Will the Democrats 'Self Execute' on Healthcare Reform?

March 17, 2010 · Vol. 5, No. 11
Will the Democrats 'Self Execute' on Healthcare Reform?

by Newt Gingrich

Posted 03/17/2010 ET
Updated 03/17/2010 ET

Last year, the Democrats passed the stimulus bill without reading it.

This year, they are trying to pass the healthcare bill without voting on it.

Yes, you read that correctly.

In the next few days, Nancy Pelosi will enact a rules change that essentially says if one bill passes the House with certain fixes to the Senate healthcare bill, then the original Senate bill will also have been “deemed” passed by the House through a “self executing rule.”

The reason, straight from Speaker Pelosi’s mouth, is simple: “Nobody wants to vote for the Senate bill.”

If this doesn’t make much sense, it is probably because some overly idealistic civics teacher once taught you that the Constitution requires that before a bill can be “presented to the President of the United States” it “shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate.”

You can learn more about the Democrats latest bizarre tactic and Republican efforts to block it here, but frankly, in terms of whether this bill will ultimately pass or fail, the Democrats’ latest mockery of the Constitution is secondary.

What is most important is this: no matter what Nancy Pelosi is trying to tell the nervous members of her caucus, there is nothing that can shield Democrats from having to make a “yes or no” decision on whether the Senate’s healthcare bill will be signed into law.

Yes Means Yes (and No Democrat Can Deny It)

Whatever Rube Goldberg legislative device the Democrats end up using to try and pass the healthcare bill, the bottom line is that there will be a vote.

During that vote, every member of Congress will have to go on the record as to whether the Senate’s version of the healthcare bill will be sent to the President for signature.

And once the bill is signed by President Obama, the Senate’s version of the healthcare bill will become the law of the land. There is no guarantee the “fixes” to the bill the House wants will ever pass the Senate.

This means that every Democrat that voted for the bill will have to defend:

• Federal funding for abortion;

• A half trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare services that do not fix the programs’ long-term structural budgetary problems;

• A half trillion dollars in new taxes that will be passed on to the consumers of health insurance and everyday medical devices;

• The “Louisiana Purchase” and other special deals used to bribe senators to vote for the bill.

• 159 new government boards, bureaucracies, and programs that will further depress a health system already mired in bureaucracy.

Any Democrat who votes yes and claims their vote didn’t mean yes is doing double damage to their political lives: making a bad bill the law of the land and then lying about their complicity in letting it happen.

Why “Self Executing” Is the Right Term

A recent poll by Independent Women’s Voice in 35 swing districts illustrates the danger this bill poses to the Democrats’ political lives.

In these districts:

• 61% would be less supportive and 29% more supportive of a member of Congress who previously voted AGAINST the bill and then voted FOR it.

• 49% would be more supportive and 40% less supportive of a member of Congress who previously voted FOR the bill and then voted AGAINST it.

• 58% percent would be more supportive and 34% less supportive of a member of Congress who previously voted AGAINST the bill and again voted AGAINST it.

The results are clear. Vote no and the people back home will thank you. Vote yes and spend the rest of the year being repudiated by your constituents.

For House Democrats, voting to make this bill law is indeed an act of “self execution.”

Why don’t you call your Congressman now and make that clear?

Your friend,


Newt Gingrich

What Is "Reconciliation" And Why Is It A Threat?

March 3, 2010 · Vol. 5, No. 9
What Is "Reconciliation" And Why Is It A Threat?

by Newt Gingrich
Posted 03/03/2010 ET

During last week’s health summit, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid uttered a remarkably dishonest and, in retrospect, ironic statement, claiming that “nobody is talking about reconciliation” to pass the health bill.

It was a dishonest statement because Democrats have been openly floating the specter of passing the health bill using reconciliation since it first became obvious it would have difficulty passing the Senate, including just days before the summit by Sen. Reid himself.

It was ironic because it seems that all the cable news shows, talk radio, blogs and pundits have been talking about since the summit is whether President Obama, Harry Reid, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will use the Senate budget reconciliation process to pass their big government, big bureaucracy health bill.

But what exactly is the reconciliation process? And why, exactly, is it so controversial a move to pass the health bill?

A Tool for Congress to Meet Spending Goals

The budget reconciliation process was created in 1974 as part of the law that created much of the modern rules and organizational structures used by Congress to pass the annual budget.

This new law required Congress to pass a budget resolution every year that would set the parameters by which the various congressional committees would write their specific parts of the total budget bill.

Within these budget resolutions, instructions can be given to specific congressional committees to create legislation that would alter current laws affecting spending and/or taxation in order to conform to the targets set out in the budget resolution.

To enhance Congress’ ability to meet budget resolution targets, these pieces of legislation are not passed under the normal rules of the Senate. Instead, they fall under the “budget reconciliation process” rules which prohibit unrelated amendments to the bills and set a maximum of 20 hours of debate on the floor. As a practical matter, this means only 51 votes are needed to pass a reconciliation bill because the limit on debate overrides the threat of a filibuster.

The Byrd Rule to Prevent Abuse of Reconciliation

While the budget reconciliation process was a success in its principal goal of giving Congress more power to meet the spending and revenue goals of the budget resolution, it quickly became prone to abuse.

Provisions that had nothing to do with meeting budget resolution requirements, even some that directly contradicted them, were passed using the reconciliation process.
To prevent this, the so-called “Byrd Rule,” named after Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, who introduced the legislation, was passed in 1985 and made permanent in 1990.

The Byrd Rule allows any senator to raise a point of order objection to provisions in a reconciliation bill that they consider extraneous to meeting budget resolutions requirements. Then, it is up to the chair – either the Vice President (as President of the Senate) or, more often, the presiding officer of the Senate if the Vice President is not present -- whether that provision stays or is stricken.

However, the chair almost always relies on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian to determine if that objection is legitimate. (Learn more about the parliamentarian here).

This determination is made based on six tests created as part of the Byrd Rule used to weed out provisions that have nothing to do with raising or reducing taxes or spending. It takes a 3/5 majority vote to override the decision of the presiding officer if he or she finds that a provision violates one or more of these tests. (This Congressional Research Service report is a good primer on the Byrd rule if you want to learn more).

Reconciliation in Action

Reconciliation has been used for 22 bills, of which, 14 were passed by Republican majorities. Nineteen of those bills were signed into law by the President. Three were vetoed. You can view a chart of these bills here.

Notice the similarity between them? All of these bills were obviously directly related to taxation and spending, and since 1985, have successfully met the Byrd rule tests.

Health Reform Is About More than Federal Spending

This is why passing the left’s big government, big bureaucracy health bill using the budget reconciliation process is so fundamentally dishonest and dangerous to Senate precedent.

Leaving aside the bill’s merits (which, to be clear, are abysmal), both its defenders and detractors would acknowledge that it is, for better or worse, a fundamental overhaul of the nation’s health system, both public and private. It sets new rules and regulations that span the entire healthcare sector. It is much larger in scope and more all encompassing in purpose than simply affecting federal spending and revenues.

This is not to say that the bill would not have some effect on the federal budget. Almost any piece of legislation could meet that meager standard.

The reconciliation process was only intended to be used for legislation directly related to meeting budget resolution spending and revenue goals.

The minor affect the left’s health bill would have on the deficit over 10 years (beyond that there is every reason to think it would increase the deficit substantially), even by charitable estimates, cannot be used to justify passing this sort of sweeping legislation using reconciliation.

This is one reason why a number of Democrats, including Sen. Robert Byrd, author of the Byrd Rule and who also helped create the budget reconciliation process in 1974, called the idea of using it to pass the health bill (and cap and trade) “an outrage that must be resisted.”

It’s also why Robert Byrd objected to President Clinton’s efforts to pass Hillarycare in 1993 using reconciliation.

Why should the left’s latest big government healthcare grab be held to any different standard?

Welfare Reform vs. the Left’s Big Government Health Bill

This week, the left is out in force, pointing to other significant pieces of legislation passed by Republicans using the budget reconciliation process as justification for passing their health care bill. One of the examples they are using is welfare reform.

Since welfare reform was passed while I was Speaker of the House, I am happy to compare the two cases.

First, welfare reform was an integral part of the Republican Congress’ efforts to balance the budget, producing immediate savings of over $50 billion dollars between 1997 and 2002. It was originally combined with the balanced budget act that President Clinton vetoed in 1995.

By contrast, for most of the debate over the health bill, the left has constantly boasted about how their bill was “deficit neutral." President Obama repeatedly sought to assure the American people that he would not sign a bill that “added one dime” to the deficit. Medicare cuts were combined with new taxes to pay for the cost of new programs and bureaucracies.

So while real effective health reform would certainly have a positive effect on the deficit, it is clear that the left never intended for their health bill to be primarily a budget bill. Its focus was and still is on getting more people covered. It was only after Democratic leaders began setting the stage for passing the bill using reconciliation that they began emphasizing it as a way to reduce the deficit. (Paul Ryan explains here how their bill uses smoke and mirrors to create the illusion of savings).

Second, when we decided to roll welfare reform into the balanced budget bill in 1995, we never stopped the conference committee efforts to resolve the differences between the versions of the welfare reform legislation that passed in the House and Senate earlier in the year. This continuation of work, along with the active participation of the governors, allowed us to quickly produce the final bill in conference the next year, once it became clear that President Clinton was now finally ready to sign welfare reform.

In contrast, the Democrats have done an end run around the conference committee process that would resolve the differences between the House and Senate bills, instead trying to negotiate their final bill in secret at the White House. This process continues today, with President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid exploring different tricks they can use to ram a bill through their respective chambers without first producing a conference bill.

Third, welfare reform was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, with more Democrats voting for it in the House and Senate than opposing it. It was signed by a Democratic President. Bipartisanship was integral to the success of the bill.

Today, Democrats are turning to passing the bill using the reconciliation process precisely because they are rejecting bipartisanship. Republican Scott Brown’s stunning election in Massachusetts, thanks largely to opposition to the left’s health bill, has meant that the Democrats would need at least one Republican vote to break a filibuster in the Senate. And their bill is so bad they can’t get one.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, welfare reform was overwhelmingly popular with the American people. One poll showed that over 90 percent of Americans favored reform, including 88 percent of those on welfare.

As for the left’s health bill, after a year of debate and discussion, the American people have overwhelmingly rejected it. A poll we released at the Center for Health Transformation showed that it is opposed by a 2-1 margin. It is a fact that the more Americans learn about the left’s plan, both its substance and the corrupt manner in which it has been passed, the more they oppose it.

Three Corrupt Options for the Left

The left’s big government, big bureaucracy health bill is overwhelmingly unpopular with the American people. It is incapable of obtaining any bipartisan support in the Senate.

Faced with this reality, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should do the responsible thing and scrap the unpopular bill and start over, focusing instead on smaller pieces of legislation that could obtain bipartisan support.

However, they’ve made it clear they aren’t willing to do this. The Democrats are determined to pass a comprehensive health bill no matter how unpopular it is. This means they have to use reconciliation to avoid needing 60 votes to end debate in the Senate.

There are several corrupt options available to the Democrats using reconciliation.

One option would be for the House to pass the exact same health bill the Senate passed in December (thus avoiding the need for the Senate to marshal 60 votes again for a final bill now that Scott Brown is in office) with an understanding that a separate bill with a series of fixes would be passed immediately afterward using the budget reconciliation process in the Senate.

The left argues that technically, this would keep the use of reconciliation fairly narrow. However, the plain truth of the matter is that the Democrats would be using the budget reconciliation process to pass a bill they could not otherwise pass using the normal legislative process. It is a dirty trick that ignores congressional tradition and the overwhelming opposition to the bill from America.

Another option is for the Democrats to try and pass the full health bill in the Senate with 51 votes using reconciliation and then for the House to pass the same bill that emerges from the Senate.

For all the reasons outlined above, this would be an enormously inappropriate use of the budget reconciliation process. But it also means that the left’s endlessly complicated bill that creates hundreds of new regulations, new programs, and new bureaucracies would have to survive the Byrd Rule tests, creating the possibility that by the time all the extraneous provisions are removed, the final “swiss cheesed” legislation would be unrecognizable.

For President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to promise to pass a bill when they, in reality, don’t know what the final bill will look like, is the height of irresponsibility. (Of course, they passed the stimulus without reading it so it would certainly fit with their precedent.)

How Far Are The Democrats Willing To Go?

Which brings us to a third, more drastic option for the Democrats to get their high tax, big government, big bureaucracy health bill passed.

As explained above, under the Byrd Rule, the vice president of the United States is ultimately responsible for deciding whether a provision in a reconciliation bill is extraneous. It is merely tradition that dictates he follow the advice of the parliamentarian, not a Senate rule.

To avoid their legislation being subjected to Byrd Rule tests, the vice president could choose simply to ignore the advice of the parliamentarian on points of order and rule to keep the extraneous provisions in the final bill. Any senator can appeal these rulings, but the appeal may be defeated with a simple majority vote.

To be clear, no vice president has ever acted in this fashion in the history of the reconciliation process. But no one has ever tried to push this kind of bill through reconciliation before either.

With the American people overwhelmingly opposed to the health bill, not to mention every other part of the left’s agenda, and the political environment turning increasingly toxic for the Democrats, President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi could decide to make a cynical, calculated political decision.

Faced with the high likelihood of political defeat in November, they could decide it is preferable to pass the bill they want and be defeated rather than to fail to get a health bill (or only a partial bill), and be defeated anyway.

In fact, this seems to be the message Speaker Pelosi was pushing this past weekend, dismissing her caucus’ concerns of defeat.

Republicans Must Vow To Replace the Left’s Health Bill

If the Democrats are bound and determined to exert all their power and manipulate every rule they can to pass their big government health bill, Republicans may not be able to stop its passage.

We’ll find out today as President Obama is set to announce his recommendation on the way forward.

But no matter what President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid decide, the bottom line for Republicans is that they must stand with the American people in opposing this bill.

This doesn’t just mean voting against it and using every parliamentary maneuver available to delay its passage.

It also means running on a platform of replacing whatever left-wing health bill the Democrats manage to pass with real health reform that empowers patients and doctors, not bureaucrats, to bring down health costs. And delivering on that promise in 2011 if Republicans gain control of Congress.

And if President Obama is still determined to ignore the will of the people by vetoing the Republican bill after such a clear message from America, it means that the Republican candidate for President in 2012 must run on a platform that includes signing the replacement of the left’s big government health bill.

After all, no matter what dirty tricks the politician may try to get his way, in America, the people have the final say.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich

Annoy the Media: Go Vote And the "Common Sense Effect"

Annoy the Media: Go Vote
And the "Common Sense Effect"

by Newt Gingrich
Posted 11/04/2008 ET
Updated 11/04/2008 ET

Special note: On this day of great consequence for our republic, our thoughts and prayers go out to Senator Obama, whose grandmother passed away yesterday in Hawaii. Presidential politics is a serious undertaking, and our differences are real, but the pain we feel from the loss of loved one is a burden we all share. May Senator Obama and his family find peace and condolence in this difficult time.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today marks the end of one of the most dishonest, relentlessly one-sided campaigns of bias and distortion by the mainstream media in American history.

The latest tactic in this elite media campaign has been to declare the presidential race over in an effort to discourage some voters from going to the polls. After all, if Barack Obama has already won, why should supporters of John McCain even bother to vote?

But this election won’t be decided by Keith Olbermann, or CNN, or the New York Times.

It will be decided by you.

So annoy the mainstream media. Remember 2000. Remember how close it was. Remember how every single vote counted.

Go out and vote. Now.

The Bradley Effect vs. The Common Sense Effect

The same biased media that has declared the presidential race over has also (just to be sure) come up with a rationalization in the event that their candidate loses.

They call it the Bradley Effect, after the former Mayor of Los Angeles Tom Bradley’s unsuccessful bid to be governor of California in 1982.

A late election poll had Bradley, an African-American, ahead, but he went on to lose the election. His supporters and others in the media blamed his loss on the so-called Bradley Effect: the supposed tendency of voters to tell pollsters they are voting for a minority when, in fact, they refuse to once they get in the voting booth.

The Bradley Effect has been widely discredited (see here and here).

But that hasn’t stopped Obama partisans in the media from assuring us that the only way Senator Obama can lose is through the Bradley Effect. In other words, the only thing that could explain an Obama loss is the fact that America is a society of closet racists.

Our Choice Today Doesn’t Have Anything to Do With Race

But I have another theory to describe the choice Americans face in this election -- call it the Common Sense Effect.

The choice we face today doesn’t have anything to do with race. It has to do with which candidate believes in wealth creation and which one believes in wealth redistribution.

Which candidate believes in limited, effective government, and which candidate believes in unrestrained, liberal, big government.

Which candidate believes that the hard work and ingenuity of incentivized Americans can solve our energy needs, and which candidate believes that government taxation, regulation and litigation is the way to go.

It’s critical that this point be made now, before the results are in: If Senator Obama loses the election today, it won’t have anything to do with the so-called Bradley Effect. It will have everything to do with the Common Sense Effect.

Senator Obama in His Own Words: “If Someone Wants to Build a Coal Power Plant ….It Will Bankrupt Them”

But don’t take my word for it. Take Senator Obama’s word for it.

Consider the choice that faces us today on the issue of America’s energy independence. And consider Senator Obama’s recently uncovered statements about how he would solve this problem.

As my new book Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less and my new film, “We Have the Power” (buy it here) point out, America is the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have vast, untapped coal resources, and clean coal technology will allow us to use those resources to stop sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy oil from countries that hate us.

But listen to what Senator Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle in January about America’s coal industry:

"If somebody wants to build a coal power plant they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

Senator Obama in His Own Words: “Under My Plan…Electricity Rates Would Necessarily Skyrocket”

In the same interview, Senator Obama went on to say:

“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural gas…you name it…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations. That will cost money…they will pass that money on to the consumers."

When Obama Arrogantly Talks About Bankrupting the Coal Industry, He’s Talking About Bankrupting Whole Communities

Senator Obama’s idea of solving our energy problems seems to be to inflict pain upon American consumers -- and to pronounce a death sentence on American producers of coal in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

When Senator Obama off-handedly and arrogantly talks about bankrupting the coal industry, he’s talking about bankrupting entire communities; shutting down the industry that produces the jobs and the tax revenue that fund schools, hospitals and roads.

These are Senator Obama’s own words, spoken 10 months ago to the mainstream media but only now being heard thanks to the work of independent bloggers.

This is the choice we face today.

We Don’t Know Which Candidate Will Win, But We Know the Mainstream Media Has Already Lost

I began my message to you today noting that coverage of this election has been among the most dishonest and one-sided by the mainstream media in American history.

We don’t yet know which candidate won the election, but we do know this: The mainstream media lost.

The examples of bias and distortion that have occurred are too numerous to list here.

Suffice to say that when a supposedly unbiased media organization polls its staffers, and the vote is 55 to 1, something is deeply wrong.

When honest reporters are embarrassed to admit that they’re journalists, something is wrong.

When the nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism finds that negative articles about John McCain outweigh positive pieces by four-to-one, and positive pieces about Barack Obama outweigh negative pieces by two-to-one, something is deeply wrong.

Going forward, center-right and conservative Americans will have to work even harder to reclaim the media and to create new ways to communicate with our fellow Americans that bypass the mainstream media. We’ve already had some significant successes, including this newsletter. I thank you for the ideas, energy and optimism you have shared with me through these messages for the past two and a half years.

Regardless of who wins tonight, I’m sure you share my belief that we will honor our political process, respect our new leaders, and move forward with the cheerful persistence that Ronald Reagan taught us.

But for now, grab a friend -- grab a couple friends -- and go out and vote.

Your friend,


Newt Gingrich



P.S. If you’re still not convinced of the need to go out and vote, consider this: Amid reports of homeless people being able to list park benches as addresses in order to cast ballots, there are reports that many of our men and women serving overseas are having problems casting absentee ballots. Go to the polls today for those who fight but can’t vote.

P.P.S. Last Friday I discussed my new book, Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less, at the American Enterprise Institute, where I detailed a three-pronged approach to creating a responsible energy policy. First we have to maximize our domestic supply of all energy sources. Then we need to adopt an “across the board” strategy to encourage efficiency and innovation. Finally, we have to incentivize technological breakthroughs with prizes and tax credits.

As Senator Obama’s comments on coal illustrate, current elites in Congress have an ideological imperative to increase the cost of energy. But only with a responsible, pro-growth model will we be able to weather the current financial storm and promote energy independence, all while decreasing the cost of energy for all Americans.

American Solutions Update

A Message from American Solutions’ Chief Advocate, Princella Smith.

V-O-T-E. You must vote. America is facing one of the most critical times in its history, and in a race where the two contenders could not be more different in terms of policy, the choice is crucial

American Solutions had a great presence on the air last week. FOX News invited me to appear on “Your World with Neil Cavuto”, and NPR featured me as a guest on “News and Notes.” With each appearance, I held true to the principles we advocate at American Solutions: ISSUES. At the end of this election cycle, the defining aspect of each campaign whether local, statewide, or national, will be the ISSUES.

CNN Headline News has invited me for both Election Day and post-election analysis from the American Solutions perspective on November 4th and 5th. On election night, I will join the CBN team on the 700 Club. Rest assured that through each of these appearances, American Solutions will seize the opportunity to make sure that YOUR voice is heard.

To get e-mail notifications of American Solutions media appearances, contact American Solutions: info@americansolutions.com .

Stay tuned to www.americansolutions.com and visit our blog for updates from the American Solutions team.

-HAVE YOU SIGNED? Join the Drill Here, Drill Now Pay Less Campaign, and get involved with the entire movement for the Platform of the American People! Contact: Princella Smith at info@americansolutions.com


Mr. Gingrich is the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and author of "Winning the Future" (published by Regnery, a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).

My Message to Democrats: Listen to the People and Make This 4th of July Energy Independence Day

My Message to Democrats: Listen to the People and Make This 4th of July Energy Independence Day

by Newt Gingrich

Posted 06/24/2008 ET
Updated 06/24/2008 ET

This week I want to do something a little different.

Although my Winning the Future message has always been directed at all Americans, whether they consider themselves Republicans, Democrats, or independents, today I am directing my message specifically to Democrats. And my message is this:

The American people have spoken. Are your leaders listening?

Over 1.1 Million Americans Call on Congress to "Drill Here, Drill Now"
We really had no idea, just 35 days ago when we first posted the "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" petition here, that we would provide the spark that has ignited a fire among frustrated, struggling Americans.

In just 35 days, over 1.1 million Americans have signed the petition. Seven hundred and fifty thousand signed in just three weeks. Almost 100,000 signed up in a single day.

Americans of all political parties have signed the "Drill Here, Drill Now" petition. Here's what they're saying:

The 1.1 million Americans who have signed the petition are appealing to Congress to allow environmentally responsible ways to produce more energy here, at home.

They're not calling for higher taxes on oil companies.

They're not blaming foreigners for our energy problems.

They're not begging the Saudis to sell us more oil.

And so my message to the party that controls Congress is this:

The American people have spoken. Are you listening?

New Poll Shows 74 Percent of Americans Support Offshore Drilling
Through our polling at American Solutions we have long known that a whopping 81 percent of Americans support developing more domestic energy, including oil and coal. And this 81 percent majority is made up of 85 percent of the Republicans, 83 percent of the independents and 76 percent of the Democrats surveyed.

Now we have even more data showing widespread support for increasing domestic energy production.

A new Rasmussen Poll has revealed that a full 67 percent of Americans support offshore drilling.

What is the party breakdown behind these numbers? The supporters were 85 percent Republican, 57 percent Democrat and 60 percent unaffiliated voters.

Moreover, a new Zogby poll shows that 74 percent of Americans support drilling offshore for our American oil. The supporters were 90 percent Republican, 58 percent Democrat, and 75 percent independent voters. A related survey by Zogby also shows that 59 percent of Americans support drilling in ANWR.

In other words, the American people have spoken. Are you listening Democrats?

175 Members of Congress Have Pledged to Increase U.S. Oil Production. Only One Is a Democrat.
As usual, the American people know intuitively what Washington just doesn't understand: You don't have to be a Republican to be struggling to put gas in your car. Democratic and independent families, commuters and small business owners are hurting too.

So why haven't Democrats in Congress responded? Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R.-Ga.) is circulating a petition challenging his House colleagues to pledge to ''vote to increase U.S. oil production to lower gas prices for Americans.'' As of this writing, 175 members of Congress have signed.

Only one, Neal Abercrombie of Hawaii, is a Democrat.

Drilling opponents support more drilling so long as there is no oil
Perhaps some Democrats have been reluctant to sign on because of two popular talking points making the rounds.

These opponents say that oil and gas companies already hold 68 million acres of federal land (offshore and land combined) that they are not using to produce oil and gas. They also say it would take 10 years before any of that oil makes it into our gas tanks.

Just this weekend on Meet the Press, Sen. Joe Biden (D.-Del.) said, "They [the oil companies] have now leased 41 million acres of offshore leases. They're only pumping in 10.2 million of those acres. . . . And John [McCain] says they need more? And it would take 10 years for it to come online."

There are a number of problems with these arguments.

First, when federal waters or lands are leased to energy companies, the first step is to explore for oil - in other words, look for it. Most of the acres leased for oil end up being determined to not hold enough oil or gas to make it profitable for energy companies to actually extract it. So the vast majority of those 68 million acres are not being used for a simple reason: they're currently unusable.

Given this fact, it's obvious that citing the amount of currently unused leased land is a ruse. It allows opponents of using American oil to seem as if they actually support it, when in truth they only support more drilling in areas where there is not enough oil to make it worthwhile to drill. In other words, they actually don't support using our American oil to lower gas prices.

Either it is a ruse, or it is a testament to the profound arrogance of the Washington elite that they believe they understand the business of oil production better than American oil companies.

Drill here, drill now, pay less ... in the short term and long term
Lastly, even if we were to accept the estimate of 10 years to get American oil into our gas tank (if America made it a priority to quickly extract our oil I'm confident we could find a way to speed up the process), there is good reason to believe the short-term affect on oil prices would be significant.

While estimates range on the degree to which oil futures trading is affecting the price of oil, there is broad consensus that it is playing a role. The very act of opening America's vast oil deposits for extraction would send an immediate signal to speculators that supply will be increased, and that betting on higher prices for oil is no longer a safe investment. Prices will fall as a result.

Also, beginning the process of drilling for our American oil would allow us the freedom to empty part of the strategic oil reserve into the market on the promise it will be replenished by these future American sources. This immediate increase in the supply of oil would cause a decrease in price.

Make This July 4th Energy Independence Day
Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, if your leaders aren't listening to the clear, expressed will of the people then you have it in your power to change this, to send the message to Washington that this July 4th will be unlike other July 4ths.

This Independence Day we declare our energy independence. And we give our elected officials this choice:

Either take action to drill here and drill now for American oil or the American people will take action this fall.

What You Can Do NOW to Send a Message to Washington
Here's what you can do:

- If your Representative hasn't signed the Westmoreland petition, contact him or her here and make your voice heard.

- If you haven't signed the "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" petition, click here and do so today. Our goal is to have three million signatures in time for the Republican and Democratic national conventions.

- When your House member is back in the district for the Fourth of July holiday, take the opportunity to personally let him or her know that Americans don't need to be suffering under $4-plus gas and that he has a responsibility to do something about it.

Senator McCain Proposes a $300 Million Prize for a "Super" Car Battery
One of the solutions we've proposed at American Solutions for reducing our dependence on foreign oil and producing more American energy is offering prizes for innovative answers to our energy needs.

When you think about it, prizes are the essence of the American way. Rather than bloated, bureaucratic government programs that are black holes for tax dollars, prizes unleash the creative, entrepreneurial spirit that built this country.

That's why I am so pleased to see that Sen. John McCain has proposed a $300 million prize for the individual who can develop a "super" car battery that can power cars more cheaply and with less harm to the environment.

Congratulations to Sen. McCain for his faith in the ingenuity of the American people. Sen. Obama should join him in passing legislation to create this prize now. This is an idea whose time has come.

A Life Transformed By United Cerebral Palsy
Finally, today I want to mention a remarkable organization that is doing remarkable things for people with disabilities.

This past Thursday, I had the privilege to speak to the leadership of a wonderful organization and member of the Center for Health Transformation, United Cerebral Palsy. UCP may be one of the most effective organizations you've never heard of. Through their network of affiliates, they provide care to more than 30,000 people with disabilities each day. They approach their work with energy, wisdom and tremendous creativity.

To give you a sense for how this truly 21st century organization operates, their CEO, Steve Bennett, spent several weeks this past November in briefings across Silicon Valley to understand where technology is heading and how it can be put to use immediately to transform the lives of the 54 million Americans with disabilities. This is exactly the approach we need throughout our health system. Click here to learn more about this organization and how you can help.

One example of the wonderful results UCP and its affiliates can deliver is a remarkable girl named Gina. When Gina was just 2 years old she was diagnosed with autism. She did not really start speaking any words until after age 3. Last Thursday, at the age of 6, she sang the National Anthem as beautifully as I've ever heard it sung. You owe it to yourself to read her story here, and if you are planning an event you couldn't find a better person to open it with the National Anthem.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich

The Reid-Pelosi-Obama (RePO) Team Vs. The Rest of America

The Reid-Pelosi-Obama (RePO) Team Vs. The Rest of America

by Newt Gingrich

Posted 10/15/2008 ET
Updated 10/15/2008 ET

First, this summer's economic bailout bill put the taxpayers on the line for $152 billion.

Then the housing bailout added $300 billion.

The Paulson bailout cost us another $700 billion.

Now Washington Democrats - already counting on complete, filibuster-proof control of the nation's purse-strings come November - are talking about spending another $300 billion on a "stimulus package."

That comes to a grand total of $1.45 trillion the taxpayers are being asked to provide for Washington's ideas on how to save the economy.

But here's the thing: Has anyone ever asked the people who are footing the bill - the taxpayers - how we'd like this money spent?

How would you spend $1.45 trillion to make America better? Today I'm going to give you an opportunity to tell America how you'd spend this money.

But first some news, with Halloween just around the corner, that should scare us all.


The Reid-Pelosi-Obama (RePO) Team Announces the Era of "Harsh Decisions"
They've been working hard to show us their happy face, but the mask of the Reid-Pelosi-Obama (RePO) team slipped a bit last week.

The Senate Majority Leader, the House Speaker and the Democratic Presidential nominee are already planning on a total Democratic takeover of Washington following the election, but here's the really frightening news: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that Congress may convene after the election to make "harsh decisions."

"Harsh decisions." Sounds scary.


Will RePO Make the "Harsh Decision" to Raise Taxes? Reward ACORN?
We should take Speaker Pelosi at her word. What "harsh decisions" does the San Francisco Democrat have in mind for America? Will they be tricks or treats?

Will the RePO Team make the "harsh decision" to raise confiscatory taxes on American businesses, the engine of jobs and economic growth?

Will they make the harsh choice to strip American voters of their right to a secret ballot when deciding whether or not to unionize a workplace?

Will they choose to send hundreds of millions of new taxpayer dollars to the radical leftwing group ACORN (on top of the hundreds of millions in this summer's housing bailout bill that went to radical groups including ACORN) in exchange for getting out the leftwing vote in the November election?

Will Reid-Pelosi-Obama rewrite deadbeat mortgages to steal from lenders and reward irresponsible behavior?

Just exactly who is going to find their decisions "harsh?"


In this Present Crisis, Government Isn't the Solution to our Problem
With just 21 days to go until the election, it's becoming clearer and clearer that the choice for Americans in 2008 is a choice between the kind of pro-special interest, pro-bureaucracy, "harsh" decisions the RePo Team isn't even waiting for the voters to ratify, or the sensible, center-right values of the rest of America.

In his first inaugural address, Ronald Reagan memorably said, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

A new Rasmussen Poll shows that a solid majority of Americans - 59%-28% - still agree with Reagan's statement.

Americans from across all age and income groups - including a majority who consider themselves politically moderate - believe that government, taxes and regulation and Fannie and Freddie-style government-backed corruption are what got us into this economic mess in the first place.

It is important to keep in mind that Reagan was not anti-government. As he said in that first inaugural, "Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work - work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."

It is as true today as it was when Reagan first said it in January 1981: in the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem.


The "Harsh Decisions" Of One-Party Washington Vs. the Rest of America
And so the decision we face in November is whether we're going to pursue more of the same heavy-handed government policies that got us into this economic mess, or whether we are going to put government on the side of fostering the private sector creativity, ingenuity and entrepreneurialism that made this country great.

But Speaker Pelosi is right about one thing: Congress should return to Washington in a special session to address the ongoing economic crisis.

But instead of making the "harsh decisions" advocated by the RePo Team, Congress should pass a package of reforms that will address the immediate economic crisis while creating jobs, keeping America's energy dollars at home, and addressing the long-term health of our economy.


A Pro-Growth, Pro-Jobs, Pro-Energy Independence Agenda For Congress
Instead of $300 billion in new liabilities for the American taxpayers, Congress should take action on the following:


1. Zero capital gains tax - Countries without taxes on capital gains, such as China, Singapore, and Taiwan, are magnets for global investment. Economists like Alan Greenspan have called for removing capital gains in order to see increased economic growth and American competitiveness in attracting foreign direct investment and international corporations.


2. Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley - After the devastating crash of Enron and WorldCom, Congress rushed to pass a law to alleviate panic. Instead of enacting reform measures that would reasonably prevent fraud, they passed a burdensome, accounting mess. Sarbanes-Oxley is a disproportionate burden for small businesses and start-ups, and has forced many companies to move from New York to London.


3. Allow 100% annual expensing for small businesses - Small businesses create 7 out of 10 new jobs in America and account for more than half of the output of our economy. One hundred percent annual expensing would give small business more money to invest in new technologies, like computers and machinery, to improve worker productivity. Likewise, it would allow business to hire more employees.


4. Move to break up and privatize Freddie and Fannie - Corporate greed at Freddie and Fannie fueled subprime mortgage loans. Because subprime mortgages carried higher risk, they also offered a higher interest yield that gave executives an increased profit share. Given the government sponsored enterprise, they had lower capital requirements, and were implicitly backed by taxpayer dollars in the case that these assets should crumble. These institutions should be prevented from offering more subprime mortgages, and we should move towards privatizing them.


5. Provide a comprehensive plan to keep Americans in their homes - The summer's housing bailout bill gave $300 billion to renegotiate mortgages with homeowners, but forced lending institutions to take an immediate 10% cut in profit, giving little incentive for lending institutions to participate. The government could instead offer a no-interest loan to homeowners who are current on their mortgage payments and work with their lending institution to renegotiate their mortgages into a 6% fixed interest, 30-year loan. We should help those homeowners who have acted in good faith keep the keys to their homes.


6. Move towards long term investment strategies - Congress should look to investing in the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation to foster innovation and make America the most competitive market for research and development.


7. Develop an all-of-the-above energy policy - Imagine if we invested a fraction of the billion dollar bailout into developing, for example, more nuclear power and coal-to-synthetic natural gas technologies and infrastructure. We should continue to advance clean coal, biofuels, wind, solar, hydrogen, and natural gas technologies. Further, we should increase exploration and development of our own resources offshore and in oil shale, so that we are not defenseless against any energy cartels.


8. We should repeal all congressional money given to ACORN - ACORN is under investigation in a dozen states for voter fraud. We cannot afford to be subsidizing an organization that operates under the façade of providing community development and low-income housing, while it has a record of fraudulent activity. See this CNN report about ACORN voter registration fraud in Indiana, where ACORN provided 5,000 new voter registration cards. Indiana authorities started reviewing them and found that the first 2,100 were all fraudulent.

How Would You Spend $1.45 Trillion to Make America Better?
You've heard a few of my ideas, and you've no doubt read plenty about what the Washington establishment thinks we need to do to rescue our economy. But when was the last time someone asked you - the American taxpayer - how we should use the $1.45 trillion of your money Washington has generously offered to spend?

My organization, American Solutions, is interested in what you have to say.

Do you think we should use the money to invest in technology to make us energy independent? Click here and tell us how and why.

Do you think we should use the $1.45 trillion to transform our health system? Click here and let us know?

Or should we just give the $1.45 trillion back to the American taxpayers? Log on to our website and say so. My bet is you'll be the most popular person on the site.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich

P.S. -- Three Ideas to Transform the Health Care Debate: So far, the presidential debates have raised more questions than answers on how healthcare must be overhauled in 2009. Both during and since my time in Congress, I've been striving to change our ailing system. Regardless of who wins the election, a new administration and Congress brings an opportunity for the United States to shift to a 21st Century Intelligent Health System. It means gritty work and long hours, beyond bureaucracy, with a focus on proven solutions. At the Center for Health Transformation website, we have put forward three proposals that must lead the debate into 2009. I encourage you to be an empowered patient and join our YouTube channel "HealthTransformation."

Mr. Gingrich is the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and author of "Winning the Future" (published by Regnery, a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).

A Disturbing Look At a Very Near Future: Tax Cuts Vs More Spending at the Special Session

A Disturbing Look At a Very Near Future:
Tax Cuts Vs More Spending at the Special Session

By Newt Gingrich

October 28, 2008

We have a choice between two futures.

For the first, fast forward 23 days. It’s November 17. Congress convenes for a special session with a veto-proof Democratic majority Senate, an expanded Democrat majority in the House and a Democrat in the White House.

The sole item on their agenda is to pass the $300 billion government spending package promised by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi back in October.

There is no mistaking what is coming. Even before Democrats won sweeping, one-party control of Washington, they had made their intentions to increase taxes and spending clear.

Originally pegged at $150 billion, Pelosi’s spending package ballooned as time went on.

With 11 days to go before the election, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) fleshed out some details of the massive spending package. Frank called for a 25 percent cut in defense spending and conceded that Democrats will raise taxes to pay for new government spending. If they couldn’t get the votes in November, Frank was confident that they would have them in January.

And long before the election, President-elect Barack Obama had expressed his preference for wealth redistribution over wealth creation both on the campaign trail and in a startling radio interview in 2001, in which he claims the Warren Court was not radical enough. (Bill Whittle does an excellent job of dissecting this interview at National Review Online )

“You Can’t Say We Weren’t Warned”

The newly empowered Democratic majority passes the massive spending bill, confident that even a veto by President Bush can and will be overridden by their new Senate majority in January.

Before President-elect Barack Obama even takes office, government spending increases by $300 billion, bringing the grand total for the last six months of 2008 to $1.45 trillion.

And all center-right Americans can do is shake their heads and think, “You can’t say we weren’t warned.”

There is a Different Future: Make the Election About Big Spending Vs Big Economic Growth

For candidates, campaign managers, and consultants who are disturbed at this look at the very near future, there is another way.

But that way begins now. Today.

To avoid defeat on November 4 and avoid an out-of-control spending spree in the new Congress, the voters have to be given a real choice on Election Day.

• A choice between robust government spending and robust economic growth;
• A choice between higher spending and lower taxes;
• A choice between spreading the wealth around and increasing it through rapid economic recovery.

Because when Americans are asked to make these choices, our answers are clear and unequivocal.

We trust the private sector to grow the economy more than government. We favor keeping our money over giving it to Washington. We favor creating more wealth over redistributing the wealth we’ve worked for and saved.

We just have to be given the choice.

Three Times More Americans Believe In Tax Cuts Over More Government Spending

Newly released polling data show just how out of touch with Americans the REPO Team (Reid-Pelosi-Obama) pre-Christmas spending spree is.

By 60%-20%, Americans believe lower taxes, not higher government spending, will best ensure economic recovery, according to a new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll.

By 86%-9%, Americans believe government should focus on jobs and economic growth over income redistribution, according to a New Models/Winston Group survey.

By 71%-25%, Americans believe that if you cut taxes on small business it will create new jobs, according to the New Models/Winston Group poll.

So What Are We Waiting For?

So what are we waiting for? To counter the Reid-Pelosi-Obama massive $300 billion government spending spree, Republicans should offer a $300 billion tax cut package.

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has proposed a rapid economic recovery program that should be the centerpiece of the campaign going forward. Instead of marrying new deficit spending with liberal special interests like the Reid-Pelosi-Obama plan does, the Boehner plan marries sound economics with the small government, free market values of the American people.

Here are some of the reforms in the Boehner rapid economic recovery plan:

• Energy Independence: Creating jobs and reducing energy and food costs by enacting an “all of the above” energy plan. For more information, watch my new movie “We Have the Power” (watch the new trailer here and buy the movie here ) and read my new book Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less .
• Creating Jobs: Bringing American jobs back home by lowering the tax rate on profits that companies bring back to the United States.
• Restoring Home Values: Encouraging home purchases by easing capital gains rules for homes purchased in the next 18 months and held for at least five years.
• Spurring Economic Growth: Immediately suspend the capital gains tax on individuals and businesses for equities purchased during the next two years.
• Encouraging American Companies to Assist in Recovery: Lower the tax rate on business income so American companies have an incentive to invest in distressed assets.
• Protecting Retirement: Suspend rules that require individuals at age 70½ to begin withdrawing from their Individual Retirement Accounts. This would spare investors from being forced to sell their stocks at just the time when the market is hurting the most.

I will have more to say about what we can do now to avert this impending massive government spending spree at an event this Friday at the American Enterprise Institute entitled “Energy, the Economy, and the Special Session of Congress.” For more details, go to www.aei.org.

In the meantime, there is no time to waste. Republicans and center-right independents and Democrats can give the voters a real choice in the election, or we can lose our choice in the congressional special session to come.

Either way, you can’t say we weren’t warned.

Your friend,





P.S. Healthcare reform is a monstrous undertaking, but if we break it down to metrics - not financial discussions - we can see progress. And the best example of what I am talking about comes straight from baseball. To learn more, check out my op-ed co-written with Oakland A’s General Manager Billy Beane and Senator John Kerry at www.healthtransformation.net.


P.P.S. As I travel across the country, it has been encouraging to see more and more young people getting involved in politics and finding solutions to the challenges facing our nation. I met Ryan Minarovich this summer after a speech and he told me about his plans for a new blog called theunder30view.com that will engage more young Americans to be more active. It launched recently so I encourage all young Americans to take a look.

Platform of the American People Update

American Solutions Chief Advocate, Princella Smith visited Conroe, TX last week to speak about the way forward with regards to the economy, education reform, and a comprehensive energy plan. Check out her posts here!

American Solutions had a great presence on the air last week. On Monday, Princella was featured on CNN Headline News and on Fausta’s Blog Talk Radio.

This week, Princella will be featured on the following XM Satellite Radio channels: Thursday 1:30pm - 2pm ET POTUS '08 and Saturday 11pm - Midnight ET The Power. To get e-mail notifications of American Solutions media appearances, contact American Solutions: info@americansolutions.com

Stay tuned to www.americansolutions.com and visit our blog for updates from the American Solutions team.

-HAVE YOU SIGNED? Join the Drill Here, Drill Now Pay Less Campaign, and get involved with the entire movement for the Platform of the American People! Contact: Princella Smith at info@americansolutions.com


Mr. Gingrich is the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and author of "Winning the Future" (published by Regnery, a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).