« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Newt’s Solyndra

By: Paula Bolyard (Diary)  |  November 12th, 2011 at 01:55 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Obama’s Blueprint for a Clean Energy Future:

“Maintaining our leadership in research and development is critical to winning the future and deploying innovative technologies that will create quality jobs and move towards clean energy economy that reduces our reliance on oil. But as we aspire to achieve new breakthroughs – a battery that will take a car 300 miles on a single charge or a way to turn sunlight into fuel like gasoline, we area already beginning to see how our investments in the future are changing the game today. Through the Recovery Act, the Administration has invested in a host of clean energy programs and ultimately supported thousands of projects across the country targeted at the demonstration of clean energy projects in every state.”

Newt’s 21st Century Contract with America:

“Today, we are on the cusp of an explosion of new science that will create new
opportunities in health, agriculture, energy, and materials technology.
Breakthroughs in brain science, in particular, will open up enormous opportunities for cures and treatments for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, autism, mental illness and learning disabilities. The question in the twenty-first century is whether we reform our system so we can educate, regulate, and invest in a way that allows us to continue to be at the forefront of innovation….

 ”…Furthermore, government agencies such as the National Institutes for Heath have the opportunity to use scientific research funding today in a way that will avert massive costs and human suffering in the future.

“As Americans now live longer than ever, one of the greatest fiscal threats in health is the rising cost of treating Alzheimer’s patients. The current estimate is that the combined public and private cost of Alzheimer’s between today to 2050 will be $20 trillion. That is one and a half times the current total federal debt. But a smart emphasis on brain science and innovation today can change this projection for the better..

“…While this topic may initially seem unusual in a proposed 21st Century Contract with America, I look forward to laying out my case of why I believe that brain science will soon be a major part of planning for better health and longer lives with greater independence and lower costs to the federal and state governments. It will also be an area in which American leadership could lead to an enormous number of new American jobs providing services for the entire world.”

Stimulus for green jobs to solve the energy crisis, stimulus for healthcare jobs to solve the Alzheimer’s crisis. Six of one, half dozen of the other. 

The former Speaker has a habit of picking favored projects for incentives. 

The Club for Growth’s Presidential White Paper on Gingrich documents his accomplishments as a solid conservative but also notes his penchant for big government meddling when it seems to be politically expedient or it benefits one of his pet projects. They conclude: 

“Unfortunately, the problems in Speaker Gingrich’s record are frequent enough and serious enough to give pause. On two of the most important recent issues that confronted limited government conservatives (creating the new budget busting Medicare drug entitlement, and the Wall Street bailout), Gingrich was on the wrong side. His advocacy of an individual health care mandate is problematic. His penchant for tinkering with rewards for favored industries and outcomes shows a troubling willingness to use federal power to coerce taxpayers into his preferred direction. And his occasional hostility toward conservatives who do not share his desire to support liberal Republicans or to compromise on matters of principle is worrisome.”

While Newt has apparently repented of his romp on the couch with Princess Nancy, there are plenty of other issues he’s been on the wrong side of, some of them recently. Though he’s not the flip-flopper Romney is, Gingrich is not exactly the model of consistency. He preaches smaller government while promoting big government programs that he personally approves up. He talks a good game and debates well, but we must understand that his inconsistency points to a philosophy rooted in compromise and political expediency. 

 

 

Cross-posted @ Bold Colors

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • beric

    for private businesses to invest in is a perfectly legitimate. Look at all the technology that NASA got us that we use every day today, such as microwaves, even as horribly inefficient of an organization as it is. Think where we’d be today if we had more private firms investing in space travel.

    Technology development actually helps the economy and makes us the global leader we are, not just picks arbitrary winners and losers, like “green” technology does. Encouraging technology development is why we have the most technologically advanced military in the world (and invented the airplane), and why most of the true innovation still happens here, despite outsourcing of numerous lower-level jobs.

    It’s not time to be passing out massive dollars in stimulus to private tech firms. But encouraging technological development, from everything to patent reform, tax breaks, and even just speeches about it, is a perfectly legitimate government role.

    • nathanalbright

      And Newt’s problems is that he is attracted to the power of government to try to pick “winners” that he likes, and isn’t firm enough on principle to deny himself that (liberal and socialist) pleasure of using power to support pet projects. That’s part of the problem that got us in the mess we’re in as a nation right now, regardless of party affiliation. And the fact that he’s willing to help cronies by giving them subsidies while laying an ax to welfare doesn’t sit well with me–corporate welfare offends me far more than aid to the poor.

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce;

    One could find legitimate national security applications for NASA (Star Wars, etc.), though I’m not sure the entirety of the program is justified, but so-called “green jobs” and research for diseases, while altruistic and kind-hearted, do not fall under the legitimate, constitutional functions of the federal government as the founders envisioned it.

  • Wayne

    good points and I ponder those questions about Newt daily as my support for him grows. I am more influenced by his consistent public persona than his record, though I am not ignorant of their contradiction.

    The problem that must fit into the equation of determining whom to support for the Republican nomination are three (3) fold; 1) A conservative candidate that has a better than 50/50 chance of beating Obama. 2) A conservative candidate that has a reasonably consistent record of conservatism and 3)… I forget the third… one…

    Just kidding… 3) And perhaps the most important is a conservative candidate that believes and can articulate to the voting public why the collusion of big government and big business are the problem and not the solution. This is the most troublesome part of the formula for Newt. Though none of the candidates are trouble free in this regard. While Newt is more than capable of articulating the logical evils of a marriage between big government and big business, his record will come back to haunt him. Perry, Cain and Romney have the same problem. The other candidates will not raise the funds necessary to beat Obama. It would seem that we (the conservative community) have a difficult choice to make, but make it we must.

    Every candidate to the number must get in bed with big business to raise the kind of funds necessary to engage in this fight. Unfortunately for us, that means regardless of all considerations, big business cannot be removed from the picture. The grassroots fund raising that the Tea Party has brought to the table has not proven to be sufficient to counterbalance the ability of large corporations and special interests that will support a given candidate. Though it will have its influence.

    For now, my support remains firmly with Perry but I still believe Newt would be a good partner in Perry’s camp. However, because of Perry’s fundamental small government record, Newt would not seriously consider Perry in his camp unless it was politically expedient. And, that may not be a bad thing if one believes this is a multi generational fight we are engaged in.

    I’ve been reading about the Cherokee Nation’s attempt to become part of the American Dream while being faithful to their heritage in the early 18th century. Though it failed, (mostly because the nation got behind the wrong leader), we could learn a great deal about their strategy by applying those principles to this campaign and our long term goals.

    I wish there was a viable alternative to Newt as a running mate with Perry that had a better than average chance of going up against Obama and winning.

    The individual that secures the Republican nomination must be one that has a firm record of conservative principles in their political career but enough of a politician to understand that this fight cannot be won in a single election.

  • dajeeps

    Job one for who gets the nomination is to win the general. If he/she cannot win the general, all of this is just pointless machination. I think Newt has a good chance at that, especially since I expect him to wipe the floor with Obama in debates.

    Does his streak of statism involving certain things he is personally interested in bother me? Sure. But the rest of the stuff he says he will do has an awful lot of mileage potential for fundamentally reforming government and returning a great portion of usurped power back to the states. Things will still be enormously improved over any time period since LBJ trashed this country with the “Great Society. ” And so that is a trade off I’m willing to make in supporting Newt. He is the only one with a comprehensive plan that has a golden thread of logic running through it. The other guys have parts and pieces, mainly tax plans, but how we pay for government isn’t really such a pressing issue when everything else about the government is.

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    Remember when Romney said that to Newt in the Vegas debate? Newt took cover behind the Heritage Foundation, but the fact remains, the individual mandate was Newt’s defense against Hillarycare.

    Most people agree that Romney’s position on the individual mandate would kill Romney in the general election because it weakens his position against Obamacare. Wouldn’t the same be true for Newt?

    • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

      Because no one in the world before then had ever thought to require everyone to use government-provided healthcare…

      Newt plays a part in defeating Hillarycare, but is responsible for Obamacare. Good luck with that one.

    • Craigpennsylvania

      People – The mandate that The Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney wanted is something that conservatives should support.

      First, one needs to understand current federal law. This law states that no one can be turned away for health care just because he/she does not have insurance or enough money to pay for the care directly.

      The mandate that Heritage-Gingrich-Romney all supported was a TWO FOLD mandate.

      They were as follows:

      1. You must purchase health insurance

      OR

      2. You must pay for your health care yourself on a “fee for service” basis

      The idea that someone making $55,000 per year but who did not want to bother buying insurance because he can go to the ER free bothered The Heritage Foundation, Romney and Gingrich.

      When “Romney Care” passed, Mitt vetoed several parts of the legislation. All his vetoes were overturned.

      One of those was the provisions that people could opt out of buying insurance if they signed an agreement to pay for health care on this “fee for service” plan. The legislature in Mass. specifically stated that people could NOT opt out, and Romney vetoed this. The liberals overturned his veto.

      This is a conservative position, requiring people to pay for his/her own health care.

      Unfortunately, we so called conservatives are so hell bent on tearing down our own guys that we ignore the truth.

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    While I don’t doubt that Newt would be able to pull some Chuck Norris-style debate move to explain it, the majority of the electorate won’t bother to try to understand the complicated machinations of the Speaker. Most will believe a 20 second sound bite in a commercial and think he flipped.

    • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

      The average American isn’t going to care. People want jobs. Whoever can get on that message will win. Jobs, jobs, jobs. After talking about that, they should be talking about jobs.

      • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

        In an election with huge voter turnout and massive union turnout, 66% said they did care about this issue. You can’t just dismiss it.

        • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

          The primary issue this cycle is jobs. The candidate the finds the right jobs message will be able to override everything else. The MSM and Democrats know this, that’s why they’re trying to distract voters with everything else.