Q. Who was the last person to actually cut government?
As pointed out at C4P:
Rush is correct. Newt was indeed the last person to substantially cut Government and execute reform.
However; what folks seem to confuse that with is the idea that Newt actually “cut” budgets. That was never true. He cut Government, balanced a budget, and passed Welfare Reform. Up until the Obama administration in 2009, the passing became “Clinton’s welfare reform” among liberals who were originally reluctant to Newt’s idea. They then decided to shift the credit to Clinton once they saw how successful it was.
Further, it needs to be noted that Welfare Reform was rolled back entirely with Obama’s stimulus in 2009.
Another must read is Rush’s The So-Called Conservative Media Attacks Newt Gingrich:
And finally, the Tweet of the Day from Jazz Shaw, referencing this post exercise in self-parody, Gingrich: Most likely to kiss up to the liberal elite:
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Today, Mark Steyn recalled what he wrote about Newt in 1998 and noted that he believes it still describes the ex-Speaker to a tee. I agree.
The Democrats demonised Newt as an extreme right-wing crazy. They were right – apart from the ‘extreme’ and ‘right-wing’, that is. Most of the above seem more like the burblings of a frustrated self-help guru than blueprints for conservative government. For example, Pillar No. 5 of (Newt’s) ‘Five Pillars of American Civilisation’ is: ‘Total quality management’. Unfortunately for Newt, the person who most needed a self-help manual was him – How to Win Friends and Influence People for a start. After last week’s election, Republicans have now embarked on the time-honoured ritual, well known to British Tories and Labour before them, of bickering over whether they did badly because they were too extreme or because they were too moderate. In Newt’s case, the answer is both. He spent the last year pre-emptively surrendering on anything of legislative consequence, but then, feeling bad at having abandoned another two or three of his ‘Fourteen Steps to Renewing American Civilisation’, he’d go on television and snarl at everybody in sight… For Republicans it was the worst of all worlds: a lily-livered ninny whom everyone thinks is a ferocious right-wing bastard.
The long paragraph is the quote from Steyn in 1998
According to http://www.minneapolisfed.org/community_education/teacher/calc/hist1913.cfm Calendar year 1921 had GDP growth of minus 10.9%.
By comparison calendar year 1932 had GDP growth of minus 10.3%.
In 1932 FDR won the election on a platform of cutting [real] spending 25%.
That was based on what the Harding/Coolidge administration actually accomplished in cutting Federal Taxes and Expenditures and Regulations thus recovering from the -10.9% ‘1920 Depression’ INSIDE 18 months, in the process creating the Manufacturing Infrastracture that in WWII …
They were assisted by a Federal Reserve that [in this instance] Did Exactly the Right Thing instead of Exactly The Wrong thing we’re seeing today here and in Europe.
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/community_education/teacher/calc/
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/151.html
Within today’s Federal Reserve System it’s the Kansas City Federal Reserve that’s “Austrian Economics”
Coolidge was Reagan’s “Hero”.
Harding and Coolidge were the nominees in the 1920 Election
primarily because Teddy Roosevelt died in 1919.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1920
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_election
Never Forget Roosevelt and the Start of The [first] Progressive Era that was ended by the 1920 Depression, Harding/Coolidge, and “The Roaring Twenties”.
At National Review they’re throwing the lifesaver out to Mitt too. The most interesting and balanced take is Yuval Levin’s saying that they’re much alike, but temperamentally Mitt would be much better than Newt at exercising executive power.
Funny thing is that Levin names Newt’s two big conservative accomplishments (balanced budget and welfare reform), but names none for Mitt (obviously sidestepping Romneycare) even though Mitt’s supposed executive record “is very impressive”.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/285083/choice-two-temperaments-yuval-levin
The arguments against Newt keep pushing me toward him.
Completely off topic! I used the good professor’s link to amazon. I just bought some Brun Uusto baked cheese……grill it or sauté it, it doesn’t melt! Great appetizer. : )
New York Post John Podhoretz: Newt’s second act
He’ll make great target for O via http://hotair.com/
Just who in the hell do these anti-Newt people want, to oppose Obama?
Romney and his iciness with ‘friendlies’ asking questions would get roasted in debates with Obama. He would lose his cool.
The ‘dirt’, team Obama would pull on Newt, is less of a pile then the mountain of ‘dirt’ Obama has piled up going into his fourth year. Unless of course Axlerod finds a few more sexual harassers in Chicago, that scream NEWT did this.
When that fails ‘hey, we always have the race card, Barack.
Let’s face facts, we really only want Newt because we all want to see the “smartest man in the room” (AKA Barack Obama) verbally cut to shreds, and we all know Romney could never deliver on that.
Cutting Obama to shreds would certainly be entertaining, but what I really want is someone who will win. Your point about Romney is well taken, however, and is part of the reason I think Newt would have a better chance against Obama.
Jeez, would the Newtiacs please stop pretending that two or possibly three debated will be the sum total of a Presidential campaign. Important factor, yes, but by the time the first one takes place, the contest could be practically over.
Anyway, what did Newt do in the debates that was so spectacular? He did two things that endeared him to many viewers: he smacked the media questioners and declined mostly to attack the other Republicans as Pawlenty, Bachmann, Cain, Paul, Perry, Santorum and Huntsman sniped at each other. Smart, yes, but neither of these tactics has any relevance to one-on-ones with Obama.
Finally, what has Romney done in the debates to make any sensible observer conclude that he is any less able or prepared to take on Obama. As I recall, virtually everyone thought Romney handled himself well in every debate. If he had a bad answer or exchange at any point, where was it? I want to know before handing Gingrich any trophies.