Newt Gingrich on super committee: ‘Told you so’
This reminder is coming today from the GOP presidential campaign of Newt Gingrich:
In New Hampshire on Sunday, while picking up an important endorsement from U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, Mitt Romney declared – apparently – that Republicans had been snookered by President Barack Obama. From Politico.com:
“He’s done nothing,” Romney claimed. “It is another example of failed leadership. He has not taken personal responsibility to get the supercommittee to find ways to balance the budget and cut spending.”
The Republican presidential front-runner also claimed Obama had “set a trap” by including an automatic $600 billion dollar cut in defense spending in the case the supercommittee failed to agree on a deficit reduction package.
- By Jim Galloway, Political Insider
For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
183 comments Add your comment
clem
November 21st, 2011
4:43 pm
td, how do you eat an elephant (no party affiliation intended) one bite at a time…..many years ago i had csm in army tell me two things that i tried to remember along the way….
inch by inch its a cinch and take care of the small things and the big things will take care of themselves
trite, but more often true than not in my experience
Local Attorney
November 21st, 2011
4:43 pm
“local attorney, thanks for input, but do you really think that matters to them unless it upsets the whole applecart for the corporatcracy?”
Yes, it matters. The flood of appeals and new law suits would be too much to risk.
Local Attorney
November 21st, 2011
4:45 pm
Not to mention, it will reveal a bias and a non-objective take on the law. Thier hands are basically tied by past presedents.
clem
November 21st, 2011
4:46 pm
local, part of me says good, but really the law as i understand it will do little to get our health costs in line with other pressing issues.
speaking of which, what is happening market wise on attorney fees and costs…up, down sideways….
how bout doctors?
just curious
Local Attorney
November 21st, 2011
5:07 pm
Some attorney’s are taking a hit on their fees…it really depends on the area of law. I think lawyers that work for the larger firms are affected a lot more than the solo’s. Many firms are working with skeleton crews and contract document reviewers (attorney’s between jobs), to increaes profits because fees have taken a hit. But then again, some attorney’s are getting more business than ever, and making money hand over fist.
My opinion on whether or not the SCOTUS will rule in favor of Obamacare is simply based on case law pertaining to the Commerce Clause. Personally, I don’t think the Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to regulate economic inactivity, but past case law leans that way. I just don’t think the Federal Gov. should be able to force a citizen to enter into a contract with a private company or pay a fine (tax) if they refuse to participate. It’s a slippery slope.
I’m not a Constitutional law professor, but have read the arguments, and MANY respected scholars believe it will be upheld.
Local Attorney
November 21st, 2011
5:07 pm
I can’t speak for how doctor’s businesses are doing these days, but I have heard from some friends that the HC Law will negatively effect them, but who really knows until it’s fully implemented…
td
November 21st, 2011
5:09 pm
The Truth
November 21st, 2011
4:41 pm
Ok, what did the two wars actually cost us? $1 trillion? What is out debt today $15 trillion. The two wars did not cause the problem. Numbers do not lie.
The Truth
November 21st, 2011
5:16 pm
“Ok, what did the two wars actually cost us? $1 trillion? What is out debt today $15 trillion. The two wars did not cause the problem. Numbers do not lie.”
You’re right, and I never said the two wars were responsible for the entire national debt. But the overwhelming majority of our debt can be attributed to THREE administrations –Reagan, Bush, and Bush II. Upwards of 13 TRILLION is attributed to those 3 administrations alone!
Republicans have proven they spend WAY MORE than the Democrats ever have…you’re right the numbers do not lie. Spending only matters now because a black democrat is in office. When W was in office, Cheney was quoted as saying, “The deficit doesn’t matter or mean anything.” It’s a political tool. Nothing more. That’s the truth.
td
November 21st, 2011
5:16 pm
Local Attorney
November 21st, 2011
4:45 pm
The Commerce clause was intended for the Federal government to make sure the states played fair with businesses all across the country. The progressive courts have said that the clause means the Federal government can control commerce in the US. My personal opinion is that the progressive courts has overstepped its boundaries and the current court will bring this swing back into a more traditional constitutional meaning.
The Truth
November 21st, 2011
5:17 pm
Also, the two wars have cost us over $1T THUS FAR….in case you haven’t noticed, they aren’t over. Not to mention the multiplier effects in the economy from our country being at war.
The direct cost of war isn’t the only cost.
clem
November 21st, 2011
5:18 pm
don’t forget medicare d, and tax cuts that did not create jobs in sufficient numbers…
yea, let’s go to war and cut taxes so you folks can shop a little so you won’t pay attention to the looming financial and housing collapse….yea, that’s the ticket
Local Attorney
November 21st, 2011
5:20 pm
td wrote: “The progressive courts have said that the clause means the Federal government can control commerce in the US. My personal opinion is that the progressive courts has overstepped its boundaries and the current court will bring this swing back into a more traditional constitutional meaning.”
You should review your case law. The conservative courts have set the presedents. The Commerce Clause is meant to regulate anything that effects interstate commerce. The Health Care industry is 1/6 of our entire economy, so it doesn’t take an economist to understand it is within their control. The mandatory requirement is the only issue, and past case law has stated that individual liberties are not entirely protected from the Federal government’s regulatory powers.
Local Attorney
November 21st, 2011
5:22 pm
The latest Court of Appeals ruling was opined by a VERY conservative judge who agrees with that. It follows conservative leaning SCOTUS presedents as much as it does progressive.
td
November 21st, 2011
5:25 pm
The Truth
November 21st, 2011
5:16 pm
Dick Chaney was wrong. Our debt is almost at 100% of our GDP right now. Look at what is happening to Greece, Spain, Ireland and Italy right now. You can not be a viable nation when your debt is much more than 100% of GDP. You can not also ask one segment of the population (rich) to pay all of the bills for the rest of society.
What we really need is a discussion in this society about what the role of government should be? What are the primary roles and what are the secondary roles? What can we afford to do and what can we not afford to do?
clem
November 21st, 2011
5:28 pm
thanks local, it is refreshing to have truly knowledgeable folks add to the discussion than listening to the opinions (though well intentioned) of the likes of me and td
Local Attorney
November 21st, 2011
5:28 pm
td – We are in agreement. I think Cheney was dead wrong, as I think that spending cuts alone is NOT a viable remedy. Also, corporate tax loopholes need to close.
clem
November 21st, 2011
5:29 pm
good to have folks like you, local attny, contribute instead of listening to the opinions (well intentioned) of me and td all the time
td
November 21st, 2011
5:31 pm
Local Attorney
November 21st, 2011
5:22 pm
The 11th court of appeals decision went into a great deal of detail (by some Dem appointees) and I think the 5 conservative members of the SCOTUS will follow its ruling pretty closely.
td
November 21st, 2011
5:38 pm
Local Attorney
November 21st, 2011
5:28 pm
I can agree that we should cut loopholes out. We should flatten the tax rates and everyone should have pay something (even if it is $1). I also think that everyone should pay something for government medical insurance. Why do we have individuals making 235% of the poverty level not paying a anything for a premium and zero co-pays? Everyone should pay something here also.
clem
November 21st, 2011
6:12 pm
http://nymag.com/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/
clem
November 21st, 2011
6:13 pm
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf
clem
November 21st, 2011
6:38 pm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2011/11/20/the-top-0-1-of-the-nation-earn-half-of-all-capital-gains/
Local Attorney
November 21st, 2011
7:59 pm
td – you are correct in that the 11th Circuit held that, but the more recent opinion out of the Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit is more convincing and a little more on point. Not to mention, the opinion is written by a VERY conservative judge who surprised a lot by his reasoning.
Here’s an article with excerpts from the opinion: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/08/us-healthcare-court-idUSTRE7A74PO20111108
Either way, I think it will be upheld, but you could be right. It wouldn’t be the first time the court has not sided with presedents…but this would change things a little more.
Local Attorney
November 21st, 2011
9:25 pm
“good to have folks like you, local attny, contribute instead of listening to the opinions (well intentioned) of me and td all the time”
I appreciate the sentiment, but it’s opinions of the citizens that make the difference. After all, you all make up the juries that make the ultimate decisions we fight for. The integrity of the judicial system is only as strong as those who particpate in it…lawyers just hope to preserve the law…not determine it.
Local Attorney
November 21st, 2011
9:31 pm
I just realized I spelled “precedents” with an “s”…haha! Sorry.
Local Attorney
November 21st, 2011
9:43 pm
November 21st, 2011
5:28 pm
td wrote: “I can agree that we should cut loopholes out. We should flatten the tax rates and everyone should have pay something (even if it is $1). I also think that everyone should pay something for government medical insurance. Why do we have individuals making 235% of the poverty level not paying a anything for a premium and zero co-pays? Everyone should pay something here also.”
Everyone does pay something…for example, the payroll tax. The Federal Income tax has loopholes for those who make significantly less or not enough for their conditions. That may be what you are referring to, but some can’t afford to pay anything. They literally live by every penny. I am a trial attorney that has worked with the lowest poverty level in Atlanta, and I can speak to this first-hand. The opportunities afforded to some, simply aren’t available to those in very low-income neighborhoods.
As for the medical insurance contribution, I agree. However, there would have to be a public option in order to justify it. We are THE only industrialized nation in the world without a public option in terms of health care. In my opinion, a public option would lower the overall cost of health care in this country, because it would force everyone to contribute (if it was implemented properly)…and eventually, it would lower the overall health concerns of our citizens because it would mean there is more medical treatment…and thereby, lower the overall health care costs in this country. However, this is just a theory, but it does seem logical.
Again, I am not a politician, or an economist. I don’t claim to have any answers. I am a trial attorney, and I don’t have all the answers. I just try to view the world objectively, and explain situations that are subjective, subjectively…especially, when it’s needed. I fight for the rights of those who cannot fight themselves, but I don’t claim to know what’s best for everyone. I don’t know what’s best for everyone…and neither does anyone else.
clem
November 21st, 2011
9:58 pm
my 6:13 posts sheds some light on who pays what % in terms of all taxes….i think it makes your point somewhat…
i don’t have all the answers either, but the wealth disparity is growing and going to be a very serious problem one of these days
Local Attorney
November 21st, 2011
10:11 pm
clem – “i don’t have all the answers either, but the wealth disparity is growing and going to be a very serious problem one of these days”
I agree. The inequality of our class of citizens is growing. The rich are only getting richer, and unfortunately, it’s at the expense of the middle and lower classes. It is becoming a very serious problem…which could escalate into more than a voice one day.
clem
November 22nd, 2011
8:39 am
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm
6 people celebrating the super committee’s collapse (The Week) | Breaking News Today
November 22nd, 2011
10:34 am
[...] beginning that the super committee was “a truly dumb idea,” and now he gets to say, “Told you so.” The panel’s failure is “good for America,” Gingrich said on Monday, because [...]
GT/MIT
November 22nd, 2011
10:35 am
Local Attorney
November 21st, 2011
10:11 pm
“I agree. The inequality of our class of citizens is growing. The rich are only getting richer, and unfortunately, it’s at the expense of the middle and lower classes. It is becoming a very serious problem…which could escalate into more than a voice one day.”
Interesting, would you care to elaborate on how you think “the rich” are perpetrating this injustice on the poor and down trodden?
Just a guy
November 22nd, 2011
1:56 pm
“Interesting, would you care to elaborate on how you think “the rich” are perpetrating this injustice on the poor and down trodden?”
Corporate greed, deregulations, and tax loopholes. The deregulations, and corporate tax loopholes are hurting the middle class. Deregulations have allowed banking institutions to purposefully bet against failed investments/mortgages that they acquire, and make BILLIONS from it. It’s fraud, and when they are caught, they pay a small fine that doesn’t come close to the profits they made from it. Furthermore, the top 1% are allowed to pay a lower tax rate for capital gains, which is income, but they don’t pay the same income tax as someone making $75k/year. Corporations such as GE made BILLIONS in profits and paid ZERO taxes. These problems shift the burden to the middle and lower class. How do you think the disparity between the rich and the dwindling middle class has increased to such an astronomical level? It’s not because they are working harder…it’s because the system is meant to benefit them at the expense of the middle class.
What to Expect from the Top Candidates Tonight « Commentary Magazine
November 22nd, 2011
7:19 pm
[...] who hopes to be next in line if/when the Gingrich boomlet ends. Gingrich will also likely highlight the fact that he’s been critical of the supercommittee since Day [...]