Some excerpts from Newt Gingrich’s meeting with New Hampshire’s Union-Leader[all emphasis mine]:
On his support of Medicare Part D:
It created health savings account and it created Medicare Advantage. … First of all, I think to have Medicare program that says we’ll give you open heart surgery, but not Lipitor, is very destructive. You have to modernize the system. I just offered you somewhere between 70 and 120 billion dollars by not paying the crooks, okay? Again, I’m pretty cheerful about debating balancing the budget. I’m the only guy you’ve interviewed who’s done it for four straight years … in the case of health care … I’ve been very clear on my positions. I wrote a book called Saving Lives and Saving Money, making the argument that health is a moral issue. First you save the life, then you save the money. I also think you could take probably 40 percent out of the cost of health care.
Asked when he had changed his views on the individual health-care mandate at the federal level:
I never focused much on it on the federal level. I talked about it at the Center [for Health Transformations] at the state level. … [On why he rejected mandates] Because what it does it politicizes what you mean by health care. Once you get into mandates, you start getting into is this in or is that in, and what’s required and you rapidly politicize the system and take it away from the doctor-patient relationship.
Why he now thinks the federal health-care mandate is unconstitutional:
This again, is something where Heritage also found themselves as you worked through it. At the time it was designed to block Hillarycare. The more you thought about it, the more you realized a Congress which can compel you to do something like that can compel you to do anything. What’s the limit to Congress’ power to dictate your life?
Asked if the fact that he had changed some positions over the years meant that he was a flip-flopper, as many accuse Mitt Romney of being:
No, I don’t think very much so. My career American Conservative Union rating is 90 percent. I think that’s relatively high. My career record of balancing the budget is … the only person to have to done it in your lifetime. My career position on strong national security goes back to 1979. My record on wanting to cut taxes … goes back to mid-70s. I’d say two things. One is sometimes things change. I voted for the Department of Education in 1979. I wouldn’t vote for it today. … On other things I’ve been relatively stable. A couple of things, I just made a mistake. I’ve been pretty cheerful about saying that the ad with Pelosi is probably the dumbest thing I’ve done in last four or five years because (a) she’s so radioactive that being a Republican sitting next to her on a couch was just literally – you can’t explain it. I mean, it’s just dumb. Second, and I’m probably not going to meet your standards, but I don’t know about climate change. There are a lot of pretty reputable scientists who say it’s real. There are a number of pretty reputable scientists who say it’s not real.
On ethanol and payments he had received from groups over the years:
There is not a single position I’ve taken that involves being paid. I’m happy if people who like my positions want to come pay me. There are no cases I know of where I said please, don’t pay me. But in fact, these are all positions I’ve had over a long public career. And so, in that sense, when the ethanol guys came in and said, ‘Look, we’re concerned, would you give us advice?’, I said sure.
On whether he anticipated the housing bubble:
It wasn’t obvious until 2007… Initially, it wasn’t Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Initially, it was things like Countrywide, but the minute you started getting people who could buy houses with no credit, no money down, I mean, these things are insane. And I was cheerfully saying that in my public speeches.
Well, isn't this illuminating?
Countrywide was the result of Fannie and Freddie and government mandates (remember redlining allegations) beginning in the 1990's. For someone as smart as Newt thinks he is,he should know this. And not a word about Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and the other leeches feeding on the mortgage blood backed up by government guarantees? It was pretty obvious to a lot of people before 2007, most of whom were not getting paid megabucks by F&F, like Newt.
The idea that 70-100 billion dollars in Medicare costs is going to "crooks" is pure sensationalism. Remember that a lot of the so called waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare is not due to intentional fraud, but rather that the government rules for Medicare are so confusing, it is doubtful that any health care provider today hasn't run afoul of some regulation or rule which could be construed as fraud. He thinks you can save 40% in health care, but his mechanism is...government rules and oversight.
His defense about not being a flip flopper is...he is a flip flopper with a lot of nonsensical excuses.
"There's not a single position I've taken that involves being paid. I'm happy if people like my positions want to come pay me."???
Which came first, the Newt or the Money? Seems very clear...the money.
Newt is a toxic waste repository and a poster boy for conservative fascism. Like Romney, he thinks that big government is great as long as he's in charge.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI couldn't agree with you more.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAdd to your comments, the effete attitude that
if Newt's the one being paid, somehow he is immune from any moral bar; it's just business.
That would be fine if he were running as a Rudy Giuliani who never tried to make himself out to be anyone's moral compass; Newt is different; he preaches as much as he yaps.
His recent comment about the Occupy folks needing some personal care before trying to get a job was insulting and not worthy of a Presidential candidate. What's the difference between Obama's
crass comments about fellow Americans and Newt's crass comment about Occupiers. While I am
anti Occupy all the way, they are our collective problem and insulting them with degrading comments isn't leading anyone; While I am percolating with frustration at the whole Occupy debacle, what is obvious is a whole boatload of young people with either no jobs or throwing away jobs while they are doing this. It's no joke; and they are not the same as campus protesters who are actually enrolled in school (except for the usual non student hangers on). The urban Occupiers should not be minimized. This is a symptom of something very serious, whether ACORN inspired or not, these people have too much idle time on their hands and we should be concerned about that element, not add fuel to the fire with rude critiques.
Please not Newt.
Please not Newt indeed! At this point, for me, it's Romney or bust. Not one of the other Republican candidates has any chance against Obama. It really is that simple.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOccupy = Astroturf. These folks are well-to-do too. They deserve as much derision and ridicule as can be mustered. Newt was right on this one. And how is it not "leading" to tell some brats - many of which are paid agitators by the way - to clean up and get to work? That is the essence of leadership.
Your note reads a bit like an apology for occupy but with apparent bait for some readers here. Is it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDecember 22, 2005, 9:28 a.m.
A Little Man Takes on Wal-Mart
by Donald Luskin, NRO, Krugman Truth Squad
Krugman is paid to play his baseless leftist games.
In his column Monday, Krugman excoriates conservative think-tank scholars Peter Ferrara and Doug Bandow for taking money from indicted Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, allegedly in exchange for writing op-ed columns favorable to Abramoff’s clients. Yes, the immediate intuition is that these men’s ethics were compromised here. But, really, this is a little issue. Where’s the beef? Everyone — think-tankers, op-ed writers, etc. — gets paid by someone. And those who pay, naturally, choose to pay scholars and journalists who tend to already agree with them. It seems unlikely, then, that Ferrara or Bandow would have written anything different whether or not Abramoff paid them.
_______
If the choice is Newt, Romney, or Cain, my pick is Newt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLet's challenge the assumptions handed down by our progressive forbears.
How is it that free health insurance for the elderly is an inalienable right? It's not It's generational theft. And it is money wasted. The mortality rate is still 100%. Oh the day I turn 65. On that day I will receive $1000 per month worth of health insurance, paid for by my neighbors. Yippee! It is truly disgusting to see the elderly clinging to their wretched mortality at the expense of their children and grandchildren or worse, someone elses children and grandchildren.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo you are a fan of death panels, yes?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRationing is coming to medicare/caid in one form or another; there simply isn't enough money.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou'll be happy to know that Newt has come out against child labor laws. He also wants to hang pickpockets in the public square and bring back debtors' prisons.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSince I'm a geezer I hope I don't get CarolinaJimbo for my Doctor! ;-)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNon-responsive.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNothing can be an inalienable right that nobody on earth had just 25 years ago. If it didn't exist when the Constitution was drafted, then the Constitution cannot have been drafted in order to guarantee it.
Let's stop talking about "health care." Let's talk specifics. If my next-door neighbor has terminal cancer, is suffering, and is impoverished, I'm willing to pay out of my own pocket to buy him some morphine, it if comes to that, just to diminish his pain. If he has frequent sinus infections, I'm probably not willing to pay for him to have the newest procedure to clear out his sinuses. People can live with sinus infections.
One is a necessary act of mercy. The other is a nicety. Both are "health care." Neither one is an inalienable right. One of them is a level of personal generosity that I'm willing to extend to a fellow human being in need.
These very important distinctions are entirely lost in our conversations about the "right" to "health care."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGingrich = GettING RICH,, the "ett" stands for ETThanol - has anyone noticed he began his bid for the presidency doing a paid for publicity stunt for the ethanol industry,, he went to Iowa pretending to be a republican contender for the White House talking about pretty much nothing else but how great ethanol is,, the republicans however have had such a hard time getting a bearing on what kind of candidate they want, this clown has actually risen from the bottom of of the heap to the top,, like in making manure tea to fertilize plants with,, you dump a few feet of cow pies into a barrel and fill it with water, then let it cook in the hot sun for a few weeks,, when you kick the barrel, bubbles or methane rise to the top and pop,, that's Newt, he is the gas in one of the bubbles
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe housing bubble wasn't obvious until 2007? That's funny, I was well aware in the early 2003s. There were web site entirely devoted to the obvious fact that it was a bubble. I sold my house in 2004 and began renting, and just recently repurchased. (I realize home prices aren't done dropping.)
Face it, Newt is an epic fail on history. He could possibly be forgiven for not recognizing the 1990s stock bubble, but at that point everybody was on notice as to bubbles. Newt is grossly ignorant of history. Period!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow - how many times did he say "cheerfully" in that interview?
He was cheerful about balancing budgets, about the Pelosi ad being stupid, about bad mortgages. Hey Newt, if you actually speak cheerfully, you don't have to tell people how cheerfully you are speaking. Think he's worried about being called an angry old conservative crank? Maybe Santorum should start using this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll you need to know about Newt's candidacy is to look at how many of his former colleagues have endorsed him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGosh I hope he doesn't peak too soon...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse