” - - - The center forecast that Gingrich’s plan would slash government revenues by at least $850 billion in one year, more than a third of the $2.3 trillion in 2011 government revenues.
A Gingrich adviser refuted the center’s estimate and said the candidate’s plan was not designed to be revenue neutral, but to be “growth maximizing.”
_____________
Perhaps I missed it, but NO mention is made of cutting SPENDING, or “ cutting maximizing.”
This requires that the damned US Federal Government will keep right on growing their spending whether or not the economy is able to grow. This was tried with mixed success in the Reagan years, but our economy is not as elastic as was then, and may not work as well again.
After all, we are an order of magnitude more Government regulated than we are today. The proposed Canadian Oil Sands Pipeline is an excellent example of the difficulty of “growing the economy” in Regulated Amerika.
Every overspent (=Debt) dollar needs to be met with a $1.10 BASELINE cut in spending. The ten cents goes directly to buying back bonds purchased by foreigners who own our debt bonds.
Because it has been proven “beyond a shadow of a doubt” that Keynesian Economic theory has financially ruined our Nation, why not try the method we all use with our own personal checkbooks? You know, WHEN YOUR OUTGO EXCEEDS YOUR INCOME, YOUR UPKEEP WILL BE YOUR DOWNFALL.
Since our income expansion has only produced debt, why not decrease our outgo?
For example, Nanny-State Newt proposes NO cuts in baseline spending. He could become just Newt if he would cut baseline spending by 10 % more than he cuts taxes. Thus, Newt would give us a tax cut of 0.850 Trillion dollars, AND cut 0.950 Trillion dollars from baseline Federal spending.
BTW, doesn’t 0.950 Trillion dollars times 4 years equal 3.8 Trillion dollars? HEY FReepers, if we did for 10 years, why that would be a reduction in US Federal Government baseline spending of 9.5 Trillion dollars! That is about what GWB and Obama have burdened us with so far, and twice what the ‘Super Committee” was trying to achieve in rate of increase “cuts.”
Dang, I just wish the “Super Committee” had been able to figure out this “Go Big” 10 year plan!
but NO mention is made of cutting SPENDING
///////
mustbeindefineprint.
He wants zero-based budgeting, every dollar must be justified domestically and in foreign aid. He wants a balanced budget amendment. He wants to hack job killing regulation and will kill the existing EPA to do it and mandate its replacement consider economic impact. He has a "date certain" to secure the border and step-by-step plan to break down the job magnet for illegals which will, as we see in AL, lowers unemployment for Americans.
He's not trying to appease the establishment with a "revenue neutral" tax plan. He outlines how he'll cut waste, inefficiency and duplication all across the board. He's for giving American's choices on tax plans (Hong Kong model), on Medicare, on Social Security (Chilean model).
His agenda is a threat to the central planning mentality that permeates the ruling elite inside the beltway.
That's why the establishment will do everything to give us milquetoast Romney and would cheerfully lose to Obama. I'm suspicious of our "betters," those "elite" few early state voters who have dictated the wheat and the chaff to the rest of us for over 30 years.