Gingrich, Like Cagney, Is Better than Romney

  Newt Gives It to the Taxpayers



The Economist was ebullient when Romney was winning. Now that Gingrich has trounced Romney in South Carolina, our financial overlords in the City of London and on Wall Street may be may be a bit less, but almost as, content. The difference between Romney and Gingrich is like the difference between Cary Grant and James Cagney. Romney, the debonair aristocrat, an opportunist beneath his manly charm, Gingrich, the thug who twirls around in a ménage à trois before mashing a grapefruit in taxpayers' faces (see Cagney's Gingrich-like performance in The Public Enemy above).  These are two dogs out of the Council on Foreign Relations' kennel.

Of the four standing GOP candidates Romney is the most accomplished, having achieved impressive business success.  In contrast, Gingrich's chief achievement, his appointment to speaker of the house, led to quick failure due to his incompetence.  Romney is a stable and cautious friend of global financial interests while Gingrich is full of big ideas, each one more destructive than the last.  In the last debate, Gingrich's proposal for a government subsidy to build a port in Charleston was an example. Gingrich seems to have planned a massive pork barrel project for each city in which a debate is held.

Romney blows with the winds; Gingrich proves that 180-year-old tax-and-spend Whig socialism is alive and well. Romney is in the centrist, globalist, and corporatist tradition of Richard Nixon;  Gingrich is in the Whig tradition of Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln practically bankrupted Illinois with frivolous infrastructure projects, and, now that Illinois's credit rating has been reduced, what better expression of the GOP's big government Whig tradition than to nominate Gingrich?

Presidents don't usually win or lose because of ideas. Lyndon Baines Johnson fought Goldwater over the New Deal, but Kennedy had just been shot. Perhaps Ronald Reagan fought a campaign of ideas, but would he have won without his actor's charm?  And did he really believe that government was the problem? He didn't act like it.  Rather than ideas, Nixon's half-day-old whiskers are the kind of issue that America's increasingly impoverished electorate emphasizes. America was once the richest and freest country in the world, but television news has led it to its favoring candidates, like Gingrich, Romney, and Obama, who are bleeding them, diminishing their freedom, and creating a paper money aristocracy at their expense.

That said, Gingrich is better than Romney for one reason: Gingrich can't win. He can't win because his image is tarnished, he is fat, his ideas are ridiculous, and he is an imaginative sexual virtuoso.  That makes him preferable to Romney, who can win. 

The most important thing in this election is a strident protest vote.  The greater and more explicit the vote against the Federal Reserve Bank, the greater a threat to its political security, the sooner the Ron Paul revolution will win.  In the event that Paul loses the primary race (and his 13% showing was better than in '08, but discouraging), a vote for the Libertarian Party in the general election will speak more loudly than one for the GOP candidate. There is more likely to be a stronger protest vote with a Gingrich than with a Romney candidacy.

As well, a Republican Congress coupled with a Democratic presidency is unlikely to achieve much. That is the best we can hope for.  If the Republicans win both branches, we will see plenty of ports and plenty of pork in Charleston and every other hurricane-prone city in the country, if not the world.  

Pathetic Crew of Republican Candidates are Big Government Drones

Unfortunately, CNN excluded one of the few imaginative voices in the Republican Party, Gary Johnson, from Tuesday night's debate.  Of the candidates present, only Ron Paul had anything to say in support of freedom and against socialism.  Cain's 9-9-9 plan, which would impose a sales tax on lower income people, is cruel. Rather than think of new methods of taxation, Republicans should be thinking of new ways to restrain spending.  Ron Paul was the only candidate at the debate who is not a socialist.

Ron Paul has a plan to terminate five cabinet positions:  the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior, and Education. He has also proposed to close a large number of unproductive military bases in places like Spain and Korea that do not protect the United States.  None of the other candidates was willing to discuss these proposals when Paul brought them up.  Instead, they remain loyal to a dishonest Federal Reserve Bank system that has sucked working Americans dry financially.  That Main Street Republicans support any among this bank of candidates is an indictment of the democratic process.

I can see why Comrades Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Cain, and Bachmann remain silent about the Departments of Energy and Education.  Since they were established, education results have collapsed and energy costs have exploded, and neither agency, which together employ thousands of unproductive bureaucrats, has anything useful to say about either subject.  But this topic was avoided. To socialists like Gingrich and Romney, the Department of Education is a necessity.    

Mr. Cain, a former Federal Reserve official who has participated in the legalized theft involved in the bailout and the central bank-based fractional reserve system, offered a defense of  Wall Street, a socialist cancer on American capitalism.  Mr. Cain has participated in a racketeering organization, and his appeal to Republicans suggest a profound stupidity and incompetence among rank-and-file Republicans and the inept media that they consume, specifically including talk radio.

Except for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, voting for a Republican in 2012 will be a wasted vote.

Republican Presidential Debate: Where Was Gary Johnson?

I was underwhelmed with the candidates on tonight's GOP presidential debate. The candidates have a high degree of professionalism.  The only legitimate limited government candidate is Ron Paul.  The format of the debate prohibited intelligent discussion about issues, which worked against Paul.

I was disappointed that Gary Johnson was not invited; Paul was the best candidate there. I don't agree with him about Iran and the Middle East,  although a broad reduction in military intervention around the world, say 50%,  is an excellent idea.  I dislike the federal marriage amendment to which only Paul objected.  The Republicans thereby revealed themselves as equal to the Democrats in favoring extension of federal power.  Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are big government guys, and Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann are hardly better than they are.   Gingrich's claim that Reagan fostered sound money is a nonsensical lie. None of the candidates other than Paul will address the country's underlying problems.

I like Herman Cain, but he lacks experience. He should serve in Congress for a few years.   Mitt Romney is also a big government guy, and I don't like him, but he may be the only one capable of defeating Obama. I'm not sure that a Romney presidency would be great, but perhaps his credentials in establishing a health care plan in Massachusetts would enable him to repeal Obamacare and Sarbanes Oxley.  I think I heard him say that he would. I'm still not sure I can vote for him. If the polls are predicting a Republican Congress, I think I will vote for the Libertarian Party rather than Romney.

Several of the candidates claimed that states' rights would lead to polygamy. I don't think it would, but if it did, so what?  Heck, I'll move to Utah and give Freda some competition.  Nothing like a ménage à trois (better make sure Freda doesn't read this).  This pompous junk makes me ill. Polygamy is in the Bible. Who says it requires a constitutional amendment? And why are these big government Republicans looking for ever new ways to bug people who have tastes that are different from theirs?   

I am going to vote for Ron Paul.  Absent his victory I will probably vote for Romney in the election if it's not clear that the GOP is winning Congress.  If it is, I will vote for the Libertarian Party presidential candidate.  If Santorum, Gingrich or Huntsman gain the nomination I will not vote for them.  If Gary Johnson, Ron Paul or another libertarian ran on a third party ticket, they would have my vote regardless of what the GOP is doing at the congressional level.

Ron Paul needs a better platform to discuss the Fed. It's great he's raising the issue on national TV, but most of the knuckleheads watching probably don't know what he's talking about.

Newt Gingrich--Failed Republican

Newt Gingrich was coauthor of the Contract with America in 1994 and became Speaker of the House in 1995, claiming that he would reduce government, abolish the department of education, and end corruption. Instead, while he led Congress, he got embroiled in corruption scandals that mirrored those of the Democrats he had replaced.  The Republican Congress reduced  federal spending as a percentage of gross domestic product, GDP, chiefly because of the "peace dividend" that had resulted from the end of the Cold War. Gingrich and his Congress did little to reduce spending other than cut military spending, cuts that began (as a percentage of GDP) in 1989.  The department of education went full steam ahead.

Gingrich resigned after only a few years amidst complaints about corruption involving a book deal.  As well, he allowed himself to be accused of battling President Clinton over the federal budget not because he cared about spending but because he was miffed that he had gotten a bad seat on the President's plane. The repeated exhibition of self-indulgent, selfish immaturity weakened the GOP.

Subsequent to Gingrich's departure, impeaching Clinton absorbed the Republican Congress's energy.  If the Democrats could stop the Republicans from cutting government, why couldn't they stop them from impeaching Clinton?

Gingrich is a tragic figure.  He is one of the few national GOP leaders to have come out against the Paulson-Bush-Obama bailout.  He deserves credit for this. He is brilliant. He is a liberal in the old-fashioned meaning.*  But his failure to execute his contract with America in the mid 1990s remains a blot on the GOP's record, one that was made much worse by the GOP's unforgivably dismal record during the Bush years.

It would be tragic if Gingrich were the best the GOP could do for a presidential candidate.

*The old-fashioned word "liberal" in fact means someone who believes in freedom, free market capitalism, and less government. Because those policies had such favorable results, advocates of socialism and social democracy began to call themselves "liberal". But socialism and social democracy had dismal results, so the term "liberal" became one of opprobrium.  It is a better term to describe what I believe than is conservative. I do not wish to conserve a thing. 

Term Limits Would Stimulate Leadership Development

The current political system has led to a leadership drought. The reason is that the Congress is entrenched and Congressmen are time servers who obsequiously obey the party leadership in order to gain committee appointments and chairmanships.

Term limits would increase the reservoir of frustrated, experienced talent that lacks a job. It is time to begin kicking Congressmen out of office after 4 terms and Senators after one. Americans can no longer find leadership at the national level that is willing to think for itself. America's leaders have become a crop of homogenized drones who avoid risk and parrot the dying media for fear of upsetting the political establishment's rickety apple cart. Newt Gingrich is still being presented as someone of importance in the GOP. What more need be said? We need structural change. A clown like Obama seemed good only because the tens of millions of better qualified Americans are not power hungry enough to play the game.

Tea Party Movement HiJacked By Big Government RINOs on FOX?

I received this e-mail from Glenda McGee of Olivebridge, New York.

>This was sent to the 200,000 umbrella members of the Oklahoma Sooner Tea Party.

A WARNING TO THE TEA PARTY NATION

By Chuck Baldwin
February 12, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

As far as grassroots activism goes, the surge in Tea Parties across America is one of the more encouraging developments to recently take place. It reminds me of the "Conservative Revolution" of 1994, when the GOP reclaimed both the US Senate and House of Representatives. At that time, it had been over 40 years since the Republican Party controlled both the US House and Senate. And, between the two, the House victories were the most significant.

Spurred mostly by the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, a host of young, energetic freshman Republicans marched into Washington, D.C., determined to return a burgeoning and out-of-control federal leviathan to the constitutional precepts of limited government. I'm talking about then-freshman House members such as Helen Chenoweth, Steve Largent, Bob Barr, Joe Scarborough, Sonny Bono, John Shadegg, J.C.
Watts, etc. These young conservatives went to Washington, D.C., determined to reduce the growth and size of the federal government.

The vehicle used to transport these young conservatives from grassroots activism to US House and Senate seats was the highly touted "Contract with America" (CWA), which was orchestrated by House Speaker-to-be, Newt Gingrich. The CWA included a promise to the American people that if they would give the GOP a majority in Congress, they would eliminate up to 5 federal departments--such as the Departments of Energy and Education--and many federal agencies.

Obviously, not only did the GOP-controlled Congress not eliminate a single federal department or agency--or even shrink the size of the federal government at all--it expanded the size and scope of the federal government at every level. And there is one reason for it: Big Government neocons posing as champions of conservatism co-opted and destroyed the Conservative Revolution of 1994.

If one wants to put names to these treasonous wretches (and I do), I'm talking about charlatans such as Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott. Anyone who thinks that Newt Gingrich is a real conservative or that he will do anything to reduce the size and scope of the federal government needs to speak with any of those Republican members of the freshman class of 1994. (Sadly, too, some of the members of that great freshman class went on to become Big Government toadies themselves. Such is the
power of that Putrid Province by the Potomac.)

The Tea Parties of 2010 remind me very much of the Conservative Revolution of 1994. And if the Tea Party Nation is not very careful, they will succumb to the same fate. The signs of a silent takeover of the movement are already appearing.

First of all, the Tea Parties were actually born during the Presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas in 2007 and 2008. For all intents and purposes, the Tea Parties and the Ron Paul Revolution were one and the same. These were (mostly) young people, who were sick and tired of the same old establishment Republican Party. They were tired of establishment Republicans selling out the principles of limited government; they were tired of the US Constitution being ignored and trampled by both Republicans and Democrats; they were tired of an incessant interventionist US foreign policy that keeps sending US forces overseas to advance a burgeoning New World Order (NWO); they were tired of perpetual war; they were
tired of the bank bailouts; they were tired of the Federal Reserve; etc.

I know this because I met--and spoke before--the Tea Party Nation in State after State as I campaigned for Dr. Paul during the Republican primaries back in 2008. And I met them again all over America, as I was running as an Independent candidate for President--with Ron Paul's endorsement, no less. I was with them in scores of meetings (big and small) from Washington, D.C., to Spokane, Washington, and all points in between.

But now many of the Tea Parties are distancing themselves from Dr. Paul and embracing establishment players such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Even Newt Gingrich is being courted. Watch out, Tea Party Nation: you're in danger of losing your soul! Newt Gingrich is not one of you. He is not your friend. He is an imposter. He will destroy you just like he almost single-handedly destroyed the Conservative Revolution of 1994.

Plus, be careful about Sarah Palin and other establishment Republicans. Palin is currently playing both sides. She is promoting Big Government neocons such as John McCain on the one hand, and sincere conservative-libertarians such as Rand Paul on the other hand.

But if one wants a real barometer of Palin's true colors, look no further than her endorsement of Rick Perry in Texas.

Perry is the quintessential establishment Republican. Perry has been in office for some 9 years, and what has he done to thwart the NWO in Texas? Nothing! Perry is even a Bilderberg Group attendee. What has he done for State sovereignty in Texas? Nothing! In fact, he supports the North American Union and the NAFTA superhighway. What has he done to resist Obama's universal health care proposals? Nothing! What has he done to protect the citizens of Texas against an emerging Police
State? Nothing! What has he done to fight illegal immigration? Nothing!


As a result of both Rick Perry's establishment business-as-usual politics in Texas and the proliferating grassroots Tea Party movement, counterattacking establishment politics, a Tea Partier herself has entered the race for Texas governor. Her name is Debra Medina. As the Tea Party Nation in Texas already knows, Medina is one of you.

Medina is committed to preserving Texas' independence and sovereignty. She is opposed to the Patriot Act. She will secure the Texas border. She will give Texas Vermont-style open carry freedoms for gun owners. She wants to get rid of unconstitutional property taxes in Texas. She will stop the NAFTA superhighway. Medina is the real deal.

So, what did Sarah Palin do? She went to Texas and endorsed Rick Perry! I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen, playing political games in order to rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars on the speaking and book-signing circuits is not what the Tea Parties are all about.

Tea Parties are supposed to be about putting principle over politics, supporting and defending the US Constitution, supporting limited government and personal liberty, getting rid of the Federal Reserve, abolishing the IRS, ending preemptive and pervasive wars, and putting truth and integrity back into government.

Don't get me wrong; there are things about Sarah Palin that I like. I especially appreciate her pro-life and pro-Second Amendment stands. I also appreciate her signing the Alaska State sovereignty resolution while she was governor. By all indications, she did a good job as Alaska's chief executive. At the national level, however, she favors the Patriot Act--and even wants to expand it. She supported the banker bailouts. And when it comes to foreign policy issues, Palin is just
another neocon. Plus, as with most Republicans at the national level, I think she is clueless about the NWO. And please remember, it was Mr. New World Order himself, Henry Kissinger, who vetted Palin on behalf of McCain.

The Tea Party Nation should expect better!

The Nation also needs to be careful about Glenn Beck. He says many of the right things. He is likeable and charismatic; but he's also dead wrong on a number of issues--issues that are critical to the Tea Party Nation. He's dead wrong when he attempts to disparage and impugn Congressman Ron Paul, saying Dr. Paul is a "crazy, kooky guy." He's dead wrong in supporting the banker bailouts. He's dead wrong when he supports raising taxes (which he has done on several occasions). He was dead wrong when he supported the Patriot Act. He is dead wrong when he viciously attacks the 9/11 victims' families who demand further information about what happened to their loved ones on that fateful day. And he is dead wrong when he mocks people such as Alan Keyes and Joe Farah for demanding that Barack Obama release his birth
certificate--if he indeed has one.

And now I hear that there are some self-professed members of the Tea Party Nation who are actually running for Congressman Paul's US House seat in Texas. If this is not a sign that establishment Republicans are hijacking the Tea Party movement, I don't know what is. Remember, the Tea Party movement began a s a support base for the Ron Paul Revolution back in 2007.

I strongly encourage the Tea Party faithful to read Jane Hamsher's
recent column on this subject.
[ http://tinyurl.com/tea-party-soul ]

I say again, be careful, Tea Party Nation. You are being infiltrated. You are being compromised. You are being neutered. Stick to your principles. Stick with the Constitution. Keep opposing unconstitutional, preemptive wars. Keep calling for the abolition of the Federal Reserve. Keep fighting for less taxes, reduced federal spending, and states' rights. Keep opposing the Patriot Act and the New World Order. Don't abandon Ron Paul. Be wary of people such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. You don't need "big name" celebrities to give you credibility. As Samson's strength depended on keeping his hair uncut, your strength lies in keeping your principles intact. And unless you want to wind up like the Republican freshmen in 1994, avoid
Newt Gingrich like the plague!

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

Fox, Gingrich Offer Few Solutions to Government Bloat

Newt Gingrich, the creator of the congressional earmark frenzy that led to the bridge to nowhere and the Republicans' fall from power is on Hannity right now saying that he might run for president. Following Gingrich's performance in the New York 23rd district, I'm surprised he still has the audacity to claim that he favors reduced government. I'm still far from convinced that the Brown victory represents any kind of reaction to Republicrat government. Far from convinced.

Kingston New York Tea Party Meeting

Monday January 11. The Kingston, New York Tea Party organization headed by Tom Santopietro met to exchange ideas this evening. I had attended a previous meeting in December but was unable to stay for more than a few minutes. The meeting was productive. It was held in the Town of Ulster Town Hall in Lake Katrine, two short left turns off Route 209.

Overall, I would call the meeting a marked success. Between thirty and fifty people were present. For a cold Hudson Valley January evening that is an achievement. I drove there from the Town of Olive, about 25 miles away.

The initiatives of the Tea Party are worthwhile. Several demonstrations in Washington and elsewhere were discussed, and there was discussion of George Phillips's announcement-of-candidacy for Congress meeting this Thursday. Phillips will be initiating a second candidacy against knucklehead-incumbent Maurice Hinchey.

My chief concern about the Tea Party movement is the likelihood of its cooptation by (a) Progressive or Rockefeller Republican types and/or (b) Democratic Party infiltrators. The Republican Party in New York has so far ignored the Tea Party. In appointing Edward F. Cox chair of the state committee the party has confirmed its self-destructive commitment to the Wall Street Republicanism of Newt Gingrich, Theodore Roosevelt and Nelson Rockefeller. I have several times contacted Cox without any kind of response to my inquiries.

I would like to encourage the Tea Party movement to begin to think about concerted infiltration of the Republican Committees at the town, county and state levels. This takes time but it would seem the best way to overthrow the current commitment to special interest corruption, to the failed education system and to big government.

One of the most interesting points of the evening was the discussion of a committee to try to influence public education in a more productive direction. This is a subject of importance to me and I offered a few suggestions.

How We Can Move On

The freedom movement and those who have voted for and supported the current status quo might reconsider history. George W. Bush failed many who supported him and seemed even worse to many who opposed him. He was elected as a "compassionate conservative", but failed to live up to either the term "compassionate" or "conservative". He disappointed many who oppose bureaucracy and big government. He disappointed Americans because of his arrogance, his inarticulate failure to adequately plan two wars, his managerial failure with respect to Hurricane Katrina, and his ongoing support for the military industrial complex, specifically including the decision to massively subsidize Wall Street.

President Bush likely had hoped to (a) retain his social conservative base, (b) win over non-affiliated voters through his "compassion" and (c) retain many of his big government conservative backers. It turned out that non-affiliated voters were offended by his support for the military-industrial complex. Also, there are fewer big government conservatives than he, Newt Gingrich and the American Enterprise Institute thought.

In the end Mr. Bush was left with the backing of social conservatives, and even these left him because of his unabashed interest in providing preferences to Wall Street and the military industrial complex. A rather ironic ending to the career of a "compassionate conservative". But he has that rugged masculine Texan look, and so his appeal to socially conservative women and some Lincoln Log Republicans, probably about 15 or 20 percent of the public, likely did not wane.

Bush's failure led to a reaction. However, the nature of the reaction speaks to a failure of American politics, and it needs fixing. A Republican victory next year and in three years will not be enough. More imagination is needed. The nation needs to be re-created. Otherwise, the current cycle of corrupt Republicans followed by ideologically dogmatic Democrats will continue until the nation, once the greatest in the world, collapses.

America needs to move on, and ought to think about how. The Obama reaction makes clear that fixation on rigid goals and simple-minded ideological commitment to centralized authority are destructive and will not work.

President Obama represents the extreme left in the European sense, which won the White House for the first time since Theodore (R-NY) and Franklin (D-NY) Roosevelt. Like the Roosevelts, Obama and his followers and associates retain a feudalistic belief that progress is accomplished through power and violence.Mr. Obama's willingness to lie to his followers about his commitment to the War in Afghanistan and the War in Iraq illustrates the nature of his character. He is committed to the idea that the central government ought to compel radical change and equity through the cap and trade act, institution of an inferior, mandatory medical plan and ever more extensive and ever more rigid regulation of the economy.

The Democrats and Mr. Obama attempted to use a considerable degree of guilt in electing the first African American to the White House. Mr. Obama's opponents have been routinely accused of racism. My own blog, a relatively small piece of the world, was taken down. The Wall Street-backed Democratic Party media resounded Mr. Obama's trumpet, accusing all who disagreed of deviance and reaction. Not once did the Democratic Party networks or Fox discuss the imbalance in Wall Street's financial contributions to the candidates: 2:1 in favor of Obama.

Mainstream, middle-of-the-road Americans ought not to feel fear, hatred or even contempt for President Obama. As president and as an individual he deserves our respect. Rather, we ought to blame ourselves, for President Obama's education, his collectivism, his feudalistic commitment to government violence and to power are the products of his education. Republicans have sat quietly while the American education system, and the higher education system, have been hijacked by ideological extremists, collectivists who argue for backward, primitive tribalism, socialism, instead of the system that created American economic progress. The ideology behind Mr. Obama created his figure. The economic interests that he has subsidized control his breadth. The individual is not to be blamed.

America is in the grip of special interests, Wall Street and the military industrial complex, to a degree heretofore unknown. The twin headed hydra of corrupt, big government Republicans and of feudalistic Democrats will continue until Americans say "no". But in contrast to Americans in the day of the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania, Americans have become a timid, conformist lot. They have lost their guts. They are lazy and they are piggish.

Those who ought to be the best hanker after rewards from the Wall Street complex. The extent of social control exercised by the feudalistic power structure that aims to further collectivize the nation will increase until Americans take steps to regain their fortitude.

Americans who wish to reverse the institutionalized corruption need to start by reforming themselves and thinking small. They need to reunite with their roots and their like minded fellow Americans instead of seeking to indulge in credit card debt and bank loans. They need to reduce their egos. They need to spend time on politics instead of watching television or in other diversions. The original arguments for the eight hour day involved the claim that Americans needed more time to contribute to politics and the public good. Instead, Americans became fixated on consumerism.

Americans are not special because of who they are. They are special because they received a gift. The gift was given to them by men of wisdom, the founding fathers and their successors, Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland and others. They were entrusted to protect the freedom that the founders had won and created, and instead, just as Esau sold his birthright to Isaac, Americans sold their birthright for a credit card, an ignorantly written government regulation, and a social security card. Excessive self indulgence, fear, lack of courage, lack of prudence, lack of respect for others and willingness to treat others, such as Chinese workers, unjustly have contributed to the malaise. In other words, a fundamental self indulgence and lack of ethics due to smugness and ego have contributed.

The first step to move on is to look at how our own behavior has contributed to Obama's election. Then to ask ourselves how we can take a few steps to turn things around. Those who demonstrated in the tea parties have taken a few already, and need to ask how can they build organizations that will enable them to take that many more.

Newt Gingrich Gets It Half Right

A couple of people have sent me information on Speaker Newt Gingrich's Solutions Day. Because of my teaching schedule I was unable to participate, but I went to his site to get an overview. I clipped the following partial excerpt from the Solutions Day site:

No Economic Growth = No Recovery = No End to the Financial Decay The most important thing to remember is that without economic growth there will be no end to the downward spiral.Without economic growth there will be another bailout next year and another bailout the year after. The number one goal should be to restore economic growth.

I agree with Speaker Gingrich's belief in reducing taxes and in reducing government. However, his growth mantra is misleading.

Growth as measured by economists is a vacuous concept. If there is additional unproductive economic activity, then there is growth. For instance, if banks continue to make subprime mortgage loans, their activities count as "economic growth". Speaker Gingrich fails to differentiate between fake growth and real growth, and so invites a repeat of the current banking problems despite his protestations to the contrary. The nation allowed the banking system to pay itself exhorbitantly and to bankrupt itself because it handed them large sums of money at public expense.

The way to distinguish between real and fake growth is by limiting access to credit. By expanding the money supply Speaker Gingrich would facilitate growth. Supply side economics, i.e., Reaganomics, is a repackaged Keynesian economics that has led to the current bank failures. Banks fail because they lend too much. Increasing the monetary base enables them to lend too much. The only way that fake growth can be limited is by restricting monetary growth. That would cause pain to Wall Street and commercial banking.

You cannot have it both ways. Flooding the nation with more liquidity will simply facilitate obese financial and hedge managers' ever greater obesity. Limiting monetary growth will cause interest rates to rise, some unemployment and prices to stabilize. In turn, authentic entrepreneurs in the Silicon Valley and elsewhere will find ways to make their inventions work because their returns will exceed the interest rate. Wall Street will find it more difficult to sell stocks because only the real firms will grow. Fake growth will be ended.

By ending fake growth, and Speaker Gingrich fails to differentiate between fake growth and real growth, waste in the system will be reduced. Thus, the 35-year-long decline in the real hourly wage that has occurred during the era of supply side economics or Reaganomics will be ended.

In order to make real growth a reality, a gold standard is needed. Continuation of the supply side principles that Speaker Gingrich oversaw in the 1990s will lead to further decline.

Newt Gingrich and Solutions Day

I received the following e-mail from Newt Gingrich, which presumably went out to the RNC mailing list. Speaker Gingrich wants to have a national "talk about the fundamentals" and "solutions for getting the economy back on track". On Solutions Day he wants to get Washington and Wall Street to be like America instead of America's becoming more like Wall Street.

My e-mail response to Speaker Gingrich was this:

Dear Newt--thanks for the message and I'll be glad to post it, but I do have one question for you. Why didn't Congress move to abolish the Department of Education when you were Speaker? Thanks and best wishes, Mitchell Langbert.



This is Speaker Gingrich's e-mail:

Dear Mitchell,

The last few weeks have been painful economically.

Washington politicians in both parties are panicked and as a result they are making things worse. Now we have a Treasury Department which is capriciously deciding which firm to help and which firm to let die.

In the process, it is piling up huge liabilities for taxpayers by "saving" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and then allowing Lehman Brothers to go bankrupt before "saving" AIG at a potential risk of another $85 billion.

It's time to have a serious talk about the fundamentals--not politicians taking your money to prop up failed businesses.

On Saturday, September 27 American Solutions will hold its second annual Solutions Day to propose bold, dramatic change for the economy, energy, education, and health. You can participate in this important solutions-oriented dialogue for free by clicking here and hosting or attending an event in your community. Solutions Day will be broadcast live on DISH Network #219, DirecTV #577, and www.SolutionsDay2008.com.

Despite the mistakes of the last few weeks and the sense of panic on Wall Street and in Washington the basics of America are still healthy.

We now face a fundamental choice of returning to the fundamentally healthy American economy and American work ethic and making Washington and Wall Street more like America OR passing laws which reshape America to be more like the current sickness in Washington and Wall Street.

Watch this short video about America's economic challenges and then register to join me on Solutions Day to develop solutions to get America back on the right track.

Your friend,

Newt