Newt Gingrich met yesterday with some Republican Congressional staffers and gave them the memo below, which I obtained from a Congressional aide. It lays out Newt’s assessment of where the Democratic and Republican parties stand today. Much of it will seem familiar to readers of this site, but Newt sets forth the facts–many of them grim–with his customary panache. This is obviously a big topic, and I have just a few comments on Newt’s memo which I will save until the end. Here it is:
THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT MEMO. READ IT.
For now, just a few quick observations:
-
1) I think Newt’s assessment of the Democrats’ strategy and intentions is correct.
2) Newt’s sense of urgency is well-founded. At the moment, the Democrats are well ahead of the GOP both strategically and technically.
3) It may well be true that we need “a new model Republican doctrine and system,” and that Republicans need to “build a system for a permanent campaign with a 24/7 strategy,” etc. However, doing these things will be difficult, to say the least, in an environment where the Republicans lack any sort of centralized leadership, an inevitable consequence of not controlling the White House.
4) I think Newt hits the nail on the head when he says: “The 2012 turnout mechanisms will be modernized, improved and strengthened to try to make 2014 turnout resemble 2012 rather than 2010.” That is, I think, the central point of the Democrats’ manifold strategies.
Mr. Ross has taken the time to rebut my comments at great length. I feel the problem is we are talking on two different lines that will never converge.
For example. Mr. Ross says “What you consider legal, and acceptable, I may consider unacceptable and greedy”. He is free to consider high wages unacceptable and greedy but he is not free to deny they were legally earned. If he has a problem with the Law, he is also free to try to change it, but until that happens his views is beside the point at issue. He also asserts “I am all for free enterprise determining the means of production” However; he is not for free enterprise in determining the distribution of that income. Sorry, he cannot select which half of Free Enterprise he likes.
I do understand his anxious concern about the state of the economy and how he believes the problems are the result of misanthropic leadership governing under a pernicious ideology in place of something he might feel in his eyes is reality, as it is beholden to him. “The problem is”, he claims,” that those who have been given the reigns over the economy and the government, the rich and the politicians, have legally cannibalized the American people.”
Not exactly. The problem, as I suggested, is the level of intelligence of voters, as it is they who gave the reigns to the government. I will concede that may be considered an oversimplification but I know of no other way to place the root of our problems.
Yes, Mr. Ross. If you lower taxes, all things considered, in time you will create more jobs. It’s the way the system works. It is also almost axiomatic, for according to country studies by the International Monetary Fund, the level of taxation varies inversely with the level of economic activity. The tipping point is to determine just how much revenue does a wise government needs to govern wisely.
Our country is a marvel of a productive enterprise. We can produce and distribute a Gross National Product surpassing anything any other country has done in all of history. What seems to be the problem? In brief, my view our problems are not economic. They are all political.
I support Mr. Ross if he argues it’s time for a new political party. Our lines will converge.
martin Said:
The quotation marks were to highlight our differing viewpoints. What you consider legal, and acceptable, I may consider unacceptable and greedy. certainly I would not entrust my livelihood, health and well being to those who have demnostrated greed to the point of destroying the economy for their self interest.
My original comment asserted the argument that the Gingrich approach will be a failure because it deals with tactics and strategies rather than the content of their message. For many, the content of their message is: lower taxes on business and create more jobs or give more money to the rich and we’ll give it back.
martin Said:
who mentioned centralized planning? I am all for free enterprise determining the means of production. Just because I referred to the greedy capitalists who ruined the economy does not mean I want the opposite. the problem is that you and the repubs are dealing in ideologies rather than realities. The public eats food not ideology. Many countries in the world have mixed economies of private and public sectors. Even (orginally communist) Red China is able to exhibit pragmatism over ideology. In fact they have something which the US would do well to import: they execute their corrupt politicians and CEO’s.
martin Said:
Actually it is not. The problem is that those who have been given the reigns over the economy and the government, the rich and the politicians, have legally cannibalized the american people. They have perpetrated a fraud on the american people through lying in their legal self interest. What choices are the public given: a vote between “the devil and the deep blue sea”. One of the choices has committed serial fraud for 30 years and the other might be a muslim, communist,felon born in foreign.
martin Said:
In the choice between the devil you know and the unknown deep blue sea the voting public chose a black, muslim, foreign, gun removing,communist,with false birth certificate,etc over the apparent traditional family man. They made this choice TWICE! What does this say about the content and message of the republican party? It tells me that in spite of all the obvious and dangerous pitfalls signaled by Obama they refused to trust, or believe, the economic mantras of the republican party. Wake up and smell the coffee!
There are countries, even 3rd world countries, where the private sector exhibits a behavior which is not based SOLELY on maximizing their gain at everyone else’s expense. Caveat emptor, and BS baffles brains, is the guiding principle currently obtaining in US political and business leadership.
Here is an unrelated hypothetical thought to consider: technological advances have been incredible and yet they have not accrued to the benefit of the entire population. If technology reaches its ultimate goal with everything being done by robots, and there is no more need for human labor, do we then have a society of billionaires, police and paupers? If jobs are decreasing as a result of technology how do the gains get distributed to the population in a job based society?
I would understand Bernard Ross, much clearer whose comments are otherwise lucid and thoughtful, if he would not use quotation marks on the word “greedy”. Is he saying capitalists are greedy or not? The use of quotation marks is usually meant to imply something other than the word in quote. I would agree every capitalist, me included as a member of a capitalist society, is greedy, if we mean as I expressed earlier, we all strive to maximize our gains and minimize our losses. Would Mr. Ross prefer the “greedy” earnings of all labor be determined by some super governmental planning organization? Centralized economic planning was adopted by the Soviet Union but proved to be unworkable.
What does all this have to do with Mr. Gingrich? Everything! We can ululate all day over the travails of our political parties, the misallocation of capital, the distribution of income, the production relations with Asia, the banking scandals, the level of unemployment, the closing of factories, the lack of a level of health care desired, the bonuses of hedge fund investment advisors – one fellow earned $23,000,000 in a year, legally – should we hate him because he’s rich – I’m begining to sound like Mr. Obama – and other well cited calamities inflicted on the suffering poor all because of capitalists, I hesitate to say greedy. But no one has yet turned the focus on the prime cause of the nation’s ills, namely, the level of intelligence of the body politic and their failure as consumers and voters. The problem Mr. Gingrich, is us.
Canuck Frank Said:
Good point, however, I am not advocating the same as the smoot haley bill but rather measures to deal with the damage being caused by the massive transfer to Asia and the unequal trade relations, specifically China. Measures exist in current agreements tha can be applied but the govt has been avoiding them. It is more likely that inflation and devaluation will create a more level playing field. the 1930’s were a different set of circumstances(gold standard) and the problem is not with goods from everywhere, just goods from Asia. The damage has been done and it has been done by those advocates of free trade at any price, but the price is borne by the taxpayer.
from the economist:
Countries that came off the gold standard were better able to weather the downturn.
from wikipedia:
While many suffered some made billions. the marriage between corrupt politicians and the “greedy” capitalists is ongoing. Both parties are involved.
Bernard Ross Said:
Without getting into this debate, I note how well protectionism worked in 1929 and the 30-s.
@ martin: further to my last comment: this is about the Gingrich memo and the strategies and tactics he outlined. I am saying that is a superficial approach which does not take the valid perceptions and concerns of the public into account. Gingrich approach would fail to bring more voters. the republicans need believable and specific proposals which speak to the public’s concerns and desires. The percentage of the public which is outside their constituency is increasing as a result of their incompetence and lack of awareness of the majority of voters. They treat it as an ideological battle, voters dont want ideologies. they want jobs, medical security and a fair share of the economy. They expect those in charge of govt and the economy to deliver results. They chose the mystery guest because they already know what they got from the others.
martin Said:
the reports of class conflicts to which you allude are not due to a lack of knowledge of capitalism but due to the on the ground results of the last 30 years of unbridled and unregulated capitalism. Under the economic stewardship of the capitalist elite since the 1970’s the following has occurred: 1-80% of income gains since the 1970’s have gone to 20% of the population; 2-long term job and health security have disappeared(US is only first world nation without some form of medical security);3-Massive loss of jobs, capital and long term production security;4- numerous financial crashes, starting with the S&L looting in the 1980’s caused by reagan interest rates and deregulation of S&L’s up to the recent stock market and bank looting.
Hence reports of class conflicts result from facts not lack of knowledge of the victims.
Let us examine this “lack of knowledge” which you arrogantly assert:martin Said:
I agree with this statement.
martin Said:
I agree with this statement.
martin Said:
I agree with this statement.
martin Said:
I disagree with this statement and find it to be a simplistic approach divorced from reality. First, literally, factories were shut down, people fired, factories built overseas by US investors and those products then sold back into the market. Large corporations and capitalists along with their bought politicians convinced the US public that opening the market to Asia would benefit the economy, produce jobs in the US, bring lower prices, etc. The usual narrative of those with something to sell. However, they did not inform the public, based upon the 3 principles of capitalism which you mentioned here, that factories would close, jobs would be lost, production would shift to Asia resulting in a job based economic system without jobs. Furthermore, they did not disclose the real price of the goods purchased which the US taxpayer is now paying. Undisclosed to the public was the cost of increased taxation and increased public benefits which would be the “inevitable” result of the closures. Anyone, as you demonstrate, with a basic knowledge of the free market and the motives of investors would have known this but this information was withheld from the public. Under the free market system businesses rarely disclose information which might affect them negatively unless coerced in law. It is unconscionable that the US opened its markets without accounting and protecting from the inevitable damage. the kind of damage of which anyone with the slightest knowledge of capitalism would be aware.
It is understandable yet distressing to read reports of race and class conflicts that has become more frequent since 2008, and of even greater frequency since 2011. The former is not surprising and was expected but the latter a consequence of lack of knowledge of capitalism. I’m thinking of a comment frequently made by a contributor to this site about “shipping jobs overseas”. No producer ever shipped a job overseas. The consumer did. When faced with a product of virtually equal in kind, form and function to one of lower price, the consumer usually chooses the lower price. I say “usually” to account for the consumer who willingly pays a higher price out of loyalty to one “American Made”. And if one is trained in economics to understand economic motives of producers and consumers the rapid relocation of a manufacturing base to a foreign nation is inevitable in a global system of tree trade, and not the work of greedy capitalists. We are all of us greedy if that means we naturally tend to maximize benefits and minimize cost for ourselves and our companies.
Jerry Said:
You assume that the rich are interested in rebuilding the country and will take extra capital and invest in the USA. What have they been doing the last few decades. The rich run the free enterprise private sector for the past 30 years they have been exporting jobs, capital and production to asia while turning the USA into a consuming market only. Why keep trusting the same players to turn around the mess they have made. Obama just got here, they have been running the show for decades. The same players turned the american job market into contract work with no benefits and no security on the argument that their is more “choice” and will produce more efficiencies. But where do the gains of increased profits and efficiencies go? Think of the incredible technological advances of the last 50 years and what that should have done for america. However, according to the CIA factbook on the US economy: since the 1970’s 80% of income gains have gone to 20% of the population. It is not about republican and democrat but about the management of the american economy. We have an economy where gamblers on the stock market become billionaires and keep the gains but when they lose they lose the peoples savings and the people have to bail it out with taxes. after being bailed out they invest in foreign. The private sector has had a free reign since reagan and used that free reign to dismantle the economy, ship it to china, and rob what remained in the banks. As this article is about Gingrich memo advising repubs how to get more votes: I dont think you have spoken to that issue.Jerry Said:
An individual, when faced with short finances, tends to house and feed his family and maintain their health before paying down debts. why would those same people vote differently in a collective?
Jerry Said:
This is a result of the private sector who shipped out the jobs, production and capital after selling the US on opening to the “free market”. Now that it is all abroad there is no need for them to create jobs in the US. They will soon not even need the US consumer and asian prices rise and asian economies become consumers. The only way to protect the public from this highway robbery is through taxation, benefits and protectionism. Hyperinflation will supply the protectionism under the table by devaluing the dollar and the debt.Jerry Said:
although i agree, there is already failure and it was caused by an unfettered pig feeding trough at the expense of the people.
Jerry Said:
did you have the same ocncerns when the private sector and their bought politicians shipped out the jobs, looted the banks and peoples savings.
a pendulum usually corrects the aberrations of the other swing. If those who want to sell the private sector wish to get votes they need to use ingenuity and stop returning with the con artistry of reducing tax to the rich will create more jobs. Those jobs will be created by the rich in China. Obama will get more votes next time if he keeps the titanic afloat. those who were hell bent of sinking the Titanic will not get votes through selling failed ideologies. The private sector can come up with solutions but those solutions must be specific and beleivable(rather than a repeat of what already has happened).
@Yamit,
Please understand that government spending is somewhat independent of what it receives in tax payments. The government will spend and waste more money, the more money it takes in. But should it fail to take in enough money for its purposes, it will borrow more.
The correct stance here given the facts is that any additional revenues to the government should by law be used to pay down the national debt. Higher tax rates will hurt individuals, but higher debt-to-GDP will sink the nation. This is the Republican position in negotiations with Obama, but it is being warped into the meme that the Republicans are for rich white men. Mostly propaganda! And doing quite well among the masses! People will believe anything if it fits well-placed prior impressions. This tendency makes proper decision-making unlikely. We will die at the hands of our own stupidity, but will be found lying at the feet of the Chinese nation who will not tolerate our failure given how much we owe them! While I am not given to conspiracy theories, Obama’s dedication to Alinskyite methods and the logical necessity for events ending in default if our current vector is not changed make me view his demands for more money as purposeful and evil. Big government will lead to big failure, since all complex systems fail sooner or later.
Corrected link in comment #3
The top 1 percent paid an average income tax rate of 24 percent in 2009, IRS data
C
As long as the Republican party is perceived as the party of the super wealthy, Vested corp. interests like Wall St and mega Corps… they will lose every election because the demographics are against them as are all the vital economic future indicators!! And the spread will only continue to grow.
Mega inflation has yet to kick in but it will. That’s a tax on the middle class and the poor. Most jobs lost are gone for ever ad there will be a growing class of permanent chronic unemployed while the rich get richer is not a winning message.
“Everyone seems to know that about half of Americans paid no income taxes in 2009 and that the top 1 percent paid about 37 percent of the income taxes.
But how many people know that households making less than $75,000 collectively paid more federal income tax than those making $1 million or more?
Or that income taxed at the next-to-lowest rate, 15 percent, brought in more government revenue than all capital gains taxes plus the two top brackets, which apply only to the top 2 percent of earners?
Or that almost half of the top 1 percent made less than $500,000? Or that five out of six made less than $1 million?
The fact is that the government relies far more on the bottom 99 percent than the top 1 percent for federal income taxes.” (Beyond the 1 percent
By David Cay )
From IRS data: The top one-in-a-thousand taxpayers had average income in recent years that ranged between $5.2 million and $7.5 million annually. Just investing that much in corporate bonds will produce enough interest income to keep someone in the top 1 percent.
Furthermore, inside the top 1 percent, those with the highest incomes pay the lowest tax rates.
The top 1 percent paid an average income tax rate of 24 percent in 2009, IRS data shows. That is almost exactly the rate paid by those making $500,000 to $1 million. Those who made $1 million to $10 million paid a higher rate, 26 percent. But those making more than $10 million paid a significantly lower rate, 23.3 percent.
Who has and control the wealth and Power in America?
The top 400 taxpayers paid a much lower rate. On an average income of $270 million each, their effective federal income tax rate was 18.1 percent in 2008, the latest year for which we have IRS data. A single worker earning less than $90,000 pays a higher rate than that.
Is it any wonder he people have turned their collective backs on the Republican Party and the 1%
Even Banana Republics have a more rationalized Wealth to Poverty ratio than does America.
If the rich keep giving more capital to the government, there will be less available for rebuilding the country at whatever level of collapse we will find ourselves when Obama leaves. The country is cooked if we level the playing field between poor and rich. Rather we need a scaffolding that people can climb. Wage stagnation prevents movement. High taxation rates on start-up businesses prevents movement. Tight enforcement of black market and gray market goods and jobs is the worst thing I can think of for those without jobs. Everything that produces stability, produces entropy – the state of matter where everything is at the same level of energy. Under such circumstances, all movement is random. You can always mix sugar into tea, but you can stir forever and never get the sugar and tea to separate again. This is what Obama means when he says he will produce permanent change in America before he leaves office.
I read it but it’s about strategy and doctrine for winning a race. the problem is more than party strategies. It’s about content and solutions that are believable. the republicans are unable to walk in the shoes of the majority of voters, they do not understand their condition. People who are without jobs, people who are worried about the future, people who are worried about going bankrupt from a medical condition, etc. Jobs capital and production were shipped to asia, Those in charge of the economy keep ripping it off with endless bubbles. Many who did not like Obama or his policies did not believe the other side and needed hard guarantees and not ideology. Most people don’t care about parties or ideologies, Only results. the result of an economy that leaned heavily to the free enterprise system is jobs are in asia and those who shipped out the jobs are saying if you give them more money they will create jobs. if the economy had been better it would have been an indication that the system is working. bad timing and the wrong response. The repubs need to come up with solutions to real problems other than to say cut the tax on business and you will get jobs. the jobs are to insecure, no security , no medical security. The result of people hard work is a ruling elite of billionaires and thieves who keep taking more for themselves and leaving no crumbs on the table. There used to be jobs and medical security; all these things disappeared with the argument that it will make things better due to free choice and efficiencies. Those arguments are no longer accepted and if there is to be a change then the private sector must find a way to give results with inclusivity. the free market has already shown what it does in the hands of the greedy. I prefer the free market but I have already seen that where it does not give inclusive results people increasingly choose govt control, which is not good. The answer is more real solutions and less ideology.