An oft-repeated lament by voters and non-voters alike is that no matter who we elect, regardless of party, nothing seems to change. Government continues to grow, becomes ever more intrusive in our daily lives and gets more and more expensive. Indeed, over the last few decades the only real changes in the attitude toward and the direction of government were the result of Ronald Reagan’s election as president in 1980 and Newt Gingrich’s takeover of Congress in 1994. Both, however, were short-lived.
Despite hopes and promises that President Bush the First would continue and solidify the Reagan legacy, he instead reverted to the old go-along-to-get-along ways and raised taxes, despite what his lips told everyone on the campaign trail. And once Newt left Congress and President Bush the Second took over, government spending and intrusiveness again expanded by leaps and bounds.
No wonder voters kicked Republicans in the tush last November.
So what we have now is good, old-fashioned political gridlock again. And while many cheer this state of affairs, arguing that at least it prevents the situation from getting much worse, America’s challenges and problems, and our ability to deal with and resolve them, ARE getting worse due to inaction and inattention.
How to defend the nation against new and lethal terrorist threats without sacrificing essential liberty at home? How to resolve the problem of millions of illegal immigrants presently living in this country? How to resolve the fact that Social Security cannot survive as presently administered? How to make health care affordable again without a government take-over of the system? How to improve education so that American kids will be able to compete, not with kids around the country, but with kids around the world? How to simplify the insanity that is our present income tax system? How to reduce, if not eliminate, the “pork” in government spending?
These are serious problems and challenges which require serious discussion and serious solutions. In other words, Congress isn’t the answer.
As Newt Gingrich is wont to say these days, real change requires real change. And that means change coming from the grassroots up, not from the ivory tower of Congress down. And to that end, Gingrich has launched a new movement which he hopes will build upon the temporary success of 1994’s Contract with America. The new movement is called American Solutions.
The concept is simple, but quite ambitious…which should come as no surprise considering it comes from the cranial orb of the former House Speaker. Gingrich has never been one to think small.
The idea, which is still a work in progress, is to focus on set number of problems or challenges facing the nation, then use the power of the Internet to organize millions of Americans to listen to and participate in discussions of those problems in a nationally-televised interactive “workshop,” and then activate those grassroots activists to push candidates and elected officials to implement recommended solutions to the problems. Instead of politicians making empty promises to voters, voters will be making specific demands of politicians.
As Gingrich explains, “Our goal is to create a wave of change that meets America’s challenges, seizes our opportunities and builds a better future for all Americans.” He adds, “Only a grassroots citizens’ movement that transcends political parties and generates enormous energy and drive from the country to overwhelm Washington, the state capitols, the county commissions, city councils and school boards can possibly create the scale of change we need.”
Yep, that would be real change alright. If Gingrich can pull it off. And considering his track record, it might not be a good idea to bet the farm against him.
Gingrich’s first scheduled national workshop, deemed “Solutions Day,” will be held on Thursday, September 27th – which, not coincidentally, happens to be the 13th anniversary of the Contract with America. On that day, folks around the country will gather in homes and town halls to listen to possible solutions to some of America’s most vexing problems…and then receive “marching orders” for how to effect change and implement those solutions.
If you’d like to be part of the solution and not the problem; if you’d like to “get in the game” and not just sit in the peanut gallery and heckle from the stands, you just might want to consider signing up to participate in Newt’s “Solutions Day” this September. To do so, just surf on over to American Solutions and click on the “Join the Movement” button.
Although it seems more and more unlikely that Gingrich will throw his hat into the presidential ring this fall, his American Solutions brushfire movement has the potential to dramatically change the public policy debate in that race even if he’s not in it officially. That would be real political change. And that would be quintessential Newt.
Posted on June 24th, 2007 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: National
Chuck,
From the Heritage Foundation Budget Book;
Average Federal Spending per household by Administration;
Kennedy $13,337
Ford $18,219
Carter $18,322
Reagan $19,799
Bush I $20,661
Clinton $20,018
Bush II $21,922
Revenue and Spending Comparison by Administration;
Ford +10% in Revenue +21% increase in Spending over prior Adminstration
Carter +14% +8%
Reagan +10% +20%
Bush I +12% +13%
Clinton +29% +4%
Bush II +7% +22%
(looks like Reagan and Gingrich lived beyond their means as did EVERY Republican Administration since 1960!) We are not fiscal conservatives! We just don’t pay our own way!
Debt Burden as % of GDP increased dramatically 1980-1990
Budget Deficit as % of GDP increased from 45 year historical 2.2% of GDP to 6% under Reagan and Gingrich.
Please stop the revisionist history. Reagan and Gingrich spent like drunken sailors. Under Gingrich earmarks blossomed.
We can’t fix it if we don’t own it….we don’t pay our own way!
[…] Want a chance to make your voice heard? Want a chance at implementing ideas that can mean real change? This sounds like an interesting opportunity. […]
Reagan economics and young kids today!
I remember buying a house in 1982 (when Reagan was President) when the going interest rate was 12.5%!
Fletcher Jones Chevrolet in Las Vegas would float you a loan for a car, all you had to do was take a second mortgage out on your home.
And then in 1983 Reagan cut-and-ran in Lebanon after the Iranians (his allies in his treasonous 1980 election and later arms trading buddies in Nicaragua) blew up our US Marines’ barracks and killed 241 of our Marines and soldiers. Reagan was the first President to lose a battle to Iran and Al Quida.
Oh yeah, Chuck, those were the days. How old were you then?
The prime mortgage rate in 1982 started at 16.50% in January and ended at 11.5% in December. In comparison, in 1980 (the last year of the Carter administration), the rate started at 15.75% in January and ended at 21.5% in December. Sounds like Bob J. got a much better deal in 1982 (when Reagan was president) than he would have in 1980 (when Carter was president). Of course, let’s not give all the credit to Reagan, we all know that Paul Volcker’s policies at the Fed deserve a considerable amount of credit for killing inflation.
And Fletcher Jones may have been gouging the good citizens of Las Vegas back in 1982, but at least the customers could feel comfortable about buying a car and actually being able to drive it instead of just sitting in a mile long line waiting to get gas for it like they did in 1979, huh Bob?
Also Bob, do you have any documentation you can refer the rest of us to confirm your claims about Reagan’s “allies in his treasonous 1980 election” (both allegations, the one about the Iranians being his allies in the election campaign and the treason part)?
John Smith,
I see you are still an aoplogist for the Republican Party that you left. Good for you. The point is that Reagan spent WAY more than he took in. Carter got the bad deal of being both a post war president and he inherited the monetary woes of the Federal Reserve under Nixon (read “Secrets of the Temple; How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country”). I note that you left out the interest rate in 1981 when Reagan was in office…I rember the recession we had under Reagan.
As for treason, please “google” Bush, Paris, and Iranian hostages. The fact the Bush and Scowcroft went to a Paris airfield to offer the Iranians a better deal to hold up the release of our 53 hostages until after the election has been covered in great detail. The Reagan campaign undercut, for it’s own political purposes and gain, the on-going negotiations between Tehran and Carter’s representative, Hamilton Jordan, whereby the hostages wouyld have been released BEFORE the November elections.
This is why when the Iranians blew up our troops’ barracks in Lebanon Reagan couldn’t say shit!, because the Iranians would have outted him over the hostage deal! Remember the whole Oliver North thing with the weapons for money for the Nicaragua in the Iran-Contra affair? Google that, too. Reagan armed the Iranians!
By the way, Paul Volker SCREWED IT UP and thus extended the pain on businesspeople by constricting money for too long because he used the M-1 monies as an indicator of…….well, go read some books, you’ll find it fascinating and illuminating.
southy,
Thanks… I have nothing to add to your answers for John.
Southy & Bob J:
The prime rate in 1981 started at 20.5% in January and ended at 15.75% in December. The reason I compared 1982 to 1979 is that 1982 was the year that Bob J. bought his house (the year that he was complaining about his mortgage being so high), and 1979 was the last year of the Carter administration.
The Vietnam War ended either in 1973 (the Paris Peace Accords) or 1975 (when Saigon fell). Take your pick. The Carter presidency began in 1977, which was four years after the Paris Peace Accords and 18 months after Saigon fell. During the Carter administration, unemployment remained fairly constant (7.1% in 1977, 6.1% in 1978, 5.8% in 1979, 7.1% in 1980). However, inflation rates climbed from 6.5% in 1977 to 13.5% in 1980. In the immediate postwar period (before President Carter took office), inflation spiked up to 11.3% in 1974, then dropped back to 5.75% in 1976. Likewise, unemployment spiked up to 8.5% in 1975, then dropped slightly to 7.7% in 1976. President Carter definitely didn’t inherit the best of economic conditions when he took office, but things definitely got worse during his presidency. Whether you choose to blame him or blame external uncontrollable factors for the worsened situation is your business, but are either of you claiming that President Reagan inherited a better economic situation in 1981 than President Carter inherited in 1977? Are either of you saying that the “bad” deal Bob got on his house in 1982 would’ve been better in 1979 or 1980?
The allegation that Reagan committed treason by delaying the release of the hostages in Iran “has been covered in great detail.” However, you still haven’t provided a single source to back up this accusation. The Senate conducted an investigation of these allegations in 1992, the House followed up in 1993. Both houses were controlled by the Democrats when they conducted their investigations. Both houses concluded that there was no credible evidence supporting the allegations.
In a previous posting regarding Congressman Hastings, Southy said, “innocent until proven guilty. our values.” Nice to know you’re applying these values consistently.
By the way, Southy, that was some very illuminating information you posted from the Heritage Foundation Budget Book. Had I known it earlier, I probably would have quit the Republican Party before 2003. Thanks for posting it.
John,
Thnaks….The lee Hamilton led investigation in 1992 has numerous distractors, which include the Task Force’s chief counsel Lawrence Barcella.
Read through this link consortiumnews
John,
Thanks for the research…I was thinking, interest rates are a monetary policy set by the fed reserve board which often times acts contrary to the economic policy of the president (see Bush I and Greenspan!). So, going back almost 40 years let us see what we’ve had for leadership;
Arthur Burns 1970-1978 (a Nixon apointee-Nixon threatened to leak a story about Burns seeking a pay increase if Burns increased the prime!)
G. William Miller 3/1978-8/1979 (Carter appointee who left to become Treasurer of the US and later involved in a Congressional Investgation over Textron and bribery!; Gonzales not first Cabinet member on hot seat).
Paul Volker 8/79-8/87 (Carter appointee who’s economic views were at odds with many traditionalists of the time-set interest rates on the M-1 monies, thus the constant constricting of money [increased rates] under Reagan (though Reagan still outspent Carter by 20% and took in 10% more revenue than Carter).
Greenspan 8/87-2/06 (Reagan appointee)….what else to say.
Read the book “Secrets of the Temple; How the Federal reserve Runs the Country”…written 1992 ish, but still on shelf at Barnes and Noble……fascinating behind the scene views of our monetary policy
Southy: I just picked up “Secrets of the Temple” at the library. It was actually published in 1987 and appears to focus on the Volcker years of the Fed (1979-87). Thank you for the recommendation.
Granted, the combination of Burns’ loose money and Richard “We’re all Keynesians now” Nixon’s wage and price controls were definitely a recipe for disaster. However, you left out the reason why Nixon put the screws to Burns to force loose money. When Nixon lost the presidency in 1960, he blamed the loss partly on Fed chairman Bill Martin’s tight money policies in 1959-60. Once he became president, he decided he didn’t want to see the same scenario going into his 1972 re-election campaign. Similar scenario in 1992. GHWBush thought that Greenspan kept things too tight too long, and that it cost GHWBush the election. Greenspan’s opinion is that the economy had come out of recession well before the election and that GHWBush simply wasn’t a good enough politician to fend off Clinton’s “It’s the economy stupid” attacks.
Whatever it’s worth, Southy, I would never accuse you of being able to see your pancreas from where your head is.
Bob J:
In my posting of June_27, I asked if you thought that President Reagan inherited a better economic situation in 1981 than President Carter inherited in 1977? And also if you thought that the “bad” deal you got on your house in 1982 would’ve been better in 1979 or 1980?
You haven’t answered these questions. Based on your posting of June_25, my guess is that your answer to these two questions would be “yes,” but I’d be glad for you to prove me wrong.
You’ve been MIA since your posting of June_27 (”southy, Thanks… I have nothing to add to your answers for John”). Do you have an answer for these questions, or are you content to let Southy continue to speak for you?