Talk:Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich takes credit for balancing budgets?

The writer of the bio on Mr. Gingrich claims he balanced the budget in 1998, for the first time since 1969? Excuse me, but whoever wrote that fails to mention some very important history. Those balanced budgets were based on the work of President Bill Clinton. They can be directly attributed to President Clinton refusing to sign the 1995 budget Mr. Gingrich and the House Republicans presented to him, using the threat of the closure of the federal government to try to force him to sign a budget that was unacceptable. When he called their bluff and allowed the closure to happen, they went back to work and presented him with a budget he would sign.

In the later years, when Mr. Gingrich was the Speaker, yes he worked on balanced budgets, but during those years of the Clinton administration, that House knew that no less than a balanced budget would be accepted. Mr. Gingrich and the rest of the House (on both sides of the aisle) knew they had no choice but to present balance budgets! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khuebner (talk • contribs) 14:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

For whatever reason, a balanced budget was somehow never possible when the Democrats ran Congress. Kauffner (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

For whatever reason, balanced budgets are not seen as the be all and end all by everybody. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point, HiLo. A balanced budget could just mean that the over-spending matches the over-taxing. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and wise economists note that there are good times to borrow and good times to spend, and vice versa. To expect everything to totally balance out every twelve months is simpleton economics. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It's even harder to balance the budget when there are union bosses who expect a return on their investment. Kauffner (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

My observations of politics the world over have shown me that those seeking "a return on their investment" come from all points on the political spectrum. HiLo48 (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Kemp Commission

I have no problem with the Kemp Commission being mentioned in this article as a "see also" (which I had reinstated on my last edit about this matter) as Gingrich and Dole did set it up, but the conclusions that Kemp and his commission came to - the flat tax - were not followed in the 1997 Tax Relief bill, and I don't see how its conclusions accrue to Gingrich. Note that our article on Bob Dole, who in fact chose Kemp to be his running mate in 1996 after the Kemp Commission completed its work, only lists this as a "see also" and our article Kemp Commission also only mentions Dole and Gingrich as those who set it up. So to try now to shoehorn it into this article to demonstrate some kind of history for Gingrich vis a vis flat tax, doesn't work. However, if there are reliable sources that show how the flat tax was Gingrich's position when the 1997 legislation was being created, please provide them, and we can write something that reflects that. Tvoz/talk 20:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Also, what's the value of this citation? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1042061 It's just a brief summary of a radio news piece which itself is unavailable. Surely we can find a better source.   Will Beback  talk  21:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Tvoz/talk 21:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks for note. i wanted to integrate the see also into the article and copied the intro from the kemp commission article. but people can edit how it's presented here, we can take out the flat tax bit as i can see how this perhaps misrepresents gingrich Tom B (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Moon Colony

This article in the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/gingrich-pledges-moon-colony-during-presidency/2012/01/25/gIQAmQxiRQ_blog.html?tid=pm_politics_pop

states that Gringrich has said he wants to establish a colony on the moon and make it America's 51st State

Also what background is the name Gringrich? Croatian? Ukranian? Spanish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.135.162 (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Germanic? Per an online encyclopedia of Mennonite names, "Gingerich (Gingrich, Guengerich, Gingery) family: Gingerich is a Mennonite family name of Swiss Bernese origin. ..."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No idea about the name. but the moon colony proposal is one of those rare events in a US presidential campaign that has put a candidate on the front page of a major Australian newspaper website. It does need mention in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

it is in space exploration section of Political positions of Newt Gingrich--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrt West Geo College yrs

I haven't read the rest of the talk page but just note that the article's coverage of Newt's college professor years seems slim. E.g see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203735304577167041714568630.html?mod=googlenews_wsj .--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Jmc9595 (talk)

Article is completely inadequate - Call for a reassessment of its merits

This article is so badly done that it needs to be rewritten with careful attention to the sourcing, relevancy and excising the internal judgements to be replaced by sourced analysis.

It cannot be easy when dealing with opposing sides, it would appear at times from within the same political party. There should be a revision that meets the critical needs of a biography article. Essential passages need corrections and compacting. Do away with the garbage listings of sources and list sources that are directly german and authoritative. I object to the use of Ask.com as a source. While it's an excellent website, biography is not its mission purpose. As it is, the instance I'm thinking of draws on the basic biography from the House of Representatives biography site. which provides an authorized biography of the former speaker. While I'm no great fan of New Gingrich, it does a fairer and more balanced job than this mishmash.

There is a wealth of material on Gingrich, i.e. his academic life is explored at considerable length, not only as a student and doctoral candidate. There is also considerable material of merit on his seven years of less than good work in academia, i.e. feeling he was cut for greater things he asked to be named president in his first year as an assistant professor and was know for spending little time doing work in the Department of History. That's not a negative in context. I don't have the time to do this nor do I have the wish to deal with the partisan hacks who will shred anything that is reasonable unbiased.

Example:

The entire section of the Contract with America is tainted by inaccuracy, sloppiness and bias. It is at contradiction with the article by that name, i.e. "Contract with America." e.g. the writer states that there were ten issues. Not so. The Contract itself listed ONLY eight issues which were encapsulated in 10 pieces of legislation. The contract only required the legislation be introduced and advanced as possible. The legislative section has been interwoven with items not in the Contract and with a tenuous connection.

The reference to Liberals, progressives and Clinton on the proposals is biased, inaccurate and gratuitously sourced. The Sierra Club statements drawn somewhat at random addresses some of its concerns for the NEXT congress. It is patently ridiculous for base such wide ranging almost random statements from that source, not to mention it's idiotic sourcing in general. An article should neither be devoid of life nor sourced with a list intended to support talking points.

The welfare reform section is clearly influenced with bias. The two welfare reform bills were passed in both houses with strong support. Clinton vetoed both bills as indicated. The construction of the sentencing on "Gingrich negotiated with President Clinton "by offering accurate information about his party's vote counts and by persuading conservative Republicans to vote for it." That is not by any definition a negotiation and the "it" conservatives were persuaded to vote for seems to be a before the fact statement about what was passed in the third effort in which Gingrich was clearly compelled to accept some of the President's goals in return for acceptance of majority support in the house of some of its goals. It might be fair to call this a bipartisan piece of legislation.

"Lesson's learned the hard way" is a book, not legislation and is placed inappropriately.

Balancing the Federal Budget, inaccurate. Badly so. It was not a part of the contract. The Contract called for a balanced budget amendment. The Amendment legislation was approved in the House and failed to pass the REPUBLICAN senate. Obviously there were Democrats in the Senate, but when it's convenient to call the Senate Democratic, the right wingers do. The reality is that getting passage in the Senate is difficult.

The Contract proposal for a line item veto was passed in both houses, signed by Clinton and ruled unconstitutional shortly afterward.

The Taxpayer Relief Act is oversold as a gain for Gingrich as is the influence of the Kemp Commission, given that Congress ignored most of it. But this was not in the Contract which as a single issue proposed requiring "a three-fifths majority to pass a tax increase." The Kemp commission suggested a two-thirds minimum. Neither went anywhere. But while some taxes were reduced, etc., taxes were still not reduced below the level established in Clinton's first year and last year of GHB Bush.

Action requiring Congress to be subject to their own laws was a part of the Contract. Unmentioned is the audit proposal, the reduction in House Committees and staff, not done; limit in committee chair terms, not done; etc. The Contract made both a proposal for constitutional term limits and also a pledge to honor self-imposed term limits. The amendment did not receive approval in the House or Senate. Those signing the contract have generally not left office before they were forced to by election or public disgrace.

There's more of this and it includes some pandering to what look like junior campaign aides to Gingrich. "In 1961, Gingrich graduated from Baker High School in Columbus, Georgia. He became interested in politics during his teen years while living in Orléans, France, where he visited the site of the Battle of Verdun and learned about the sacrifices made there and the importance of political leadership.[10] Choosing to obtain deferments granted to students and fathers, Gingrich did not enlist and was not drafted during the Vietnam War. He expressed some regret about that decision in 1985, saying, "Given everything I believe in, a large part of me thinks I should have gone over."

That's sloppy. The Gingrich family lived in both German and France, Stationed near Orleans, the family lived at Beaugency. That is more than 250 miles from Verdun so Orleans or Beaugency is not "where he visited the site of the Battle of Verdun." He has told the story any number of times, more or less completely each time, but he made that trip to Verdun with his family in 1958. His family also lived at Stuttgart which is somewhat closer to Verdun. It is not a casual trip for a teenager who still had a curfew. Gail Sheehy is an excellent source as is PBS. It's written as a chronology and it's not.

Jmc9595 (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Leadership style

I'm proposing a new section called "Leadership style." Gingrich's style -- his willingness/unwillingness to cooperate with Democrats, attack opponents, criticize the media, cozy up to the media, talk about history, march to the beat of his own drum, etc. etc. has received a lot of attention lately because of the election but it seems noteworthy even apart from the current elections. There have been a lot of comments from politicians, columnists, etc. about Gingrich being long known for his unique and quirky style, and I think a delicately written section on this (mindful of WP:BLP and WP:POV, of course) would enrich the article. Here are a couple of sources to start us off:

• NY Times: Gingrich Stuck to Caustic Path in Ethics Battles
• Don't believe it - Newt loves the media

I'm sure we can come up with more. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Per wp:IPC, go for it, Nstrauss! (Cf.: category:Public image of American politicians.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

the life on extracerestrial moons

What if independent life get chance to start there. The article lack an answer what to do with them. Do this website aspire to be complete encyclopedia? If so please add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.127.148 (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we aspire to be a complete encyclopedia. But not all in one article. This is a biography of one man, and the only reason there is any reference here to life on the Moon is because he made it a part of his campaign. If you want to find out about what will happen if life gets established on the moon, go to an article like Colonization of the Moon. Thanks for your interest. Tvoz/talk 20:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Deadlink: EPA to ESA

Hi, the link to the article in the Washington Post about Gingrich's desire to change the EPA to the Environmental Solution Agency. Thanks! MichChemGSI (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I found the link http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/newt-gingrich-calls-for-abolit.html MichChemGSI (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)