you want to participate in political discourse in an informed way. You're too used to passive reception; you need to learn how to do the work of learning about what's going on in the world. I won't do it for you -- and by the way, neither will Glenn Beck. He just wants you to eat his cheeseburgers and fries. And that's fine: there's nothing wrong with fast food once in a while. Get the Happy Meal. But you don't want to eat there ever day -- unless you want to start looking like Glenn Beck.
As for accusing me of being a Satanist, or whatever, all I can say is these accusations say much more about you than they do about me.
victor| 3.31.10 @ 11:31PM
Loonie Liberal Reader:
"health care economists"
Care to name them? That is, if there are any.
All you do is come here and spread lies!
"I've seen Republican leaders confronted by questions that presume these facts"
Have you? Who are they?
More lies?
You only assert, never back up any of your claims.
Put up or shut up. Liar.
Simon Templar| 4.1.10 @ 12:34AM
He will not say because both the stimulus and health care bills were written by such groups like the apollo project and other far left wing think tanks.
the shrike | 4.2.10 @ 8:20PM
Liberal Reader...guess what? The days of "flying under the radar" are OVER. Glenn Beck is our modern Paul Revere...waking a sleeping giant.
Remember The Who song "I CAN SEE FOR MILES"?
Believe it...
JimE| 3.31.10 @ 6:19PM
Newt's ideas, fine. Newt, no, he is an opportunist who groveld at pelosi's feet.
susie| 3.31.10 @ 7:00PM
Mr. Gingrich is doing some fancy tap-dancing. In his new contract with America, there is no mention of closing borders and amnesty. It makes me think that he intends to sneak these things past us when we least expect them.
Christopher Holland| 3.31.10 @ 11:08PM
In that case the man is a fraud. There is no way in the world America can have the welfare programs it has now and an open border policy that condones illegal immigration on a massive scale. The second makes the first completely unaffordable. An politician who refuses to recognise that simple fact is wasting everybody's time.
Steve| 3.31.10 @ 7:00PM
I saw no mention of the Fair Tax???
Ralph Novy| 4.4.10 @ 1:57AM
Steve:
You mean the fair, "FLAT" tax?
So even the richest, greediest fucks would -- nominally -- pay taxes at no higher a rate than we dumbass "working Joes"?.......but, with extra loopholes in the tax code paid to the Congress Club, they'll pay substantially less........That's fine with you?
Hey..........I'm on the side of the Roosevelts. That's just too fucking greedy.
lol
ok?
philfl63| 3.31.10 @ 9:09PM
Sounds pretty. But I heard no mention of eliminating federal welfare programs ($600 billion/year). There was no mention of eliminating the IRS, Department of Energy, Department of Education, Department of Labor etc. No mention of leaving the citizen alone and "giving the power" back to the states. As the commenter above stated, no mention of closing our borders. Gingrich is a fraud who wants another ride on the gravy train.
Ralph Novy| 4.4.10 @ 2:02AM
Philfl63:
Odd use of the term "welfare."
But I LOVED it.
Commensurate with "promote the general welfare" stuff. You know -- Constitutional.
duh
You want to live a "free" individual's life -- as in free to live and die any fucking moment for innumerable reasons -- move to Indonesia.
The U.S. is -- and always has been -- an explicitly "socialist" country.
In fact, dumbass -- name me ONE "nonsocialist" country.
It's a contradiction in terms, don't you think?
duh
South Texan| 4.1.10 @ 12:51AM
I sincerely hope that the ideas in this article are not what most americans want. A republican makeover of socialist programs is not what we need. It's really too bad that socialism in disguise is what the Republicrats are all about. I would rather see a return to individual freedom and responsibility based on the Constitution. Both of these plans will only put new names on old programs and the banks will have to bribe a new set of politicians to be allowed to keep running things their way.
Petronius| 4.1.10 @ 1:33AM
in very truth ST.
The libtards would all starve. Every parasite needs a host.
Ralph Novy| 4.4.10 @ 2:09AM
Petronius:
Get the nominary allusion.
You let that down.
Check out Aristophanes, Tacitus and Seneca.
Judy| 4.1.10 @ 2:11PM
I do think that the GOP will move to the right and be and act conservative, if they do not listen to the people they are out. But you have to remember that any Democratic party keeps or gets back control it will finish the United States of America.
Pingback| 4.6.10 @ 10:20AM
Myth: Republicans have offered no alternatives « Zbigniew Mazurak's Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
wangsir| 4.19.10 @ 3:37AM
Free download AVI to iPad, convert kinds of videos to iPad for playing.
Claire Solt| 4.27.11 @ 9:51AM
Transparency and competition are bringing much improvement to this opaque system of collusion between government and stakeholders seeking to ward off challenges from the emerging custom medicine based on genetic counselling and stem cell therapy. Vote the reactionaries out and bring in the reformers!