« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

A “Dear Newt” Letter…

By: conservativecurmudgeon (Diary)  |  December 5th, 2011 at 12:08 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Dear Newt;

We don’t need “17 Solutions for American Horizons”, or “9 Foundational Blocks of a Prosperous Tomorrow”. We don’t need “Healthcare Transformations”. And we sure as hell don’t need a “Green Conservatism”.

All America needs right now is it’s cherished Constitution.

Mr. Gingrich, you might be a smart fellow, but, I’m sorry: You aren’t any smarter than Madison, or Randolph, or Mason, or Hamilton, or Franklin. You’re good, no doubt. But not better than Publius.

Yes, all we need is our Constitution back.

That, and a President wielding a trusty machete to slash their way through the byzantine, unruly, Gordian-knot of 70 years of left-wing social policy. That’s right: I said “slash“. We have agencies piled atop agencies, with hundreds of thousands of pages of indecipherable, incomprehensible rules, regulations, taxes, fines, penalties and bureaucrats. Normal, hard-working, tax-paying Americans look at this disaster, and the existential burden it’s thrown on our backs –and the backs of our kids and grandkids– and we know intuitively what to do about it. It’s nice, Newt, that you are the smartest guy in the room. Very nice, and kind of jaunty, too. But, you don’t have to be the smartest guy in the room to understand the damage that’s been done, and how to fix it.

We already have a “solution” to this problem. It’s called “cut“. Cut, slash, prune, dig up, root out, trim, chop, slice, hack, whatever. Just “CUT”, dammit. No more unread and unreadable white papers, no policy reports. No million-dollar “advice”.

To quote an aphorism I heard not long ago, “right wing social engineering is just as destructive as left-wing social engineering”. Damned straight, and I know what you meant when you said it, and I didn’t hold it against you, either. You meant that carrots and lollipops handed out by Republicans are just as filthy and evil as those handed out by leftists– and they most certainly are. But you don’t stop the gravy train simply by moving it all onto whiz-bang light-rail system. You STOP IT… you slam on the brakes, you block the tracks, blow up the bridges. Whatever. And, I think you know this, Newt, in the core of your soul.

You know Ronald Reagan better than any candidate running. What did he say? “Government is not the solution to our problems. Government IS the problem…!”

I know you get this, I know you it’s imprinted on your political heart, Mr. Gingrich: You’ve shown glimmers of this in the past. I know you have it in you. For example, you took the slings and arrows of the most extreme, vile, loathsome, political libel for four years, and yet, you plowed ahead against the popular storm, the onslaught of an entire pop culture aimed at your throat. You muscled through the only meaningful reform of a major Federal entitlement program ever. EVER. On the second day of Congress in 1995, you moved to defund (and did) all of the standing “caucus” committees, and stood up when the extreme left howled that, if black congressman wanted a caucus, they jolly well could pay for it themselves.

You shouldered and heaved a REAL balanced budget amendment on the floor of the Congress, and it missed the mark by a single vote in the Senate. You extended the Reagan Revolution beyond the eclipse of the Bush 41 years, and brought it to the sunny uplands that lasted through the first decade of the new century. You’ve tasted the fruits of our sacred freedoms, and you know what needs to be done.

Now, stop with the superlatives, reign in your adjectives. Put on the Good Cheer of Ronald Reagan, and watch with glee as Barack Obama gets more and more shrill with the collectivist, Marxist clap-trap. If you do this, if you cut through the clutter, the hubris, the moxie, the Inside the Washington Beltway multi-sylabic mumbo-jumbo, the nation will beat a path to your door.

If you keep on with the “19 Steps to Stardom” then we will flee into the night.

 

Kindly and Respectfully Submitted,

-A Curmudgeonly Voter

 

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • westcoastpatriette

    I feel your pain. Not sure Newt has it in ‘em. Think maybe he sold his soul to the company sto’.

  • wonkish1

    What cuts government spending more, proposals to make medium sized cuts in the existing system or booking the efficiency savings from restructuring entire bureaucracies through privatization?

    This is a very, very important question. So please answer!

    And I’ll give you an example(and I’ll provide more upon request).

    Does government spending(and liabilities) go down more from cutting Social Security benefits, raising the retirement age, etc. for future generations or by restructuring the system with private accounts?

    So again I’m really curious to hear your answer!

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    And, sometimes, when I’m trying to recommend a Diary Entry, I have to click the button a dozen times. I’m on Firefox, and maybe that makes a difference. Or, maybe it’s the barometric pressure, or…

    But, thanks just the same.

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    But, answers must wait till the ‘morrow.

  • wonkish1
  • wonkish1

    And something that should be a much bigger subject of conversation that it has been.

    So I’m looking forward to a very substantive discussion on this because whatever the choice conservatives pick we’ll be better off for having this important discussion.

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    Please also read George Will’s observations about Newt:

    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will120311.php3

    Thank you.

    ColdWarrior

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    It depends on how the terms are defined.

    In the Hobson’s Choice you’ve laid out (that is, cutting the Government in only one manner, or not at all), I would fall into the camp of advocating for privatization of entire bureaucracies. And for a simple reason: Government contractors are notorious for squeezing the last possible penny out of any given situation, if that’s what’s called for in the contract. For example, many road contracts are “let” with a completion bonus; that is, for each day they finish the project ahead of the scheduled date, they receive a certain amount of cash. There have been instances where the contractor earns more money on the bonus, than on the actual work.

    By contrast, “medium sized cuts” would have merely to wait until the next leftist malcontent inhabits the White House and the congress before they again become “medium sized increases”.

    I would personally opt for elimination of entire swaths of the federal monster, privatizing much of what’s left, and reforming the mountainous entitlements into investment instruments. Like Rick Perry, I would eliminate the Departments of Commerce, Education and, er, ah,…. Energy. I would fold what ever crucial functions are in each back into other departments, and simply deep-six the rest. I would tear the pages from the Federal Register that pertain to these eliminations, so there is no chance of them regenerating from the root.

    And finally, I would remove the standing before the bar that so many left-wing agitators enjoy on our behalf without our consent. The Audubon Society, Riverkeeper, the Environmental Defense Fund, and on and on, are given standing BY LAW to argue class-actions, and are exempt from proving standing. This is what has created so much of the regulatory mess we see today. If INDIVIDUALS had to have INDIVIDUAL merit in suing the Federal Government, there’d be a lot fewer lawyers scurrying over the taxpayer’s carcass.

    So much for MY pontificating… and thanks. I’ll go back to breakfast now…

  • wonkish1

    But what you need to understand in your list about Gingrich up above is that practically all of that stuff is exactly what you just said you would prefer.

    One thing I’ve learned about Newt in all of the years I’ve followed him: Is that this guy practically wakes up every morning thinking to himself: How can I come up with another creative way to privatize(or partially privatize) some chunk of the federal government.”

    That’s practically all of his work of the last decade. That is why he seems to be “an idea machine”. Its because he’s constantly looking at creative ways to accomplish that and its practically just about his only driving force for his existence. At least that and then thinking up every way to sell that idea after the fact.

    Understand why a lot of that stuff you listed above matters?

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    But, what I’m talking about is more a matter of approach, rather than actual legislation. Speaker Gingrich, in my opinion, is the only man in the field that has the CAPABILITY to frame the debate in terms that size up the existential battle we are facing: “Either we fix this NOW, or the gig is up”. And, to get lost in the rhetorical weeds with his ability to wow us all with the most arcane or bluster-filled argumentations rather muddies the battlefield.

    When you wander into the minefield of policy on the hustings, you naturally fall into the enemies, lexicon. THEY are the ones constantly legislating. They are the ones adding agencies, and departments, and committees and on and on and on. We need ANTI legislation, and the people need to know that a candidate like Newt understands this.

    As I say: “CUT, dammit!” Choke it off at the root. We can figure out later how to haul away the carcass. Our window of opportunity will be open for a very short time, and we better have the axes a-ready from Minute One.

  • wonkish1

    That you said before is that the only real way to cut a ton out is to privatize. You create private accounts and you wipe the future liability completely out of the government. You convert medicare payroll into HSA private accounts and you *completely* wipe out the future liability from the government. You provide a medicare voucher option today for current workers and you wipe out the efficiency loss from privatizing that.

    But he takes it beyond just the major entitlements. Take have the NASA budget and accumulate it into a prize for the first company that makes it the space station, or moon, etc. and once they do(and demonstrate it very cheaply very fast because companies are much more efficient) than wipe out NASA all together and just take a portion of NASA’s budget and give it as prizes(since the private sector can do it better).

    All of the wasteful paper based administration of the federal government, privatize those too. The EPA is anti business, anti growth, etc. litigating and regulating body. Wipe that budget out and replace that with some prizes for some innovations at least then its pro growth and pro business.

    See what I mean? He runs around to all of these government functions and tries to figure out how to literally gut them by turning them over to the private sector.

    Doing away with government through the legislative process is a good thing and *the* goal of conservative governance.

  • Common_Cents

    That should be a sub headline or at least the first sentence.

  • valrobex

    We also have to keep in mind that ANY Conservative candidate must first be elected in order to effect change. So the topic has to be framed in a manner that not only appeals to Conservatives but also to Independents and perhaps to Liberals (though I doubt that can be done.)

    This leaves the candidates having to “season” the message. IMO the reason Santorum isn’t gaining traction is that he speaks strong Conservative principles with no “subtle seasoning.” Consequently, few listen and agree.

    The Newtmeister is, among other things, a dynamic politician and is presenting his case to both the general electorate as well as Republicans. As a result, he sometimes will disappoint us Conservatives by not presenting a fiery message.

    Like Wonkish, I place my hopes on his long history of Conservative successes rather than on today’s sound-bites.

    Wish I could take exception to your positions if for no other reason than to have a reasonable debate. But, dammit, I agree with you so that will have to wait for another occasion.

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    Don’t get me wrong: Newt has a million ideas, all swirling around that magnificent brain of his, and at least half a million are darn good, solid, conservative ideas. The rest? Probably shopping lists and Rolodexes.

    By the way: There’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, it’s a good thing to have processes and platforms at the ready when the existing regime falls, which it will, next November.

    What I’m trying to point out is that the solutions that we absolutely, positively need to save this republic are not Government-centric. They are anti-government centric. The Government has gotten us $16 Trillion dollars in hock; the Government has created programs that are unfunded to the tune of (a best conservative estimate) $66 Trillion.

    Creating a framework of “prizes” and so forth would have been a perfectly reasonable and creative solution to our problems several exits back: They are completely inadequate to the task today, though. We need a hatchet, not a laser-pointer.

    As I say: I think Newt knows intuitively that this dire situation is real, that it is present, and that the clock is ticking down. But: We are still Americans, and we can build anything, fix anything, and make it better and stronger for our children –as long as the Government gets the hell out of the way– and our leaders create an environment that is up to this task.

    And that mean wholesale, gigantic slashing cuts to the federal monster. The “One Time” stimulus? It’s now IN THE BUDGET IN PERPETUITY. If anyone can explain this to the voting public, and persuade vast swaths to support him in the effort to slash and cut and prune, it is Newt. He won’t get there, though with sweet bromides customized to appeal to “independents”. After all, independents don’t like 20% real unemployment, or $4 per gallon gasoline, or being shoehorned into a fascist “health-care” straight-jacket either, last time I checked. And they especially don’t like the prospect of their kids or grandkids becoming landless serfs to totalitarians 30 or 40 years from now.

    Americans are smart. They know when they are being gamed. If Newt added a sense of smiling, confident urgency to his tone, and left the cocky, self-sure arrogance by the side of the road, and rallied the American people to his side in this endeavor, the man would win in a landslide. Make bank on it.

  • acat

    of being very solid on social issues, but not so much on fiscal/jobs or defense.

    Agree, more or less, re. Gingrich – but I have the impression that his handlers will be doing yeoman’s work to make him appear the candidate you want. He’s a professor, he’s aloof and lectures a lot, the schmooze of retail politics is not his schtick. We’ve elected the breed before, but it’s been a while….

    Mew

  • wonkish1

    The disconnect here is that you don’t see essentially the privatization of NASA, EPA, etc. as something that drives down government spending by a huge amount.

    Look me and you have the exact same goal. I work in Finance and from everything I know the amount of debt, government spending, and deficits that we are producing puts such a damper on growth(plus sovereign risk) today that it is *the* issue right now.

    So we have the right goal. You agree that privatization produces more cost savings than medium sized cuts. **But the disconnect here is that your not seeing a lot of Newt’s proposals as privatization or partial privatization.**

    Once you look at each of these and go “Okay if you replaced the current system with this idea would that mean privatization or partial privatization”? And in practically all of these cases its hard not to come to that conclusion.

  • valrobex

    I

  • acat

    will take his campaign war chest and go after Casey jr. to get his seat back.

    Mew

  • valrobex

    why we agree on so much.

    In my business life I worked in Finance, too.

    That probably explains our similarities of thought.

  • wonkish1

    on here that I’ve appreciated their comments…come to find out they work in finance as well.

    Its a nice background to have when your assessing politicians, bills, etc. because you can cut right through the bulls*** and get right down to what does this mean for cost, liabilities, etc. going forward.

  • Common_Cents

    I tend to look at reality, filter out the fluff and noise and look at hard results, not spin or rationalizations.

    You learn that lesson quickly in starting businesses, finance, and trading.

  • wonkish1

    In particular when I made that comment.

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    Imagine for a moment if Newt were to say this:

    “I’ve expressed a great many ideas and opinions, have proffered a great number of policy proposals. Some have been rendered ineffectual by historical events, some have been proven right, some wrong…”

    Newt would continue:

    “And a great number of them are still very valid proposals, and, in my opinion still would be very effective in producing the sort of results for which the were originally intended.

    But, the facts on the ground have changed dramatically since those times. We’ve been attacked by four years of Barack Obama’s form of soft tyranny. When I made the vast bulk of these proposals, the national debt was around $5 trillion dollars. Today, it stands at three times that amount. So, while many of my past proposals and ideas are still very good and effective, and some would still be very good to implement, my administration will begin by completely eliminating the 2009 Stimulus Bill, the $500 billion omnibus spending bill that followed on it’s heals, and we will immediately repeal all spending and legislation relating to Obamacare.

    This will effectively return us to 2008 spending levels, and we will then commence turning our attention to other, more creative methods to further reduce spending–; be it through merit prizes, block grants to states, and so on, as I’ve suggested in the past…”

  • wonkish1

    First of all, the “stimulus” bill is practically all spent by now. So there isn’t much to eliminate there. The money is gone and there is no way of getting it back or reducing it back down. All you have now is the extra debt left behind from it.

    ***But again there is a key disconnect here: your not seeing a lot of Newt

  • valrobex

    A well managed mutual fund (MFs), left alone by over meddling govt. regulations (i.e., Dodd-Frank,) will average 8 to 10 percent growth over any given ten year period. Once the level of assets is established, as determined by proper actuarial methods, our nation

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    about the “Current Services Baseline”? This “stimulus” of 2009 (“The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act”) along with the follow-on $490 some-odd billion “Omnibus Spending Bill” both increased the Current Services Baseline, and, in our current era of not passing budgets, simply was tacked on additionally, year over year, with “continuing resolutions”? It was not a “one-time” stimulus, a fact that few Americans are aware of, and this amount of increase has been spent in 2009, 2010, and 2011. It will continue to be spent unless, and until, we actually pass a budget. Even then, under the current climate, it will play hell trying to get rid of the damned increase in the Baseline.

    The first “stimulus” was indeed spent. But, it added, along with the omnibus, another $1.3 TRILLION dollars to the baseline. This fact is why the deficits have BALLOONED under Obama and Pelosi and Reid. It is also why Paul Ryan has steadfastly insisted that we return to the baseline of 2008– this isn’t just a handy year to pick, it is the last year before the “stimulus”.

    This is why, in 2008, George Bush’s last budget was $2.89 Trillion dollars, and the 2011 budget is projected at $3.98 Trillion. THE STIMULUS IS BUILT IN TO THE CURRENT SERVICES BASELINE.

    And, yes, I would love to get back to 2000 levels. But, as I say, slashing to get back to 2008 is a damned good start. And the fact that I’ve had to give a little primer in the CSB proves why we need folks like Newt to give solid voice to the simple problem of overspending.

  • wonkish1

    If you are for private accounts in SS or even Medicaid it **completely wipes out** the future liability to the government. I mean you want to talk about about cutting costs. Increasing the retirement age for future beneficiaries or lower benefits still leaves huge liabilities in the system. Only privatization completely wipes out that future liability.

    So yeah when your talking Fiscal and Budgetary mattes privatization is the single best way to deal with it. And that is true of almost everything.

    People that just sit around advocating for a 10% reduction in gov. employees, a pay freeze, etc. are completely missing the park. The real opportunities are in privatization where you can lower costs in a lot of these programs by 30% or more or completely wipeout future liabilities in the case of Medicare or Social Security.

  • wonkish1

    There is definitely a decent chunk that added into the baseline. Not all of it though. A large chunk got killed off when the funds were spent.

    I haven’t looked up the numbers of what has and what hasn’t, but I know there has been at least a pretty large chunk that was added into the baseline and a pretty decent chunk that wasn’t.