To Save America, by Newt Gingrich: on Government Reform
Arnold Schwarzenegger:
2005: Four ballot propositions all lost by wide margins
In June 2005, Schwarzenegger called a special election and backed four propositions that were the centerpieces of his reform efforts. Two of these were controversial from the start: Proposition 77 (perhaps because of a distrust of judges) polled 35% for
it and 46% opposed. However, Proposition 74 & 75, for education reform, were initially very popular, earing 61% and 57% approval, respectively.These two measures threatened the power of unions and would have substantially weakened the
Sacramento political machine. So the machine responded with total war.
It was the most expensive special election in history, costing by some accounts more than $300 million. Unions alone spent more than $100 million in advertising & voter mobilization
efforts. The result: all eight ballot initiatives were defeated, including the four backed by Schwarzenegger. Despite their initial popularity, propositions 74 and 75 lost by ten points or more. Propositions 76 and 77 were beaten by even larger margins.
Source: To Save America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 75
May 17, 2010
Barack Obama:
Used signing statements, like Bush, 17 times in 2009
Accusing Pres. Bush of abusing signing statements, candidate Obama pledged in 2007 not to use them to "nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law." When asked, Obama responded unequivocally, "We aren't going to use signing
statements as a way to do an end run around Congress."After taking office, however, Obama suddenly became enamored with signing statements. In fact, in 2009 Obama used signing statements to object to specific legislative provisions 17 times.
Obama stopped issuing statements after some Democrats objected that he was breaking his campaign pledge. Promise salvaged?
Actually, no--it just got worse. The Obama administration still ignores parts of legislation they sign; they just stopped
issuing signing statements announcing their intention to do so. Instead, the administration feels justified in ignoring objectionable provisions as long as they have previously expressed concern about them in a "statement of administration policy."
Source: To Save America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 65-66
May 17, 2010
Charles Rangel:
Leave of absence as committee chair for ethics investigation
Congressman, Charles Rangel from New York has taken a "leave of absence" from his position as head of the committee that writes our tax laws, is under an ethics committee investigation for alleged tax dodging, filing deficient financial disclosure forms,
and other charges. Although the committee "admonished" him--its weakest reprimand--for taking corporate-sponsored trips to the Caribbean, [While some] Democratic colleagues called for Rangel to step down as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee,
Speaker Nancy Pelosi stressed that Rangel's actions we "not something that jeopardized our country in any way." Is this the new ethical standard we were promised--that corruption is acceptable as long as it doesn't "jeopardize" the country?
Five others in Congress who took the same Caribbean trips as Congressman Rangel were cleared after claiming they did not realize the trips were sponsored by corporations, even though they repeatedly took pictures in front of corporate logos.
Source: To Save America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 59-60
May 17, 2010
Newt Gingrich:
Replace Washington controls with American ideals
The fundamental difference between historic American ideals & those of the secular-socialist Left can be seen in ten conflicting values:- Work vs. theft
- Productivity vs. union work rules and bureaucracy
- Elected representation vs. bureaucrats
& judges
- Honesty vs. corruption
- Low taxes with limited government vs. high taxes with big government
- Private property vs. government controls
- Localism vs. Washington control
- American energy vs. environmental extremism
- Conflict resolutio
vs. litigation
- Religious belief vs. secular oppression
Any one of these conflicts represents clashing values on the most basic level. Taken collectively, they indicate two irreconcilable worldviews that cannot coexist in the American system.
Eventually one of these value systems will defeat & replace the other. If we lose this struggle, the America of our fathers and forefathers will be forever lost, giving way to a secular-socialist machine that will never relinquish power of its own accord
Source: To Save America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 7
May 17, 2010
Newt Gingrich:
Passing massive debt to next generation is immoral
Because government power expands at the direct expense of individual freedom, the best way to protect liberty, particularly religious liberty, is to limit the size and scope of government at all levels. To do that, we should pass a balanced budget
amendment. Passing on our massive federal debt to the next generation is immoral. The best way to stop the politicians from bankrupting our country and limiting freedom is to pass a balanced budge4t amendment to the Constitution.
Source: To Save America, by Newt Gingrich, p.273
May 17, 2010
Page last updated: Feb 25, 2019