Posted on 02/04/2007 10:33:24 PM PST by Jim Robinson
GulfCoastNews.com February 1 2007
In 1994, the Republicans gained a majority in Congress for the first time in 40 years by offering a set of reforms contained in the Contract with America. Those common sense reforms cleaned up the way the House did its business including making Congress subject to the very laws it passes where they had routinely exempted themselves before. It also contained the first tax cuts in 16 years and provided for the child tax credit we have today. It increased intelligence and defense spending. The Contract led to the first balanced budget in a generation by actually cutting spending in real terms that created surpluses used to pay down the national debt. Of all the reforms, however, the most positive and powerful change for America was welfare reform which moved people off of welfare and into work or school.
In the 1996 election, when the Republican Party was reelected to the majority for the first time since 1928, we knew we had the approval of the American people. It would be hard to argue that the Contract with America was anything but a great success.
However, today we face even greater challenges than the ones we dealt with in 1994, and many of those challenges are indeed a threat to our survival.
In a rapidly changing world with new threats and new competitors, we must implement policies that will ensure America’s leadership, safety, and prosperity. And we must reinvigorate the core values that have made America an exceptional civilization.
The traditional instruments of government will not reform themselves fast enough and thoroughly enough for the information age.
The entrenched lobbyists and bureaucracies will do all they can to minimize the changes no matter how vital those changes are to America’s future. Self interest has and will continue to dominate the national interest if the normal political system operates in its business as usual style. The pressure of daily events will keep both the news media and most politicians focused on the immediate and the trivial rather than the long-term and the profoundly important.
Only a grassroots citizens’ movement can insist on the level of change that is needed for our children and grandchildren to have a successful future. Real change requires real change.
What is needed today more than in 1994 is a comprehensive set of solutions for the 21st Century. We must fight to win the future for the next generation of Americans with the same intensity previous generations fought for ours. We need a generation of solutions big enough to ensure the future for our children and grandchildren. I wrote Winning the Future to begin to chart a path toward meeting the challenges we face and to offer an outline of a 21st Century Contract with America.
Outline of a 21st Century Contract with America
I. To keep Americans safe both home and abroad, we will defend America and her allies from those who would destroy us. To achieve this, we will develop the intelligence, diplomatic, information, defense, and homeland security systems and resources necessary to defeat our enemies and defend our shores.
II. Consistent with our founding document – the Declaration of Independence, we will seek to re-center America on the Creator from Whom all our liberties come. We will insist on a judiciary that understands the centrality of God in American history and reasserts the legitimacy of recognizing the Creator in public life.
III. To strengthen our American culture, we will establish patriotic education for our children and patriotic immigration for new Americans. To achieve this, we will renew our commitment to education about American citizenship based on American history and an understanding of the Founding Fathers and the core values of American civilization. We will insist that both our children and immigrants learn the key values and key facts of American history as the foundation of their growth as citizens. And we will make English the official language of government to ensure a unified American culture.
IV. To meet the triple economic challenges of an explosion in scientific and technological knowledge, an increasingly competitive world market, and the rise of China and India we will implement:
1. A dramatically simplified tax code that favors savings, entrepreneurship, investment, and constant modernization of equipment and technology.
2. Investment in the scientific revolutions that are going to transform our world—particularly in energy, space, and the environment.
3. Math and science learning equal to any in the world and educating enough young Americans to both discover the science of the future and to compete successfully in national security and the economy with other well-educated societies.
4. Transform health care into a 21st Century Intelligent Health System that improves our health while lowering costs dramatically. In the process, American health care will become our highest value export and foreign exchange earning sector.
5. A new system of civil justice to reduce the burden of lawsuits.
V. To ensure that no American retires into poverty, we will transform the Social Security system starting with younger workers who should have the right to choose a personal Social Security Savings Retirement Accounts that will enable them to accumulate the wealth needed for a prosperous retirement while preserving Social Security for today’s retirees and near-retirees.
VI. In order to permit every American the opportunity to pursue happiness their entire life, we will:
1. Develop a system in which those who wish to stay economically active are encouraged and incentivized to do so because active people live longer and healthier and have a greater opportunity to pursue happiness;
2. Develop a system of independent living and assisted living that increases the years in which people can be on their own and in most cases enables people to live their entire lives with freedom and dignity;
3. Develop a new model of quality long-term care in which both the care and the quality of life are compatible with a twenty-first century American expectation of progress and innovation.
4. Use the new technologies and new scientific knowledge to turn disabilities into capabilities and change government regulations and programs to help every American achieve the fullest possible ability to pursue happiness.
VII. To change the mindset of big government in Washington, we will insist upon replacing bureaucratic public administration with entrepreneurial public management so government can operate with the speed, effectiveness, and efficiency of the information age.
VIII. To balance the federal budget, we will insist on the economic policies that foster a lean government, low taxes, and a low interest rate economy to maximize growth in a competitive world.
IX. To create a citizen-centered government, we will insist on congressional reform including the repeal of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance censorship law to make the legislative branch responsive to its voters and not Washington’s entrenched special interests.
X. To protect and ensure the integrity of the election process, we will insist that it is honest, accountable, accurate, and free from the threat of illegal votes or gratuitous litigation.
There is a lot to be done and every American can play an active role in winning the future for the next generation. I invite you to become involved and share your ideas for solutions to our great challenges by visiting and joining American Solutions for Winning the Future. (www.americansolutions.com)
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is author of Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America and chairman of American Solutions for Winning the Future.
Editor's Note: GCN requested an article by Gingrich for our readers on the subject of a new Contract for America. Gingrich was largely the architect of the first Contract for America in the 1990's when he was in Congress. He was kind enough to respond with the article above.
You don't need to make new laws, just repeal some unconstitutional laws and overturn some bad court decisions. We need to reinstate the first amendment in all its majestic glory as America's guiding light to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion. Americans will take care of the rest.
Yep.
1. A dramatically simplified tax code that favors savings, entrepreneurship, investment, and constant modernization of equipment and technology.
While that sure sounds good, it's mainly pap. Newt was one of the Republican leaders who sat on actual fundamental tax reform for years.
2. Investment in the scientific revolutions that are going to transform our world—particularly in energy, space, and the environment.
Newt's getting kinda big on the environmental stuff. His focus groups must be leading him by the nose. I heard him (with my own ears) talk about global warming last summer like he believes it.
3. Math and science learning equal to any in the world and educating enough young Americans to both discover the science of the future and to compete successfully in national security and the economy with other well-educated societies.
Translation: Billions and billions more to the educational establishment.
4. Transform health care into a 21st Century Intelligent Health System that improves our health while lowering costs dramatically. In the process, American health care will become our highest value export and foreign exchange earning sector.
Blah, blah, blah.
5. A new system of civil justice to reduce the burden of lawsuits.
One without lawyers? ;-)
V. To ensure that no American retires into poverty, we will transform the Social Security system starting with younger workers who should have the right to choose a personal Social Security Savings Retirement Accounts that will enable them to accumulate the wealth needed for a prosperous retirement while preserving Social Security for today’s retirees and near-retirees.
Hmmm...we've been hearing this for a very long time, but haven't seen one ounce of courage or action from our Republican leaders. Hard for me to buy it, when I consider the fact that Mr. Gingrich was one of those leaders for a very long time.
VI. In order to permit every American the opportunity to pursue happiness their entire life, we will:
1. Develop a system in which those who wish to stay economically active are encouraged and incentivized to do so because active people live longer and healthier and have a greater opportunity to pursue happiness;
2. Develop a system of independent living and assisted living that increases the years in which people can be on their own and in most cases enables people to live their entire lives with freedom and dignity;
3. Develop a new model of quality long-term care in which both the care and the quality of life are compatible with a twenty-first century American expectation of progress and innovation.
4. Use the new technologies and new scientific knowledge to turn disabilities into capabilities and change government regulations and programs to help every American achieve the fullest possible ability to pursue happiness.
Not a word about what is actually screwing up health care, and making its price perpetually skyrocket: ie government involvement. "Incentivized"? Gag...
VII. To change the mindset of big government in Washington, we will insist upon replacing bureaucratic public administration with entrepreneurial public management so government can operate with the speed, effectiveness, and efficiency of the information age.
Hmmm...he's going to have to work on translating that out of bureaucratese.
VIII. To balance the federal budget, we will insist on the economic policies that foster a lean government, low taxes, and a low interest rate economy to maximize growth in a competitive world.
Uhmmm...y'all had your chance to implement such, not "insist" on it.
IX. To create a citizen-centered government, we will insist on congressional reform including the repeal of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance censorship law to make the legislative branch responsive to its voters and not Washington’s entrenched special interests.
"Congressional reform"? Just change the stinking law to get back within the bounds of the First Amendment. Every time y'all say you're "reforming Congress" the Congress and its incumbents get more powerful, and the people get further away from controlling their own government.
X. To protect and ensure the integrity of the election process, we will insist that it is honest, accountable, accurate, and free from the threat of illegal votes or gratuitous litigation.
Right. Why didn't you go to bat for Bob Dornan, Newt? His seat was obviously stolen, and you and your buddies sat there and watched.
Well, as long as it's not about a specific religion, I suppose I can live with it; I'm a Presbyterian and we've been kicked out of so many countries I get jitzy when the government gets involved.
I see he has it coupled with American History; first of all, I could REALLY get behind mandated American history classes for everybody (even some re-educating for citizens to be named at a later date).
But I can already hear the moaning and groaning because I'm sure there weren't any Muslims in America back then and the next thing you know, we'll be buying new textbooks with a updated version of the discovery of America, replete with Christopher Columbus giving them their own room, facing toward Mecca, so they could pray on the trip over.
Dear God, is there ANYBODY you don't think you're smarter than?
Can't you jsut READ the words and not feel the need to PARSE every damn one of them?
IV. To meet the triple economic challenges of an explosion in scientific and technological knowledge, an increasingly competitive world market, and the rise of China and India we will implement:
1. A dramatically simplified tax code that favors savings, entrepreneurship, investment, and constant modernization of equipment and technology.
This sounds ok. But the last time they 'simplified' the tax code it added over a thousand pages to it so I'll wait to see the details.
2. Investment in the scientific revolutions that are going to transform our world—particularly in energy, space, and the environment.
Sounds like more Federal spending to me. 3. Math and science learning equal to any in the world and educating enough young Americans to both discover the science of the future and to compete successfully in national security and the economy with other well-educated societies.
Sounds like increased Federal meddling in Education to me. Whatever happened to abolishing the Dept Of Education, Newt?
4. Transform health care into a 21st Century Intelligent Health System that improves our health while lowering costs dramatically. In the process, American health care will become our highest value export and foreign exchange earning sector.
Hillary is promising the same thing. What are the specifics Newt? The last thing in the world we need is more Federal involvement in the Health Care industry.
VI. In order to permit every American the opportunity to pursue happiness their entire life, we will:
1. Develop a system in which those who wish to stay economically active are encouraged and incentivized to do so because active people live longer and healthier and have a greater opportunity to pursue happiness;
Why on Earth is how long people stay 'economically active' the business of the Federal Government? Where exactly is that in the Constitution?
2. Develop a system of independent living and assisted living that increases the years in which people can be on their own and in most cases enables people to live their entire lives with freedom and dignity;
Are you talking about Federal Assisted living centers here Newt? Isn't that the job of the private sector or did you folks slip a few new paragraphs into the Constitution recently?
3. Develop a new model of quality long-term care in which both the care and the quality of life are compatible with a twenty-first century American expectation of progress and innovation.
I must have a really outdated copy of the Constitution because mine doesn't say a word about the Federal role in 'developing models' of anything.
4. Use the new technologies and new scientific knowledge to turn disabilities into capabilities and change government regulations and programs to help every American achieve the fullest possible ability to pursue happiness.
Oh goody. Yet another Federal program.
VII. To change the mindset of big government in Washington, we will insist upon replacing bureaucratic public administration with entrepreneurial public management so government can operate with the speed, effectiveness, and efficiency of the information age.
OK this sounds really purty and all, but just what the hell does it actually mean? Are you going to close down some Departments or Agencies or something?
VIII. To balance the federal budget, we will insist on the economic policies that foster a lean government, low taxes, and a low interest rate economy to maximize growth in a competitive world
Once again it sounds really purty, but what are you actually saying Newt? Which Departments, Agencies, or Bureaus will you propose eliminating in order to 'lean up' the Government?
IX. To create a citizen-centered government, we will insist on congressional reform including the repeal of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance censorship law to make the legislative branch responsive to its voters and not Washington’s entrenched special interests.
On this one Newt has my full support.
X. To protect and ensure the integrity of the election process, we will insist that it is honest, accountable, accurate, and free from the threat of illegal votes or gratuitous litigation.
Same here.
He talks pretty, but it takes him an awful long time to get around to any solid proposals.
L
You, too?
Is this some kind of essay test that I didn't get the memo on? :-)
But that's just my business/engineering thought process.
Last time I checked, this was a place to discuss conservatism, politics and policy. If you want to make it a chat room, go ahead, nobody's stopping you. Just leave the rest of us alone who want to actually discuss stuff that will affect the future of our kids and grandkids, eh?
Love it! I would love to see Newt as a Presidential candidate, but I am not sure if he is electable...
Good analysis. Thanks.
Well, if you're discussing it, we all know how much will be accomplished.
Newt is gifted, and has many scores to settle.
The MSM will crucify him, however, should he sniff the Prize.
He's a great #2 on any GOP ticket, however, bringing back many apolitical types he was able to drag to the polls in 1994.
A much harder sell than his '94 contract. This one is grandiose with no mention of how to implement said plans and ideas. Americans can be lazy and I'd like to see this contract simplified.
It'll take large GOP majorities and that includes moderates as well as conservatives.
I do think II needs to be emphasized, because recognition of our Creator, is the basis for our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
II. Consistent with our founding document – the Declaration of Independence, we will seek to re-center America on the Creator from Whom all our liberties come. We will insist on a judiciary that understands the centrality of God in American history and reasserts the legitimacy of recognizing the Creator in public life.
In the interest of a better understanding of Newt Gingrich by FReepers:
An interview with Paul Weyrich, who has known Mr. Gingrich for 30 years:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/newtintwshtml/weyrich.html
(page one)
Q: Many people described the Newt Gingrich of 1972, 1973, 1974 down at West Georgia College as a Rockefeller Republican. Is it your impression that he was ever a Rockefeller Republican?
Weyrich: Oh, sure. I think he was. I think that when he initially ran for Congress he ran to the left of his Democratic opponent, Congressman Flynt, who was a old-line conservative Democrat. And eventually, when he ran the third time, when he was running against Virginia Shapard, he ran to her right and picked up a lot of the people who had been for Flynt and who didn't want a liberal representing the District.
Q; So ideologically he arrived at the place where he is now more or less by the time he was elected to Congress. But do you know exactly what Newt Gingrich found on the Road to Tarsus--what was the transforming experience for him?
Weyrich: I don't know that it was a single experience. I call Newt an experiential conservative, as opposed to a deeply philosophical conservative. Newt has a deep knowledge and so he is somewhat professorial in that respect. But he does not have a deeply-held philosophy, say, Biblically-based philosophy as some of us do. And therefore, he is much more negotiable on a lot of issues and, as the old railroad time tables would suggest, 'subject to change without notice.' You know, simply because he arrived at his conclusions based upon what he perceives is happening in the community at large. He is genuinely against the welfare state and genuinely wants to end it because he believes that in his experience, it has been destructive to people. He is not against the welfare state for the same precise reasons that I am.
On the abortion issue: He initially sided up on the pro-abortion side, at least tentatively and then he encountered a radical feminist who backed him up against the wall and threatened him and so on and he said to me, 'If that is what they are about, then I'm with you.' And since that time he has had more or less consistent pro-life voting record.
Q: In other words, it is not a deeply-held and abiding belief in the sanctity of life that cast him on the side of pro-life --Distinguish for me, then, your conservatism from Newt's.
Weyrich: Well, mine is sort of scripturally based. In other words, I look at all the issues through the prism of the belief that I have based on the Judeo-Christian tradition, which of course, never looked to government to solve problems, but rather looked to individuals. In all of the teachings of the New Testament, you never heard Jesus Christ say that it's the responsibility of society or its the responsibility of government to take care of this. He always said, 'It is your responsibility.' When he talked to the rich man, he told the rich man it was his responsibility to divest himself of some of his riches to help the poor and so on. It was never a case of asking government to intervene to take it away from him. The way I look at it, we will be judged on what we do as individuals rather than what the government does for us.
Q: I see the distinction, but does it matter how you arrive at the position, as long as the position is ultimately arrived at?
Weyrich: Well, it doesn't matter in the short term because we have all reached the conclusion that the welfare state, as we know it, is very destructive. Newt seeks to end the welfare state. We are blood brothers when it comes to ending the welfare state.
It matters when you look at what you replace the welfare state with. Because I don't buy, for example, a lot of the New Age kind of Third Wave Alvin Toffler nonsense that Newt is very much caught up in. I think his faith in technology, for example, is misplaced. I mean, technology obviously is helpful and I am not a Luddite. I don't believe in turning back the clock or hindering technology, but I believe that technology must have a moral basis, because otherwise technology can turn into the great monster. I don't think that Newt has thought that through at this point. That isn't to say that eventually he might not come to that conclusion. But, right now I think that he sees technology as a solution. Ultimately, I do not. I see it as a means.
Q: Although he seems to have arrived at many positions that you-all hold, and believe in fervently, it is not for the same reasons...
Weyrich: I make the analogy, by the way, with the end of the Soviet Empire. Because, for example, Boris Yeltsin said, 'I am absolutely committed to the end of the totalitarian regime and so on.' And, it's true. He was. But what he wanted to build was sort of very nebulous and others are coming in now, in the post-Soviet era, to fill that vacuum because he was very good at destroying the old order but he was not the person to build the new order.
(page three)
Q: The battering that the Christian Right regularly gets in the daily tumble of politics and the media --Do you ever have a sense that Newt's ever been afraid of getting too close to the Christian Right as it's called or the Religious Right, as it's regularly referred to in the Op Ed pages?
Weyrich: Well, I think that he recognizes that where they are on a lot of questions he is not. And he's intellectually honest, so he doesn't want to embrace them as if he were one of them, when in fact, he is not exactly. So, again, he regards them as allies. He knows that they have a coincidence of interests on a lot of different issues. But you know, he isn't going to pretend that he is Senator John Ashcroft when he's not. I give him credit for that, because you have a lot of people in this business who are so phony that they would tell the Christian Right precisely what they wanted to hear, adopt the language and not have it inside. And so, I much prefer this, frankly.
Q: I wonder, would you enunciate for me the historical differences between Newt's position and the Christian Right's position and, in addition, how Newt's world view diverges from yours?
Weyrich: The point is, we start at different points. When I hear about an issue, or when I'm considering a policy, the first question I ask is, 'Does this conform to the Judeo-Christian teachings on whatever subject it is we're talking about?' Does it conform to the Scripture and tradition, because those are the twin rails upon which I ride.
He does not start at that point. He starts at a different point. Is this good for the country? Is this good for the Republicans? Is this going to strengthen his majority? You know those sorts of questions. Often times you come to the identical conclusions when you start analyzing at that point as opposed to the point that I'm analyzing at. But there are times when you do not. And there are times when, if you are able to be faithful to the Father, so to speak, of the Church, then you will diverge from the expedient political point of view. I think that that's where the difficulty lies simply because he doesn't analyze things that way. But, to his credit, he is open to that analysis. In other words, if I come to him and say, 'Look. The path that you are about to take is wrong for these reasons,' he will at least hear what we have to say and consider it and, sometimes, even agree with it.
Q: Can you envision a break with Newt Gingrich?
Weyrich: Well, certainly not immediately. I mean, in other words, our position is not to just jump the minute we hear something we don't like. Were that the case, we'd be on fire every day of the week in this city. What we do with somebody that is definitely in the same orbit as we are is we sit down and talk with them and try to persuade them that the point of view that they embrace has flaws in it. Ultimately, if decisions are being made that put somebody on a divergent path, then of course if you are true to your principles, you will have to disagree with them. But I think we're a long way away from that period of time. I don't really want to engage in endless speculation about this because I think we're a long way away from that point at this stage.
Q: You all aren't going to get that many Speakers of the House who are born-again Christians.
Weyrich: Well, one never knows, but again, the important thing here isn't, at the moment, division. The important thing is that we are working together towards the same objectives. A lot of people want to make divisions between religions, between backgrounds, between orientation and commitment and so on and it's easy to make division. It's more difficult to bring people together.
Q: Absolutely. I don't mean to be trying to do that. But one way of understanding somebody is separating them out from what he is not. And I think there might be a perception out there that Newt is an instrument of the Religious Right and you've made it plain that there is a coincidence of interest that we've witnessed so far. You've known him for how long?
Weyrich: I've known him for over 20 years.
Q: So does that mean you are close pals?
Weyrich: No. We get along fine. From time to time he asks my advice and I'm always willing to give it, but I'm not a pal of his like say Bob Walker, congressman from Pennsylvania. We don't think in exactly the same way, but we do a lot of things together because we're right now traveling down the same freeway.
Q: And to some degree he has gotten to that fast lane on that freeway in part because of his association with you, hasn't he?
Weyrich: Well, he asked a lot of advice early on. I gave a lot of advice. Some of it he took and some of it he did not. He tells me that I was helpful to him, but, you know, we work with each other. I'm willing to work with anybody that's willing to do the right thing from my perspective. I also can't take the position that because somebody does something that I don't like that I will refuse to work with them because if I did, I wouldn't have anybody to work with.
Didn't work for lack of focus.
According to the voters the Repubs have let them (America) down.
Only true conservatism will win in 2008. But not in secret like the Libs do,
the values must be ENDORSED by the Republican candidate "Vocally, and Loudly".
God Bless America
MaxMax.
I'm not trying to be a turd in the punch bowl. I'm just kind of old fashioned in thinking that words actually mean things. I know it's silly, but when someone makes a proposal regarding legislation I kind of like to think things through a bit and figure out exactly how that's going to impact me and more importantly how it's going to reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government.
I see precious little of that here.
Now I'll grant the fact that Newt talks real pretty and it's easy to get lost in all those fine words he strings together.
Maybe I'm the one who missed the memo. Are we supposed to genuflect at the altar of Newt because he sends out a press release telling us how he thinks the Republicans can make it all better?
What happened to actually eliminating some Departments?
Most of what I'm reading here seem to be platitudes promising us ever increasing Federal involvement in Education, Healthcare, and now retirement homes. Is that what you want?
Just because some politician can turn a phrase doesn't mean I'm going to stand around gob smacked like a monkey who found something shiny.
I don't care who that politician is.
L
I agree wholeheartedly.
"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Yup. We need to repeal all laws and bad court decisions that prohibit, infringe, abridge or otherwise restrict the right of the people to freely exercise their religion.
"or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Yup again. We need to repeal McCain/Feingold and all such unconstitutional acts, laws and bad court decisions that abridge the right of the people to freedom of speech. etc. The congress is in direct violation of the first amendment anytime they try to restrict or regulate anything to do with our right to speak out for or against the government and or for or against any candidate or issue. The government's attempt to restrict or control free speech/free religion/freedom of assembly is tyranny in its highest form.
The Founding Fathers set forth the people's right of recourse when a government turns to tyranny:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
See also the second amendment and realize why conservatives do not elect gun grabbers to high office.
My post to you was an (obviously) dead joke. :-)
No one said it would be easy. And no one promised us a rose garden.
Hence my deadpan reply! :-)
Don't get me wrong. I think Newt has his heart in the right place. It's his head I worry about.
Does he seriously want the Feds involved in our retirement homes more than they already are? Geez, that's downright frightening.
Those clowns in Congress have managed to piss away every single penny of our Social Security money on God knows what, Medicare/Medicaid is even more poorly managed than that, and he's talking about getting into the retirement home business?
Puleez.
L
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.