CNN: '1994- Newt Gingrich's Contract With America'

Source:CNN- House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia) talking about the House Republicans Contract With America.

 "In 1994, Newt Gingrich led Republicans against the Clinton administration and orchestrated "The Contract With America." 

From CNN

The 1994 Republican Revolution in Congress that not only saw the Republican Party take control of the House of Representatives for the first time in forty years, but saw them take control of the Senate for the first time in eight years, was obviously very impressive. First of all the numbers: they went from I believe 178 Seats in the House to 230, a fifty two seat pickup in one mid-term election. And then some right-wing Democratic Representatives switched over to the Republican Party right after that election. 

And Senate Republicans went from forty four Senators, a filibuster proof minority to fifty three, a nine seat pickup in the Senate. Where only 1/3 of the Senators runs every two years so that pretty impressive as well. 

But it's how Congressional Republicans did this: a lot of it were gifts from the Democratic Party President Clinton and the Democratic Congress. The 103rd Democratic Congress was very productive as far as passing legislation. President Clinton got most of his agenda from the 1992 campaign through his first two years. 

I'm not sure a lot of people are aware of this and I believe a lot of good legislation. Two trade agreements that both actually had bipartisan support that the Republican Leadership who were still in the minority in both the House and Senate, instead of trying to block it like they were successful in doing with health Care reform, helped try to pass those bills.

Then President Clinton got his Family and Medical Leave bill through, his deficit reduction bill through without one Republican in Congress voting for it. And the 1994 crime bill that had some bipartisan support for. As well as two Supreme Court Justices through the Democratic Senate, Stephen Brier and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, two liberals, by the way. 

But the problem with most of this legislation that President Clinton and Congressional Democrats passed was how unpopular it was with the Republican base and Independents and ended up uniting the entire Republican Party against President Clinton and the Democratic Congress. 

And the Republican Congressional Leadership along with the Republican National Committee and their allies knew how unpopular Washington Democrats were and were able to take advantage of this anger across the country and tell people especially in Republican areas, that they don't like what the Democrats are doing as well, vote for them in 1994 and they'll stop them. Along with the Senate Republican Leadership with Bob Dole able to block more legislation from passing. 

Another thing that I respected as a political junky and also as a Liberal even though I disagreed with a lot of the Contract with America, was what it was about, getting America back to classical conservatism, especially fiscal conservatism and foreign policy conservatism. Even though they brought in the Christian- Right which certainly doesn't represent classical conservatism but religious fundamentalism.

The Newt Gingrich Congressional Republicans (especially in the House) weren't from the George W Bush Administration. Their message was the Federal Government was too big, has too much power and spends too much money. And has moved away from what the U.S. Constitution and we need to send some of this power back to the states and people. And give them a bigger say in how they govern themselves. This was sort of a Barry Goldwater/Ron Reagan conservative message. That they almost threw away in their first two years but they got off to a good start.

Reagan Foundation: President Reagan's- Address To The Nation On The Economy- 2/05/81

Source:Reagan Foundation- President Ronald W. Reagan, 40th President of The United States.

"President Ronald Reagan's address to the nation on the economy. 2/5/81. For more information on the ongoing works of President Reagan's Foundation, visit us at:Reagan Foundation." 

From the Reagan Foundation

When Ronald Reagan became President in 1981 and brought in a Republican controlled Senate for the first time in twenty-six years led by Leader Howard Baker, he had a fairly basic agenda when he came in and was very disciplined in how he accomplished it. 

President Reagan n 1979-80 ran on turning the economy around, get it growing and creating jobs again and end the Cold War with the Soviet Union. His economic plan was centered around cutting taxes and regulations drastically and ending the Cold War by expanding the military in hopes of bringing the Russians to the negotiating table. And he didn’t really care about how this was accomplished as long as he did it.

As much as Ron Reagan spoke as a Conservative as a private citizen, he was a pragmatist as a Governor and President. He knew for everything that he was going to get out of Congress, where Democrats controlled the House for all eight years and the Senate for two years and had a large minority in the Senate for six years, he knew he was going to have to give some things to get what he wanted. 

Tip O’Neil a Democrat who was Speaker of the House for six of President Reagan’s eight years as President, both men who have almost nothing in common other than being Irish-American. Worked very well together.

President Reagan also worked very well with Robert Byrd who was the Democratic Leader of the Senate for President Reagan’s entire Presidency. Six years as Minority Leader and two years as Leader and he had a very good working relationship with Leader Baker as well. 

As ideological as Ron Reagan might of sounded and Howard Baker and him had a lot in common politically, Leader Baker was Leader of the Senate and was a legislator more than anything else. And knew he had to work with Bob Byrd, Speaker O’Neil and President Reagan in order to get anything done. 

President Reagan was a great politician and was very pragmatic and knew he had to work with Congressional Democrats as well as his own Congressional Leadership to pass anything out of Congress.

As much as President Reagan spoke about the need for fiscal responsibility, balancing the budget and a Balance Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the opposite was true. When he became President back in 1981, he inherited an awful economy from President Carter. But a small budget deficit of 40B$ or so and a manageable Federal debt of 32.5% of GDP, or 4.55T$, or less than a third of today’s Federal debt. 

When President Reagan left office in 1989, he left President George H.W. Bush with a Federal deficit of around 200B$ and a Federal debt of of 53.1% of GDP or 7.43T$ in today’s terms. Still small compared with the Federal debt of today.

When President Reagan became President in 1981, the Federal budget was 22.7% of GDP and when he left office in 1989 the Federal budget was 27.3% of GDP. 

Ronald Reagan did not run for President to balance the budget, but to make the economy strong, get the Federal Government off our backs as he put it and end the Cold War with Russia. And if that means running large budget deficits debts and that’s a small price to pay for a strong economy and ending the Cold War, he thought that price was worth paying. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Saul Alinsky- 'Mobilizing The Poor (1967)'

Source:Firing Line- Community activist Saul Alinsky, appearing on Firing Line in 1967.

"The common aim of all Mr. Alinsky's organizations is to mobilize the poor--mobilize them by whatever mean comes to hand (marches, sit-ins)--to demand decent housing conditions or whatever the local need may be. This one is a knock-down, drag-out from start to finish. SA: "I refuse to debate with him [David Riesman], which only came up recently ... I made the remark that any time I see any of his stuff, it sort of makes me feel like a grizzled, battle-scarred dog going down the street while way back, say, six blocks back or so, this little whining Pekingese comes out sniffing, yipping, and licking and growling at my leavings. And I'm not going to waste my time turning around." 

From the Hoover Institution 

"Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: Mobilizing the Poor" 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"There are many who know little or nothing about the recent and distant past. They are often disinterested about such things and when pressed can find no value in its study.

 

Because our lives are linear we can't escape an essential truth: that an event follows a previous event and that, quite often, new things and ideas are built upon those that preceded them. What came before informs and influences the present and possibly the future, too. Knowledge of those things, people, and events of the past can't help but shine a sort of light on life and events of today, and what might be tomorrow. This is a simple calculus but all too often ignored. The great challenge is not finding historical things, events, and people to study, but interpreting their meaning—particularly as they might relate to the present.

 

After the election victory of Donald J. Trump, the country appears to have descended into upheaval. President Trump's election success was directly due to the functions of the checks and balances system (as represented in this case by the Electoral College) constructed by the founders; the losing candidate soon called for its abolition. Such an essentially revolutionary response to an election defeat is readily understood if the times themselves are seen as revolutionary, too." 

Source:New English Review- community activist Saul Alinsky, on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1967.

From New English Review

‘Mobilizing the Poor’, sounds like a great idea to me, but what to mobilize them for is the question. What do you want them to do. 

Now, me if I’m going to mobilize the poor, I would work with them to improve their own lives and empower them to empower their own lives. To make themselves self-sufficient, but also to get them involved in their own communities, if nothing else to make them better. So they are no longer stuck living in crumbling housing projects, living in dangerous neighborhoods and living in low-income communities where they can’t get good jobs. Because one, good jobs don’t exist in their communities. But also because they don’t have the skills to get good jobs and their kids won’t get the skills to get good jobs.

We still have low-skilled low-income adults are stuck going to rotten schools in violent neighborhoods, because their parents don’t have a choice in where they send their kids to school. And thus are stuck with the same awful future that their parents had or in lost of cases just one parent. Perhaps never ever meeting their biological father or mother and in many cases father and end up repeating the same cycle of poverty as past generations in their family. 

In women’s cases having kids too early and not finishing high school to take care of their kids. Ending up on Welfare or stuck working minimum wage jobs the rest of their lives or perhaps ending up hanging out with the wrong crowds and ending up in jail or prison with kids.

And in men’s cases fathering kids way too early and perhaps never even meeting them or walking out on them, because they are not ready to raise them and can’t handle it. And perhaps dropping out of high school and ending up on Welfare or stuck working minimum wage jobs the rest of their lives as well. Or ending up in jail or prison, because they tried to make easy money by again hanging out with the wrong crowd. 

This is the future that we as a society should mobilize the poor to get away from and into a much more positive future of quality education, for parents and their kids, good jobs for the parents and their kids, so they can live in thriving communities.

If you’re talking about people living in poverty, but a have place of their own to live in, like an apartment, but don’t make enough money to support themselves on their own, or are on Welfare Insurance and don’t work at all, then I believe the answers to finally winning the so-called War on Poverty, are good, positive and simple. 

And it really gets down to education, for parents and their kids to get the skills that they need to become self-sufficient and live in their own home. And it’s also about housing as well, whether it gets to encouraging the private sector to invest in low-income communities and train some of the people there. So they can get the skills that they need to get good jobs in these company’s, so the people there can get good jobs to become self-sufficient.

We should be reforming Public Housing in a way all together by instead of forcing low-income people to live in housing projects in low-income communities. Build these housing projects in middle class communities so low-income people are exposed to other communities around them and aren’t forced to live in violent communities. And have a shot at living a good life but reforming Public Housing alone won’t solve the problem. 

Another component has to be about reforming public education in America. So low-income students and their parents aren’t stuck going to bad schools, where perhaps they won’t even finish high school. But even if they do finish high school, they won’t have the skills that they need to get good jobs.

America needs public school choice so parents can decide on their own what school to send their kids too. But also empowering low-income parents and adults to finish high school as well as go to community college so they can get the skills that they need to get good jobs. 

The answer to finally winning the War on Poverty is not just Welfare checks, even though that helps people on Welfare Insurance survive in the short-term. But the answers to finally winning the so-called War on Poverty is about empowering low-income people to get the skills that they need to become self-sufficient on their own. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Hoover Institution: Eric Hanushek- 'Schools Fiscal Crisis Unclear'

 

Source:Hoover Institution- Eric Hanushek, talking about American schools.

"Hoover senior fellows and members of the Koret Task Force on K--12 Education Eric Hanushek and Paul Peterson dissect the fiscal problems in US education. Short-run revenue problems are hard to solve just by wishful thinking, but the long-run problems caused by health care demands and unfunded retirement liabilities are real." 

From the Hoover Institution

When it comes to eduction funding especially for our public schools, we should judge our spending not just by the amount we spend on our public schools, but also by what we spend that money on and what we get in return. 

Our public schools are generally funded through state and local property taxes: this is tax revenue so we should be making sure we spend this money on things that work. And make sure we get the best bang for our bucks as possible. Instead of judging success by the amount of money we spend, instead of what we get. 

If we judged our public schools by the amount we spend on them and nothing else, Washington would have the best public school system in America of any big city certainly, but any city in general. Because they spend the most per-capita on public education then anyone else or one of the highest levels in the country. And they have instead one of the worst public education systems in America. When it comes to other big cities but public education systems in America as well. 

So what we should be doing is figure out what works in public education and each public school system should figure this out for themselves. With the FEDS and states helping out research and funding and figure out what doesn't work. Fund better the things that do work and either cut back, eliminate or reform what doesn't work. It's pretty much that simple. 

One thing doesn't work is paying teachers based on their time of service, instead of quality of service. Because that puts in a built in incentive for educators not to do a good job or the best job as possible. Because they know they'll get an automatic pay raise based on the time that they serve. So that would be one reform I'm in favor of, eliminate teacher tenure and pay the good teachers well and eliminate or retrain the low-performing teachers. 

Pay teachers based on the job that they do and reward the good ones and pay teachers more money up front, so people well educated who could make a lot of money doing other things. Would have more incentive to go into the education profession. This would be one reform that I would like to see and then I would fund it well. 

Funding our public schools should be about what works and what doesn't and go from there. Funding what does work at a good amount and cutting, eliminating or reforming what doesn't. And figure out how to fund what works in the most efficient and cost-effective way possible, so you also have money to fund other priorities. 

Euro News: 'Cuba Looks to The Future, While Marking its Past'

"

Source:Euro News- The beautiful Caribbean island of Cuba.

"Euronews is a European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players."

From Wikipedia 

"As Cuba marked one of the biggest days in the history of its revolution, leaders were pledging to pursue reforms of the island's Soviet-style economy." 

From Euro News

Cuba is a beautiful somewhat small Caribbean island nation of around 11M people. And even though it's been a Communist State for over fifty years now with an authoritarian government and a Marxist-Communist economy, but with the passing of President Fidel Castro and his brother Raul now the President, a man who's recognized the need for progressive reform. (As opposed to regressive and illiberal) Something the Cuban People both still in Cuba but in America recognize as well. 

Cuba actually does some things well especially for a third World nation, like in education where their kids are educated well. But the problem is, you can have the best education in the world but if there aren't good jobs available for you which is largely the case in Cuba with its Marxist-Communist economy, with the State owning the means and production of society, you're not going to find enough good jobs, for enough people in an economy like that. The best education possible won't get you a good job if you have an economy thats dominated by inefficient state-owned industries. Cuba also has a very good state-run Health care system. 

I believe Cuba will move in the direction of China instead of Russia: start off with economic reform. (Meaning privatization and regulation) Hopefully their economy will move more like China than Russia and they are able to cut back on the amount of corruption in the economy. And most of the economic resources to going to a small percentage of people. And then moving to personal freedom later in the process. 

Communism I believe is not popular in Cuba any longer but I believe socialism is popular in Cuba and hopefully they'll move in the direction of social democracy instead of Marxist-Communism. Socialism is popular in Cuba and I could see a Socialist, hopefully a Democratic Socialist Party merging in Cuba in the future. 

If the Cuban Government ever moved in the direction of allowing opposition party's, perhaps the Communist Party will reform into the Social DemocraticParty (to stay in power, if nothing else) because socialism is popular in Cuba, 

I believe the direction that Cuba should head into the future, is to look more like Europe thats filled with social democracies. Instead of America thats more of a liberal democracy. And hopefully they'll allow for personal freedom as well. Reforming the Constitution or writing a new one, Bill of Rights, those sorts of things.

Ray Koch: President Richard Nixon- 'Birth of The HMO'

Source:Ray Koch- President Richard M. Nixon (Republican, California) talking to his Domestic Policy Director JohnEhrlichman, about health care reform, in 1971.

"In 1971, Edgar Kaiser, the son of the founder of Kaiser Permanente, one of the first big HMOs, went to see John Ehrlichman, a top aide to President Nixon, to lobby the Nixon White House to pass legislation that would expand the market for health maintenance organizations (HMOs). Ehrlichman reported this conversation to Nixon on February 17, 1971. The discussion, which was taped, went like this: Ehrlichman: I had Edgar Kaiser come in...talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because the less care they give them, the more money they make. President Nixon: Fine. The next day, Nixon publicly announced he would be pushing legislation that would provide Americans "the finest health care in the world." 

From Ray Koch

Whether you're a fan of HMO's (Health Maintenance Organizations) or not, there's one person as well as the Democratic Congress of 1971-72 or 92nd Congress, that you can thank: the people who brought employer based health insurance to America, President Richard M. Nixon. 

With HMO's, anyone with a good job, whether they work in the private or public sector, has health insurance partially paid for by your employer. And of course you pay the other part which is taken out of your paycheck. 

Apparently before we had HMO's we had a fairly efficient health care system as far as our costs. But not enough people were covered with health insurance. Which makes health care and health insurance more expensive for everyone else.

The main reasons why Medicare and Medicaid were created in 1965, to provide government-run health insurance for senior citizens and low-income people who haven't retired yet. However you feel about President Nixon, he did make a contribution to health care reform in America. Whether you believe it's a positive contribution or not. 

I don't have a problem with HMO's as long as they are regulated properly, which they weren't before the 2010 Affordable Care Act. That included a Patient Bill of Rights in it, which essentially means that HMO's and health insurers, can't turn down people who need health insurance when get sick, or put lifetime caps on the amount that people can consume in their health care.

Basically as long as people pay for their share of their health insurance, they can't get dropped from their health coverage. If this was done back in 1971-72, maybe we don't have the most expensive health care system in the developed world right now. 

President Nixon, took a stab at health care reform, President Carter the same thing, President Clinton as well with his famous debacle. President George W. Bush and it took President Obama and a Democratic Congress with large majority's in both chambers to get it passed. All of this work and debates could've been avoided if HMO's were regulated properly from the start and we could've saved our health care system forty years of inefficiency.

If we had a Patient Bill of Rights from the start, we could have saved trillions on health care the last forty years. But perhaps President Nixon and the Democratic Congress then, couldn't predict the abuses that would've come in the future. 

Whether you're a fan of President Nixon or not and yes his main contribution and focus he gave to America was in foreign policy with Russia, China and ending the Vietnam War, he also made a contribution in environmental policy, and in health care as well. And he may of had a good idea at the time, but didn't put the right regulations in place. To prevent the abuses and the costs that came in the future.

Bob Parker: World News Tonight With Peter Jennings- 'Balanced Budget Story From 1995'

Source:Bob Parker- U.S. Representative Henry Hyde (Republican, Illinois) Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in 1995 and a proponent of a BBA.

"Story about Congress talking about a balanced budget amendment from January 1995.  It is kind of funny to hear what is being said in wake of the current debt ceiling debate." 

From Bob Parker

I've been thinking about the idea of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on and off for about fourteen years now or so (back when I was in kindergarten, ha, ha) since the last time Congress spent time considering it. 

At first I kind of liked the idea as someone who believes in fiscal responsibility, which me to means spend no more than you make and try to save as much as possible and put away as much as possible without hurting yourself. And only spending money on the things that you need and spend that money in the most efficient way as possible. Concepts that the Federal Government doesn't seem to understand, as well as a lot of state government's. 

My main problem with a Balanced Budget Amendment, would be the Federal courts or any other courts. Do we want unelected bodies telling the Federal Government how it can spend the tax revenue it collects, which I believe could happen when there are issues of whether Federal budgets are balanced and in the black or not. And when could the Federal budget be in the red, because all Balance Budget Amendments have exceptions for when the budget can be in the red. Like when the country is under attacked or in a depression, when the Federal Government is the only institution thats capable of borrowing money in America. Because they control the national currency and it might take a Federal judge to decide that these things are happening, even if it's obvious to everyone else. 

There are certain times in life for the Federal Government to now borrow money and go in the red and run a deficit. So for me to support a Balanced Budget Amendment, it would have to designed in a way to avoid this. Would be to leave it up to the Congressional Budget Office or Federal Reserve, people who can get fired for not doing a good job. Unlike Federal judges who can only be removed through impeachment and conviction which comes from being corrupt. And generally not from the job they do as judges. 

Or have some type of super majority vote in both chambers of Congress to declare its OK to borrow money, lay out what the conditions are and force Congress to declare them before it borrows money. The Balanced Budget Amendment has no place in today's debt and deficit reduction debate. Because it doesn't have the votes in either chamber of Congress to pass right now. And it would take 5-10 years for it ever to become law anyway because the states would have to approve it. 

But down the road a BBA I believe has some potential if we can keep the Federal courts out of making budget decisions for the Federal Government. A BBA that I could support, would only have three exceptions for the FEDS to borrow money and would have a strict PAYGO (pay as you go) requirement for the FEDS to borrow money. The United States itself would have to be under attacked and for us to be at war. Not a military base oversees but the country physically itself. 

Two, we are either in a depression or recession which would be declared by lets say the Federal Reserve and those would be my only two exceptions. And then the President would have to declare this and it would take a 3/5 Vote in both chambers of Congress to make it official. All other Federal operations would have to be paid for when one of the two exceptions to borrow money hasn't been declared. Including military operations domestic and foreign including war and invasions and disaster relief. 

And these things can be paid for if the Federal Government sets up fund for both of them. And then I would put in things as long as we are under a BBA, that require the Federal Government to stay within economic growth and the rate of inflation. Meaning it couldn't grow higher than those two rates. 

A Balanced Budget Amendment if done right, could result in forcing the Federal Government to be responsible with the tax revenue it collects and set priorities and actually pass a Federal budget every year. Instead of running the country into red and piling on debt that no one can pay back or has the intention of ever paying back.