Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity breeds austerity and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

Is Newt Gingrich a closet Democrat?

In 2003, he founded the Center for Health Transformation (CHT), a collaboration of public and private sector leaders dedicated to the creation of a 21st Century Intelligent Health System that saves lives and saves money.

(See: Center for Health Transformation.)

His site further says:

Under his leadership, Congress passed transformational legislation including welfare reform, the first balanced budget in a generation, funding to strengthen our defense capabilities, and the first tax cuts in sixteen years.

Amazing! Newt Gingrich led Congress to balance the budget, while increasing defense spending and cutting taxes. Although balancing the budget is nothing to crow about, (It led to the 2001 recession — as budget cuts invariably do — cured only by the Bush deficits), I’m fascinated with the math that allows tax decreases plus spending increases to equal a balanced budget. Anyone think there may be some numbers missing from Newt’s self-written adulation?

But the most interesting part is what Gingrich says on the page titled “Insure All Americans,” a notion that must be anathema to those conservative, self-reliant Republicans. Here is a selection of his goals and solutions:

We agree in principle with the idea that it is good for all Americans to have health insurance – it encourages improved health and lowers costs within the system. However, this coverage should come via private sector and state mechanisms, and not as the result of a federal government mandate that forces every American to purchase health insurance.

Not sure what those “mechanisms are, but O.K., it sounds suitably right wing. Yet, just below that statement, one of Newt’s listed “solutions” is:

Require that anyone who earns more than $50,000 a year must purchase health insurance or post a bond.

Huh? That $50,000 is pretty inclusive. It digs deeply into the middle class. In fact, close to 40% of all Americans filing tax returns earned $50,000 or more – quite a departure from his right-wing, anti-mandate declaration. And with the implied, income-based evaluation, he sounds awfully much like one of those (ugh) liberal Democrats.

Another solution Gingrich puts forth:

Design insurance products to reward healthy lifestyles and wellness and penalize poor health.

“Penalize poor health”?? An insurance product that penalizes poor health? The sicker you are the more you are penalized? This is a solution? Think about that one for a bit.

And then there’s:

Make the management of chronic disease the priority of public programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

I’m not sure how this “penalizes poor health,” but it’s a good idea – except that it seems to say all the persistent and long-lasting and expensive diseases (the definition of “chronic poor health”) – cancer, heart disease, birth defects, autoimmune diseases et al — would be covered by public Medicare and Medicaid, while little stuff like sniffles and rashes would be covered by private insurance.

Can such a system actually work? Doesn’t sound very private-industry, self-reliant, right-wing Republican to me. Sounds more like the public solution a Democrat might favor.

And then there’s:

Encourage the use of personal health records for portals to health education, cost and quality data, and personal health histories.

Wow, Newt! Talk about a Democrat, “big brother, big government” solution. The Tea/Republican, right-wing should have a fit. Again, it has the smell of the liberals hanging all over it.

But finally:

Enlist faith-based organizations to educate the value of personal responsibility, health, and wellness.

Ah, solidly right-wing Republican. Give money to religious organizations to do whatever, rather than have the government do them. Breach the wall between religion and government. One small step for religion; one giant step for theocracy.

So, I guess Newt is not a Democrat after all. He’s a right-wing, conservative, big-government liberal, walking both sides of the fence. You know what happens when you walk both sides of a fence? Visualize it.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com


==========================================================================================================================================
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
b>Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment + Private Consumption + Net exports

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY