NO HIGHER TAX: THE CASE FOR NEWT GINGRICH

THE CASE FOR NEWT GINGRICH

By PETER FERRARA on 12.28.11 @ 6:08AM

How easily his great and solid conservative achievements are forgotten.

He led us to victory before. Spectacular, historic victory. The strategy and content of his 1994 Contract with America propelled the Republicans to a 54-seat gain in 1994 to win control of the House of Representatives, which had been held by the Republicans for only two out of the previous 62 years. Even the Reagan Revolution in the 1980s failed to achieve that.

Then, for all the caterwauling we have heard about how he handled the budget battles with Clinton, he led the House Republicans in 1996 to their first re-election as a majority since 1928, almost 70 years.

Moreover, once in power, Gingrich delivered on his promises, and maintained a solid conservative record. He carried out the Contract with America in full, holding a vote on every item as promised, most of which did pass (which was not promised). His record was unswervingly pro-life, pro-gun and Second Amendment, and anti-tax. Indeed, he worked closely with the conservative activist groups on every one of these issues.

Gingrich's Balanced Budget: Succeeding Where Bush Failed Contrary to the untouched by reality liberal/left talking points about how the 1993 Clinton tax increases led to balanced budgets, when the Gingrich majority took power in 1995, it was greeted by the 1996 Clinton budget still projecting $200 billion annual budget deficits as far as the eye could see, totaling $2.7 trillion over 10 years, confirmed by CBO. The House passed a budget bill providing for $1 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years, and that was almost 20 years ago when $1 trillion was still real money.

In the government shutdown budget battles with Clinton, Gingrich won the substance, as Gingrich demonstrated the only way to balance the budget, with Reagan's supply-side economics. That involved both cutting taxes, to get the economy booming, and cutting spending, resulting in the longest period of federal surpluses since the 1920s.

This is what the official government records show. You can dig deep into the records at omb.gov yourself. Total federal discretionary spending, as well as the subcategory of non-defense discretionary spending, declined from 1995 to 1996 in actual nominal dollars. In constant dollars, adjusted for inflation, the decline was 5.4 percent. By 2000, total federal discretionary spending was still about the same as it was in 1995 in constant dollars. As a percent of GDP, federal discretionary spending was slashed by 17.5 percent in just four years, from 1995 to 1999.

Total federal spending relative to GDP declined from 1995 to 2000 by an astounding 12.5 percent, a reduction in the federal government relative to the economy of about one-eighth in just five short years. This was accomplished not just by reducing discretionary spending, but through fundamental structural reforms of some programs, such as the old AFDC entitlement program. The Gingrich Congress succeeded in block granting that program back to the states, after two vetoes from Clinton. After 10 years, the taxpayers saved 50 percent on the costs of that program, while the poor formerly on the program gained by going to work, with poverty among them plummeting. That is a model for future entitlement reform.

As a result, the $200 billion annual federal deficits, which had prevailed for over 15 years, were transformed into record-breaking surpluses by 1998, peaking at $236 billion by 2000. Over four years, the national debt held by the public was reduced by a record $560 billion in surpluses. When Gingrich left office, instead of CBO projections of $2.7 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years, CBO projected surpluses of $2.3 trillion over the next 10 years. That is a positive turnaround in the budget of $5 trillion. This is exactly what we need today.

These spending cuts were accomplished not with a deal with the Democrats to raise taxes, but with pro-growth cuts in tax rates. Gingrich led enactment of a capital gains tax rate cut of nearly 30 percent in 1997, from 28 percent down to 20 percent, which was the largest capital gains cut in American history. Despite that cut, actual capital gains revenues soared $84 billion higher for 1997 to 2000 than projected before the rate cut. The Republican Congress also expanded IRAs, and adopted other tax cuts on capital.

Contrast that with the disastrous 1990 Bush/Darman/Sununu budget deal, trading permanent tax increases for supposed future spending cuts. The economy dropped into recession almost from the moment the deal was announced, with GDP declining 3.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 1990. That briefly ended the 92 straight months of economic growth of the Reagan recovery, almost 60 percent longer than any other peacetime expansion in U.S. history.

As a result, federal tax revenues declined rather than increased, despite the tax hikes engineered by Bush budget director Richard Darman, intellectually dominated by the Washington Post and New York Times. Federal revenues had been running 18 to 18.4 percent of GDP before the budget deal, but they declined to 17.5 to 17.7 percent during 1991 to 1992. Pulitzer prize winning columnist Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal reported in January 1993, in a column entitled "Oops, Weren't We Going to Reduce the Deficit?" that the rich paid $6.5 billion less in taxes in 1991, after the tax rate hike, than they did in 1990 before rates went up.

While the Joint Tax Committee had estimated the 10 percent luxury tax on boats, airplanes, cars, jewelry and furs would raise $6 billion in 1991, the actual revenue increase was $53,000. The lost revenue from laid off workers previously building luxury boats and planes was far greater. In the first two years of the luxury tax, 9,400 non-rich boat makers lost their jobs.

At the same time, federal spending rose rather than fell, climbing from 21.2 percent of GDP in 1989 to 22.3 percent in 1991 and 22.1 percent in 1992. In 1991 and 1992 federal domestic spending exploded by 20 percent. "Notwithstanding all the budgeters' talk of pain," wrote Howard Gleckman of Business Week after the budget deal was consummated, "spending at home is in for a windfall." Everything from Head Start to NASA to Medicaid to highway spending enjoyed beefy budget increases in this new austere budget environment.

The deficit consequently soared from $152 billion in 1989, to $221 billion in 1990, $269 billion in 1991, and $290 billion in 1992, when the voters rightly booted Bush out for violating the no new taxes pledge that got him elected. As a Cato Institute report concluded: "The 1990 budget deal was not the deal of the century, but the crime of the century. It hurt the economy, reduced revenues, increased spending, and failed its ultimate test: it didn't reduce the budget deficit." But to this day, Washington budget experts want another grand bipartisan budget deal just like what happened in 1990.

Ironically, Gingrich is being savaged by the Bush crowd now for his role in leading House Republicans in 1990 to reject the Bush budget deal. Bush White House Chief of Staff John Sununu, Sr. is bitterly attacking Gingrich as unstable for opposing the Bush budget deal circus. Former President Bush has endorsed Romney because he is not "a bomb-thrower," in Bush's words, a reference to Gingrich's refusal to lead House Republicans off the cliff with him.

Gingrich's rebellion against Bush's 1990 betrayal of Reaganomics was his finest hour. That leadership is what led to the House Republican takeover in 1994. If conservatives and supply-siders do not rally around Gingrich now, and allow the Bush crowd to win with Romney, Reaganism will have been routed out of the Republican Party. Undoubtedly, John Sununu will pick Romney's budget director (remember his pick of Supreme Court Justice David Souter over the conservative alternative that would have given conservatives a firm majority on the Court). The first thing Romney will do if elected is exactly the reprise of the 1990 tax increase budget deal for which the Washington establishment that will run a Romney Administration is always pining. That will require another round of Democrats in the White House before conservatives can even get a chance at winning again, which America cannot survive at this point.

Gingrich's Platform Besides Gingrich's proven record of conservative leadership, he is running this year on the most visionary free market platform of any candidate ever.

It is all in writing at Newt.org. Gingrich is campaigning on the ultimate, supply-side, pro-growth, Jobs and Economic Recovery plan of cutting taxes and spending to balance the budget, just as he did in the 1990s. He is proposing the 15 percent optional flat tax plan of Steve Forbes and Steve Moore. He proposes corporate tax reform, closing loopholes in return for lowering the rate to 12.5 percent as Ireland did in 1988 to such great success.

He would eliminate the capital gains tax, the death tax, and the alternative minimum tax. He would allow immediate expensing for capital investment, like the deductions for all other business expenses, instead of dragging those deductions out over many years through arbitrary depreciation schedules.

These tax reforms are explicitly not designed to be revenue neutral. They are designed to be growth maximizing, resulting in the most jobs and the most rapidly rising wages and incomes. The professional score of these reforms will be released this week, showing how the budget can be balanced with economic growth and spending cuts. Those would involve returning most budget line items to pre-Obama levels, and then freezing them there until budget balance. It would also involve abolishing all corporate bailouts and corporate welfare, and terminating, breaking up, or privatizing stale, outdated programs, like NPR, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, AMTRAK, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It would include as well the most sweeping, long-term entitlement reforms ever proposed, which are also spelled out in comprehensive detail in writing at Newt.org. He would adopt and then expand an individual choice for personal savings, investment and insurance accounts for younger workers that would be expanded over time to finance all of the benefits financed by the payroll tax, as in Chile, ultimately displacing the payroll tax entirely. Gingrich would bring Jose Piñera from Chile to campaign for this idea across America, but especially among Hispanics, with the grassroots campaign targeted at younger workers and minorities that George W. Bush should have followed through with, but never did. Such personal accounts involve the biggest reduction in government spending in world history, as all that spending now financed by the personal accounts would ultimately be shifted to the private sector.

Gingrich also proposes to expand his enormously successful 1996 AFDC welfare reforms to the nearly 200 remaining federal means-tested welfare programs, sending all federal welfare back to the states. The projected federal and state spending on these programs over the next 10 years is $10 trillion. Based on the experience with the 1996 reforms, that spending can ultimately be cut in half or more through these reforms.

Gingrich would further slash taxes, spending and regulatory costs by trillions by repealing and replacing Obamacare with Patient Power. Those reforms would provide a health care safety net that would ensure access to essential health care for the uninsured at just a fraction of current costs, with no individual mandate and no employer mandate. You can just ask John Goodman at NCPA about that, who is personally advising Gingrich on health policy. I myself have been an unpaid close personal advisor to Gingrich for years.

Taken together, these entitlement reforms would over the long run cut federal spending in half from what it would be otherwise, completely solving America's entitlement and fiscal crisis. That estimate reflects my life's work on entitlement reform and budget policy at the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, NCPA, and now the Heartland Institute. The full discussion can be found in my book published last June by HarperCollins, America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Peter Ferrara is Senior Fellow at the Carleson Center for Public Policy, Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, and General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is the author of America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, now available from HarperCollins.

HAPPY NEW YEAR'S DAY!

AMERICA DESERVES ANSWERS ON THE OBAMA ADMINISTTATION'S DECISION TO OUTSOURCE THE NEXT GENERATION OF LIGHT ATTACK AIRCRAFT

AMERICA DESERVES ANSWERS ON THE OBAMA ADMINISTTATION'S DECISION TO OUTSOURCE THE NEXT GENERATION OF LIGHT ATTACK AIRCRAFT

Kansas-based Hawker Beechcraft is going to court to get some answers from the US Air Force concerning its decision to disqualify Hawker’s AT-6 from competition to produce a new light attack aircraft for the US and allied militaries. The court case comes on the heels of the Government Accounting Office’s decision not to review the Air Force’s disqualification of Hawker Beechcraft. Until the Air Force abruptly announced the disqualification in November, the AT-6 was considered by many to be the frontrunner in the Air Force’s Light Air Support program. The USAF so far has not explained its decision, which leaves just one competitor in the field, Embraer and its Super Tucano. That competitor carries significant and possibly disqualifying baggage in the form of connections to the Iranian government, and a new bribery investigation. Embraer is not only controlled by the Brazilian government, it is currently under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible violation of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. That Act prohibits companies from bribing foreign officials or making other illegal payments to gain or retain business.

That investigation began in November 2011, and appears to still be in the early stages. Embraer is accused of engaging in bribery in three countries, none of which have been identified publicly. If found guilty, the company could be banned from doing any business with the US government at all. The SEC’s investigation of Embraer went public about three weeks before the Air Force disqualified Hawker Beechcraft without explanation.

Additionally, while outsourcing the contract to Embraer would create just 50 jobs in the United States, Hawker Beechcraft says the AT-6 would create about 1,400 jobs at 181 companies across 39 states. It would also keep the manufacturing and parts and supply chains all within the United States. Awarding the contract to Embraer puts most of the platform’s ecosystem outside the US. The AT-6, meanwhile, is built on the proven T-6 platform, which is currently in use by the USAF and other allied air forces. More than 700 T-6 aircraft have been built to date, and Hawker Beechcraft has built more than 14,000 aircraft for the US military overall.

Kansas Congressman Tim Huelskamp, who serves on the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, lambasted the Obama administration’s decision in a statement issued December 27:

“It is simply wrong for the Obama Administration to hire a Brazilian company to handle national security when we have a qualified and competent American company that can do the job,” Congressman Huelskamp said. “With millions of Americans out of work, it makes no sense to award the work to a foreign company. Along with my colleagues in the Kansas delegation, I will continue to attempt to right this wrong in order to preserve America’s national and economic security interests.”

The editorial board of the Wichita Eagle, the Taxpayer Protection Alliance, Women Impacting Public Policy, and others have come out questioning the Air Force’s decision.

Given President Obama’s rhetoric against American companies that outsource jobs overseas, the decision to outsource the next generation of US light attack aircraft to a questionable overseas company is curious, to say the least. The administration’s rough treatment of Hawker Beechcraft may well have a political dimension, as the company is well known for manufacturing high performance business jets. The president has sharply criticized “corporate jet owners” on several occasions. Additionally, Embraer boasts of its attention to “environmental sustainability,” which may have helped boost its profile with the administration that brought us the boondoggle known as Solyndra.

The LAS contract is worth between $1 billion and $1.5 billion.

Posted at 9:01 am on December 30th, 2011 by

ROMNEY MAKES A BREAKTHROUGH ---

ROMNEY MAKES A BREAKTHROUGH ---

Posted by Neil Stevens (Diary) Saturday, December 31

Newt Gingrich had about six weeks at the top or tied, but that run is over. Gallup has shown a slow decline for the Speaker, and now Mitt Romney benefits. He takes his first national lead since early November.

Just in time for the actual delegate selection process to begin.

The facts: Tracking poll with a rolling average. 1,169 RVs. MoE 4.

Since Gallup started its tracking poll, Gingrich has slid from 37 to 23, but Romney now has hit a new high, 27, to take his four point lead. Rick Santorum is nowhere to be seen. What happens in Iowa, stays in Iowa.

Of course, after Iowa and New Hampshire, I think we all expect the race to consolidate. and Romney could be surpassed. It seems improbable,butitisn’t wrongtosay Mitt Romney could become the first Republican non-incumbent to win Iowa and New Hampshire, but also be the first to win both states but not win the nomination.

Crossposted from Unlikely Voter

GINGRICH SEES SARAH PALIN AS VICE PRESIDENT OR CABINET SECRETARY

GINGRICH SEES SARAH PALIN AS VICE PRESIDENT OR CABINET SECRETARY

By Justin Sink - 12/30/11 02:26 PM ET

Newt Gingrich said that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would be among the candidates that he would consider when considering a potential running mate, adding that the former GOP vice presidential nominee would be an ideal candidate for secretary of Energy.

Gingrich, speaking Wednesday during a conference call with conservative voters hosted by Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition, was asked by one of the attendees whether he would consider Palin as a running mate.

"She is certainly one of the people you would look at. I am a great admirer of hers and she was a remarkable reform governor of Alaska, she’s somebody who I think brings a great deal to the possibility of helping in government and that would be one of the possibilities," Gingrich said, according to Right Wing Watch.

He went on to suggest that Palin might be ideal for a position in his Cabinet.

"There are also some very important Cabinet positions that she could fill very, very well," Gingrich said. "I can’t imagine anybody who would do a better job of driving us to an energy solution than Gov. Palin, for example. Tell her that she would certainly be on the list of one of the people we would consider."

Palin had toyed for months with running for the presidency before ultimately announcing late this summer to stay out of the GOP race.

GINGRICH PICKS UP ENDORSEMENT FROM HERMAN CAIN'S FORMER IOWA DIRECTOR

GINGRICH PICKS UP ENDORSEMENT FROM HERMAN CAIN'S FORMER IOWA DIRECTOR

By Jeremy Redmon The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Urbandale, Iowa -- 2011.12.31 at 07:08 PM EST

Newt Gingrich on Saturday trumpeted an endorsement he received from Herman Cain's former Iowa director as he continued his bus tour across Iowa just two days before the Republican caucuses get under way. In a statement released by the Gingrich campaign, Larry Tuel, Cain's former point man in Iowa, praised his platform. "I particularly appreciate his national tax policy, welfare reform, and ideas for reducing and refocusing regulatory authority to solve our deep rooted economic problems," Tuel said.

Many political observers speculated Cain himself would endorse the former speaker after Cain announced this month he was suspending his campaign for the GOP presidential nomination last month. But Cain has kept quiet so far. Cain's chief of staff, Mark Block, wrote in an email Thursday "There are no plans currently to endorse any of the candidates." Gingrich made campaign stops in Council Bluffs and Atlantic Saturday.

His state campaign chairwoman, Iowa House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer, said Gingrich's bus tour has been well attended, calling the crowds of supporters "fabulous." She predicted Gingrich will outperform recent polls showing him in fifth place. "Look at the room," she said, gesturing to dozens of volunteers who had shoehorned into his campaign headquarters in Urbandale. "We are coming right back up [in the polls]. I feel very positive about his position."

GINGRICH PROMOTES 'BLACK HAWK DOWN' COMMANDER'S ENDORSEMENT

GINGRICH PROMOTES 'BLACK HAWK DOWN' COMMANDER'S ENDORSEMENT

By Alicia M. Cohn - 12/31/11 01:21 PM ET

Retired Army Col. Michael Steele endorsed Newt Gingrich in Iowa on Friday, an endorsement Gingrich promoted on Saturday.

“I for one am tired of people talking, and would offer it is time to replace a professional talker in the White House with a professional doer. Newt Gingrich is a professional doer, he gets things done. And we are in a point in our nation’s history where we need to get things done," Steele said, stumping for Gingrich at a campaign stop in Iowa on Friday.

The comments were first reported by the Iowa City Press-Citizen.

“I believe we have one shot left, the way we vote is the way our nation goes and I think if we screw this up we’re not getting another shot at it, we have to pick the right man,” he said.

Gingrich's campaign promoted the endorsement on Saturday, noting Steele was the commander of the U.S. Army Ranger company portrayed in the 2001 movie "Black Hawk Down." The movie depicts the real-life events of a downed Army Rangers battalion in Somalia in 1993.

Gingrich is a movie buff and often mentions his and his wife's favorite movie selections on the campaign trail.

GINGRICH PICKS UP ENDORSEMENT FROM URBANDALE LEGISLATOR AT FRIDAY BREAKFAST

WAUKEE PATCH


By Anne Carothers-Kay | December 30, 2011

The former frontrunner, who has dropped to fifth in some polls, promoted bipartisan results through negotiation and campaign finance reform, saying Washington is broken.

An influential Iowa state legislator endorsed Newt Gingrich after the former speaker of the House spoke at a Rotary Club breakfast in Des Moines Friday morning.

Urbandale Rep. Scott Raecker said his decision wasn't based on any specific issue, or on Gingrich's chances of winning the Iowa Caucuses, but rather on what Gingrich and his campaign brings to the race.

"It's my position that his voice needs to continue in the race," said Raecker, chairman of the Iowa House Appropriations Committee and executive director for Character Counts in Iowa.

"I, like many Americans, am frustrated with the polarization of our country and our government in Washington," said Raecker. "His campaign of ideas and this voice that he is bringing shows that the longer he is in the campaign, the better off we will be."

Raecker said he likes that Gingrich is talking about solutions to big problems and doing it in a positive, proactive way.

Gingrich Pledges to Remain Positive

Falling rapidly in the polls, Gingrich, looking tired and tieless, spoke at 7 a.m. to a full banquet room of Des Moines Rotarians, rattling off ideas ranging from brain science and autism, Iran and the threat of a worldwide depression, to closing the Food and Drug Administration,

"I think we ought to have a large discussion about big ideas," he said.

"I can't do modern politics. I wouldn't do modern politics," he said referring to his campaign of ideas and failures of his campaign last summer.

"I'm going to remain positive," he told the group. "If someone has to try to frighten you and run ads that are false to get to be president, why would they tell you the truth when they are president."

Gingrich has been hammered in recent weeks by the Mitt Romney and Ron Paul campaigns and their supporters. The first to hit Iowa airwaves was a Paul ad that accused Gingrich of serial hypocrisy, and they appear to have made caucus-goers rethink support for the former House speaker.

Two polls in the past two days have shown Gingrich slipping to fifth place. An NBC poll shows Mitt Romney and Ron Paul leading with Gingrich behind a surging Rick Santorum and Rick Perry.

A CNN-Time poll showed similar results.

Gingrich told the Des Moines Register Thursday he thinks he can finish fifth in Iowa and still be a viable candidate.

“Considering that I’m 20 points ahead in some other states, it would be fairly foolish for me not to stay in the race. It is a long way from here to picking a nominee,” Gingrich told the Des Moines Register Thursday.

Overhaul the Electoral System

In response to a question from the group, Gingrich talked about money buying candidates and congressmen and senators.

"We've got to fundamentally overhaul the Congress and got to fundamentally overhaul the electoral system," Gingrich said, adding that he favors letting anyone make contributions to candidates, but requiring that they report them within 72 hours on the internet so all citizens immediately can see who is sending money to candidates and elected officials.

Gingrich said it has gotten to the point that only millionaires can run for office.

"Both parties actively recruit millionaires to run for the Senate. They call them self-funders," he said.

Lori Day, owner of FocusFirst, Inc., said she is weighing her caucus support between Romney, Paul and Gingrich.

"The problems in Washington won't be solved by sound bites," said Day, adding that her greatest concern is Washington, D.C., "lacks the competence, training and discipline to solve our problems."

PASTOR JIM GARLOW, AN ORDINARY AMERICAN CITIZEN WITH I.D. TO PROVE IT, ENDORSES NEWT GINGRICH FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

STEVE DEACE, AN INFLUENTIAL IOWA RADIO HOST & SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE, ENDORSES NEWT GINGRICH FOR PRESIDENT 2012

12.30.11

STEVE DEACE: WHY I AM ENDORSING NEWT GINGRICH FOR PRESIDENT

Steve Deace, an influential Iowa radio host and social conservative, endorsed Newt today saying he has a proven ability to govern and undo what the Left has done to America.

Sadly, there are only two candidates offering a real means by which to actually undo that which the Left has done to this country for the past 50 years, and not just conservative platitudes. One of those candidates is Ron Paul, but his foreign policy is naive at best and reckless at worst. The other is Newt Gingrich, who has campaigned on what I believe is the most important issue facing us as a people—the loss of the rule of law.

The Left has used unelected judges and judicial oligarchy to reinvent the American way of life, from secularism to the loss of the sanctity of life, to the redefining of marriage, the confiscation of private property, and the granting of imaginary rights. There is an entire chapter of my new book devoted to the need for conservatives and Christians to confront judicial oligarchy once and for all. I have spent the past two years of my radio program educating my audience on this issue, and was a vocal proponent of Iowa’s historic judicial retention election last year, and Newt’s assistance with that effort was vital.

After offering every candidate in the race the chance to show they understand the gravity of this issue, Gingrich is the only one who has demonstrated he does, and can also use the bully pulpit of the presidency to educate Americans on the need to return to the rule of law.

I understand Newt has taken positions and done things in his personal life I do not agree with, but to his credit he has come on my radio program and been very transparent about those things, and has shown humility and a willingness to be transparent in the process.

...

I’m willing to take full responsibility for this decision, just as I hope those that have chosen to support other candidates who themselves have fatal flaws are willing to do the same. It is my hope the other Republican candidates will follow Gingrich’s bold leadership in providing the country a true alternative to President Obama.

It is my prayer that next year that for once we actually have something to vote for, and not just something to vote against. I am making this endorsement in the hopes that will be the case. Sometimes the most broken people are the ones God does the most tremendous work through. I know that has been true in my life.

GINGRICH ENDORSED BY ART LAFFER, MICHAEL REAGAN, PIVOTS TO ECONOMIC MESSAGE

GINGRICH ENDORSED BY ART LAFFER, MICHAEL REAGAN, PIVOTS TO ECONOMIC MESSAGE

By Tony Lee 12/30/2011


After a barrage of negative attacks lowered his poll numbers, Newt Gingrich, who still has a chance to win the Iowa caucus even as his campaign reminds reporters that a fourth place finish would suffice because South Carolina is Gingrich’s “must win” state, pivoted his message to focus more squarely on how his past would be prologue on the economy.

“My basic message for the next six days is simple: if you want jobs and economic growth, I know how to do it,” Gingrich said at campaign events across Iowa yesterday.

Gingrich also snagged two key endorsements to help him make the case that he has the experience to fix the economy with pro-growth policies, and that he was not “an amateur” in a time of economic crisis.

Art Laffer, referred to as the godfather of supply side economics, endorsed Gingrich and said that Gingrich was the best surgeon to operate on the country’s ailing economy.

Laffer, who gave Herman Cain advice on the economy, said that he volunteered to endorse Gingrich because Gingrich has “done it before.”

Laffer added that when he voted for Bill Clinton he was also, in essence, voting for then-Speaker Gingrich.

“Newt Gingrich is far and away the best person to bring this country back to prosperity,” Laffer said.

Earlier, Laffer, in a statement, said, “Like Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts and pro-growth policies, Newt’s low individual and corporate tax rates, deregulation and strong dollar monetary policies will create a boom of new investment and economic growth leading to the creation of tens of millions of new jobs over the next decade.”

Laffer also said that “Newt’s record of helping Ronald Reagan pass the Kemp-Roth tax cuts and enacting the largest capital gains tax cut in history as Speaker of the House shows he can get this plan passed and put it into action.”

Michael Reagan also endorsed Gingrich by describing Gingrich as a “man who fought in Congress for my father’s programs.” Reagan, to Newsmax, said that though “millions of dollars have been spent in negative ads against him,” voters should remember that “Newt became a leading ally of my father” by helping “Congress push through massive tax cuts” and working to “secure a military buildup that helped defeat the Soviet Union.”

Reagan also said under Gingrich’s leadership, “Congress also limited the welfare state” and, as a “leader in the Reagan Revolution,” Gingrich, according to Reagan, “helped keep my father’s legacy alive.”

The Gingrich campaign noted that his Jobs and Growth bus tour throughout Iowa is intended to draw a “clear contrast” with Romney about Romney’s “timid response to Barack Obama on the economy and lack of a bold plan of his own for jobs and growth.”

In a CNN poll released on Wednesday, which may have been methodologically faulty because it only surveyed Republicans (Independents and Democrats can also caucus), Gingrich was in fourth behind Messrs. Romney, Paul, and Santorum. A Rasmussen poll released yesterday had the same standings. Meanwhile, an American Research Group poll released yesterday showed Romney in the lead with Gingrich and Paul statistically tied for second place.

In the waning moments before Iowans go to caucus, Gingrich is hoping that his focus on the economy can boost his campaign much like his focus on American exceptionalism did earlier.

Tony Lee edits The Chase 2012 section and writes on politics and culture for HUMAN EVENTS. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook. E-mail: ALEE (at) EaglePub.com

VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL INTERVENES IN GOP BALLOT DISPUTE AS BLOCKED CANDIDATES JOIN SUIT

By Carl Cameron Published December 31, 2011 | FoxNews.com






Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is intervening in his state's presidential primary dispute and plans to file emergency legislation to address the inability of most Republican presidential candidates to get their name on the ballot, Fox News has learned.

Meanwhile, four GOP candidates on Saturday joined fellow candidate Rick Perry's lawsuit against the state, urging the Board of Elections to either allow them on the ballot or at least refrain from taking any action until a Jan. 13 court hearing.

Only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul qualified for the Virginia primary, a contest with 49 delegates up for grabs. Perry and the four candidates joining the lawsuit -- Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman -- did not.

The failure of other candidates to qualify led to complaints that the 10,000-signature requirement is too stringent.

Cuccinelli, who is a Republican, shared the concerns and plans to take them to the legislature while the candidates work through the courts.

"Recent events have underscored that our system is deficient," he said in a statement Saturday. "Virginia owes her citizens a better process. We can do it in time for the March primary if we resolve to do so quickly."

Cuccinelli's proposal is expected to state that if the Virginia Board of Elections certifies that a candidate is receiving federal matching funds, or has qualified to receive them, that candidate will upon request be automatically added to the ballot.

Two former Democratic attorneys general are backing the move, along with a former Democratic state party chairman and a former Republican state party chairman.

Former state Attorney General Tony Troy called the Virginia process a "legal and constitutional embarrassment." Fellow former top Virginia prosecutor Steve Rosenthal said: "This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. If it takes emergency legislation, then we need to do it."

A spokesman for Virginia Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell appeared to defend the state's strict ballot rules, but opened the door to reexamining them.

"Virginia's laws regarding ballot access are well known and have been in place for many years," spokesman Tucker Martin said. "All candidates seeking to be listed on the Virginia primary ballot in a statewide race have known the requirements well in advance. ... It is unfortunate that this year, for whatever reasons, some Republican candidates did not even attempt to make the Virginia ballot, while others fell short of submitting the required number of valid signatures."

Still, Martin said, "That leaves Virginia voters with only two Republican choices in the March primary, and the governor certainly would have preferred a broader field. He is always open to reviewing how Virginia's primary system can be improved to provide voters with more choices."

He said that if the legislature takes action, "the governor would review those changes thoroughly."

Perry's campaign applauded Cuccinelli in a statement Saturday afternoon.

"Virginia's onerous and restrictive ballot access rules do create serious constitutional problems and undermine the rights of citizens and candidates," the campaign said.

THE VIEWS & OPINIONS OF FREEDOMISMIST IS SOLELY MY OWN & DO NOT NECESSARILY SUPPORT YOUR BROWSERS' INPUT

TEA PARTY ACTIVIST FILES LAWSUIT TO PUT NEWT GINGRICH ON VIRGINIA'S PRIMARY BALLOT

TEA PARTY ACTIVISTS FILED LAWSUIT TO PUT NEWT GINGRICH ON VIRGINIA'S PRIMARY BALLOT


FREE CANADA - Online Thursday, December 29, 201

Richmond, Virginia—A lawsuit seeking to put Newt Gingrich on the ballot for Virginia’s March 6, 2012, primary election was filed Thursday in the Circuit Court of Richmond County by a Virginia attorney and tea party activist, Jonathon Moseley.

The lawsuit alleges that Newt Gingrich did in fact satisfy the requirement of Va. code 24.2-545 to file 10,000 petition signatures. Over 11,000 signatures were actually filed by Newt Gingrich’s campaign. The lawsuit contends that many of Gingrich’s petition signatures were improperly excluded.

Under Virginia law, Newt Gingrich’s 11,000+ petition signatures were handed over to the Republican Party of Virgina (RPV) by the State Board of Elections, where they are initially filed.

The Republican Party of Virginia has not explained what exactly where the defects that it found with Newt Gingrich’s 11,000 petition signatures. In a statement on December 28, 2011, the RPV clearly stated that it had not disclosed the supposed deficiencies.

However, public comments have suggested that missing, incomplete, or illegible addresses accompanying signatures on the ballot petitions are the main reasons that so many of Newt Gingrich’s signatures were disqualified.

Today’s lawsuit, Moseley v. State Board of Elections, argues that addresses are not actually required under Va. Code 24.2-545 and State Board of Elections regulation 1 VAC 20-50-20. That is, the failure to provide an address is not a “material” deficiency sufficient to invalidate the signature.

The lawsuit also argues that there is often not enough room on the standardized form created by the State Board of Elections to write a complete address legibly, however, the RPV was required to research any voter who could reasonably be identified to verify their voter registration status.

Petitions are supposed to be grouped and filed separately for each County or city, or at least each congressional district, so most voters can reasonably be identified if their county or city is already known. The lawsuit alleges that the RPV was not permitted to reflexively exclude signatures without complete addresses without first researching the voter list to see if they could determine the voter registration status of the signer (such as if an incomplete address can be matched or there is only one person in the city with the name in question).

The lawsuit also argues that the RPV must presume that petition signatures are valid unless proven otherwise, because a false signature on the petition is a Class 5 felony under Virginia law under Va. Code § 24.2-1016. Because signatures are made under penalty of law, subject to felony prosecution, the signer’s attestation that they are a qualified voter must be presumed to be valid unless evidence proves otherwise.

Today’s lawsuit, Moseley v. State Board of Elections, was rushed into court to preserve the ballot petitions, to obtain a copy of the ballot petitions for inspection and review, and to ask the RPV to identify why exactly petition signatures were not counted as valid, and obtain counts by category.

Virginia attorney Jonathon Moseley intends to quickly amend the lawsuit to add additional Republican voters as co-Plaintiffs, encourage the Gingrich campaign to join the lawsuit or file a better one along similar lines, and to refine the legal claims and arguments in the lawsuit to fit this rather unusual situation.

Moseley will be seeking additional Virginia voters to join the lawsuit, legal expertise to help refine the lawsuit and work on the case, and financial contributions.

Jonathon Moseley heads the 912 Fairfax Tea Party in Fairfax, Virginia, and recently worked on legal defense for Christine O’Donnell after her run for the U.S. Senate in Delaware in 2010. Moseley ran Christine O"Donnell’s 2008 primary campaign (convention contest) in Delaware when she was first nominated for the U.S. Senate against Joe Biden.

Christine O’Donnell has endorsed Mitt Romney, who qualified for the Virginia primary ballot.

Jon Moseley is predicting that the Republican ticket emerging from Tampa, Florida, will be Mitt Romney for President and Newt Gingrich for Vice President.

However, Moseley’s personal preference would be Michelle Bachmann, who apparently did not submit any petition signatures for the Virginia primary, and Newt Gingrich over Mitt Romney. While Moseley would like to be able to vote for Michelle Bachmann in the Virginia primary, he believes his second choice Newt Gingrich should be on the ballot because he submitted more than the 10,000 ballot petition signatures required.

The lawsuit is not, for the moment, officially connected with the Newt Gingrich campaign, although Moseley is urging the Gingrich campaign to either join the lawsuit or file a superior one along similar lines.

NEWSMAX MICHAEL REAGAN ENDORSES NEWT GINGRICH FOR PRESIDENT & LAUNCHES "THE NEWSMAX 2012 CAMPAIGN SPECIAL"

NEWSMAX MICHAEL REAGAN ENDORSES NEWT GINGRICH FOR PRESIDENT & LAUNCHES "THE NEWSMAX 2012 CAMPAIGN SPECIAL"

Newsmax and Ronald Reagan’s eldest son Michael Reagan say the 2012 presidential election is crucial to America’s future and Newt Gingrich is the candidate who will best continue the Reagan legacy.

On Thursday Newsmax released a special online broadcast, “The Newsmax 2012 Campaign Special,” hosted by Michael Reagan.

The exclusive election program is featured in lieu of the Newsmax Republican presidential debate originally scheduled for Dec. 27.

Newsmax is the nation’s leading online media company, reaching more than 10 million Americans monthly through its popular website, Newsmax.com, email news alerts and its monthly magazine. Forbes magazine has described Newsmax as a “powerhouse” in Republican politics.

The 2012 White House race is important “for the future of our country and in a very real way, for the world,” Reagan says.



Reagan, one of the country’s most respected conservative commentators, disclosed that when his father was asked to write a letter to be put into a time capsule to be opened on the 300th anniversary of the United States, he wondered “do I write about the freedoms we enjoy today knowing that if we don’t make the right decision today they may very well not enjoy the freedoms to open up that time capsule to read the letter.”

Reagan declares: “That’s how important this next election is. “It is about our freedoms. It is about voting to make sure those people can open up that time capsule to see what my father put into it.”

Introducing an exclusive Newsmax interview with Gingrich, Reagan says the former House speaker “will help continue my father’s legacy.”

Gingrich is “a man who fought in Congress for my father’s programs, a man who believes that President Obama’s vision for America is a dangerous one and must be stopped and reversed.”

Recounting Gingrich’s amazing career, Reagan says that after he was first elected to Congress in 1978, he “began to confront the usual politics and became a leading ally of my father, Ronald Reagan. He helped Congress push through massive tax cuts. He worked to secure a military buildup that helped defeat the Soviet Union. Under his leadership, Congress also limited the welfare state. As a leader in the Reagan revolution, Gingrich began to confront both Republicans and Democrats in Congress for their cozy insider deals.”

Michael Reagan also reminds viewers that House Speaker Newt Gingrich was the key conservative figure behind the Contract with America, which helped the GOP gain control of Congress in 2004 and led to the first balanced budget in decades.

And since leaving Congress, Reagan adds, Gingrich “has remained at the forefront of an American political scene” and “helped keep my father’s legacy alive.”

The Newsmax Election Special is airing on Newsmax for the next several days before the Iowa Caucus. It will also be aired on major broadcast outlets throughout the state of Iowa this coming weekend.

GO TO WWW.AMERICANCENSORSHIP.ORG TODAY & LET THE US CONGRESS KNOW EXACTLY HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT LEGALIZING CYBER-TERRORISM & CYBER-STALKING TODAY!

STOP UNINVITED COMMUNIST SYMPATHIZERS TODAY - WWW.AMERICANCENSORSHIP.ORG - END THE AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT WE CALL OBAMA TODAY!

ART LAFFER ENDORSES NEWT GINGRICH FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2012

AMERICA IS RISING WITH NEWT GINGRICH 2012

PROTECTING AMERICANS OR INVADING PRIVACY? GROUP SUES DHS OVER OCCUPATION OF SOCIAL MEDIA SITES

PROTECTING AMERICANS OR INVADING PRIVACY? GROUP SUES DHS OVER OCCUPATION OF SOCIAL MEDIA SITES

December 28, 2011


Well, pretty soon the federal government could be adding you as a friend on Facebook or following you on Twitter, if they have their way. Not literally, of course, but the DHS says they have plans to monitor social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, as well as message boards, in order to better protect the nation against terrorist threats.

But one online privacy group is suing the Department of Homeland Security over the plans, questioning the department’s legal authority for the initiative. As Trace Gallagher reported on today’s Studio B,agents could flag users for typing things like “infection,” “outbreak,” or “illegal immigrants.”



While the group in question may be up in arms, not everyone is upset about the potential oversight, with former prosecutor Ted Nelson calling it an “absolutely good” thing.

“After the Arab spring, if our government isn’t watching everything that is going on on the internet, we should be offended,” he said. “People are just screaming at you saying, ‘Hey, look at me.’ We should be looking at them.” Nelson also stated that if people are ‘stupid’ enough to allow the government enough access to be able to view what they’re posting, they deserve the ‘invasion.’



Defense attorney Pilar Prinz vehemently disagreed. “This smells of a big brother state, where Americans can just say one word –the wrong thing –on Facebook, where they think they’re just experessing their First Amendment rights, and all of a sudden the government is monitoring their actions.”

Prinz said that while protecting our security is vital, there’s a fine line between ensuring safety and crossing the line when it comes to privacies protected by the Constitution.

OBAMA: I'LL BREAK THE LAWS I SIGN TO KEEP VIOLATING THE UNITED STATES' CONSTITUTION

OBAMA: I'LL BREAK THE LAWS I SIGN TO KEEP VIOLATING THE UNITED STATES' CONSTITUTION

Posted by Ben on December 28, 2011

Emily Miller of The Washington Times reports that Obama plans to violate the $1 trillion omnibus spending bill he signed on Friday. Instead, he issued a signing statement that he and Eric Holder’s Justice Department believe the bill is “subject to well-founded constitutional objections."

What are they? That Congress has asked to be notified if U.S. troops are placed under foreign command. It does not ban the practice of placing U.S. troops under foreign generals; it simply requires that Congress be notified beforehand. Yet Obama whines the bill he signed “disallows the expenditure of funds ‘for any United Nations peacekeeping mission that will involve United States Armed Forces under the command or operational control of a foreign national,’ unless my military advisers have advised that such an involvement is in the national interest, and unless I have made the same recommendation to the Congress.”

Placing U.S. troops under foreign command has been controversial for decades — and had been unthinkable for more than 100 years after the ratification of the Constitution. Then-Congressman Doug Bereuter, R-Nebraska, said on the House floor in 1995, “There is a serious question whether foreign command can ever be constitutional.” Even those on the Right who would allow the possibility do so only under limited circumstances. Liberals in the Justice Department have argued for the president’s unlimited use of the military, under UN command, just as long. Evidently this president views Congressmen asking him for notification when he is violating their war-making powers beyond the pale.

Obama is also livid Congressional Republicans have “once again included provisions that would bar the use of appropriated funds for transfers of Guantanamo detainees into the United States.” Obama threatened to use executive powers to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to the mainland last December, before backing down.

The bill — which Obama signed — defunded four of his nine czars. Zero-funding these offices, Obama wrote, “could prevent me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibilities.”

Altogether, these acts, Obama writes, represent “constitutionally impermissible forms of congressional aggrandizement.”

Obama had criticized George W. Bush for using signing statements (rightly, in my opinion) but began using them himself shortly into his first year in office. As this author was the first to report, since losing control of Congress, Obama has ruled by executive order, regulation, and federal fiats, side-stepping Congress altogether.

This kind of move shows just how shameless Obama is: He is willing to use a signing statement to ignore provisions of a law he signed in order to preserve his ability to engage in a practice that almost certainly violates the U.S. Constitution. Quin Hillyer at The American Spectator summarizes:

This isn’t just a matter of choosing how to interpret unclear provisions of a law; this is explicitly refusing to abide by clear-as-day provisions in a law he just signed. As I have written repeatedly, this man has dangerously authoritarian tendencies. He is a menace.

Obama is a menace to our freedoms that must be removed from office.

– from Ben Johnson, The White House Watch.

AFGHANISTAN SIGNS ITS FIRST OIL DEAL WITH A FOREIGN COUNTRY... COMMUNIST CHINA

AFGHANISTAN SIGNS ITS FIRST OIL DEAL WITH A FOREIGN COUNTRY... COMMUNIST CHINA

Are you f*cking kidding me?

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) – Afghanistan’s government signed a deal Wednesday with China’s state-owned National Petroleum Corporation, allowing it to become the first foreign company to exploit the country’s oil and natural gas reserves.

The contract, which covers the northeastern provinces of Sari Pul and Faryab, is the first of several such blocks to be put on the market in coming months, Afghan Minister of Mines Wahidullah Shahrani said during the signing ceremony.

Bidding information for blocks in neighboring Balkh province will be released at end of February, and for the western Herat province by next summer, he said.

The ministry listed the initial value of the project with CNPC as $700 million. But the total could be ten times greater if more reserves are found and developed, and if international oil prices remain at today’s levels, Shahrani said.

Posted by ZIP on Wednesday, December 28, 2011, at 4:55 pm

OBAMA'S FED SUE RAHM EMMANUAL OVER VACANT BUILDING ORDINANCE

OBAMA'S FED SUE RAHM EMMANUAL OVER VACANT BUILDING ORDINANCE

By Michael Lansu Staff Reporter December 13, 2011 5:36PM

Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Tuesday defended the city’s new vacant building rules after the Federal Housing Finance Agency filed a federal lawsuit to challenge the ordinance that requires the mortgage agency to register vacant buildings with the city and pay fines if the properties are not properly maintained.



The FHFA, wants the city to exempt properties with mortgages held by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, which the federal agency supervises and regulates. The agencies hold mortgages on more than 250,000 Chicago homes.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago claims Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are exempt from supervision or regulation. The suit is asking a judge to declare the FHFA immune from the ordinance and order all money paid under the ordinance refunded.

In October, the city passed an ordinance to hold banks and other mortgage holders accountable for securing their vacant and foreclosed properties. Aldermen had approved a much tougher ordinance last summer, but watered it down after city attorneys feared that the earlier version would not withstand a court challenge.



The earlier version required banks to start maintaining a property as soon as the building became vacant. Instead the ordinance starts the clock 60 days after default. Vacant properties must be registered with the city, with a $500 fee, and fines can reach as high as $1,000 a day.“Protecting our residents and neighborhoods from vacant properties and foreclosure is a key goal of this administration,” Emanuel said. “We have successfully clarified the rules surrounding vacant properties, and we will be working with all parties to ensure that these properties are returned to useful status as quickly as possible.”

US TREASURY OCCUPIERS REFUSE TO LABEL COMMUNIST CHINA A CURRENCY MANIPULATOR

TREASURY: CHINA NOT A CURRENCY MANIPULATOR

By Bernie Becker and Vicki Needham - 12/27/11 05:31 PM ET

The Treasury Department on Tuesday declined to name China a currency manipulator — a label that lawmakers in both parties want slapped on Beijing.

In a semi-annual report released Tuesday, Treasury reiterated that China needs to be more flexible in appreciating the yuan.

But the department also said that, when compared to the dollar, the yuan had appreciated nearly 12 percent since last June — and almost 40 percent since China started reforming the renminbi in 2005.

“It is in China's interest to allow the exchange rate to continue to appreciate, both against the dollar and against the currencies of its other major trading partners,” the Treasury report said.

“A lack of continued appreciation by China would prevent the exchange rate from serving as a tool to encourage consumption so as to maintain strong, sustainable growth, further complicate the adjustment needed for broader financial sector reform, and undermine China's stated goal of strengthening domestic demand.”

Advocacy groups were disappointed by the Obama administration move, which comes months after the Senate easily cleared legislation targeting China’s currency practices.

Treasury had delayed its latest report in an effort to use several global summits to convince China to move along faster.

"China’s currency is still enormously undervalued — that fact is clear despite the Treasury report," said Scott Paul, the executive director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, a partnership between labor and manufacturing.

"I’m disappointed that President Obama has now formally refused to cite China six times for its currency manipulation, a practice that has contributed to the loss of hundreds of thousands of American manufacturing jobs," Paul said in a statement. "The House of Representatives should pass currency legislation as soon as it returns in January."

Even though the House passed legislation on the matter last year, top Republicans in that chamber don’t appear inclined to bring up a China currency bill. The three top members of the House GOP leadership —Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) — all voted against the 2010 currency bill.

Still, House leaders from both parties — including the chairman, Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), and ranking member, Rep. Sandy Levin (D-Mich.), of the Ways and Means Committee — have urged U.S. officials to press China's government to let its currency appreciate at a faster rate.

Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and the front-runner for the GOP’s 2012 presidential nomination, has also called for taking on China’s currency practices, and the Senate’s currency bill united lawmakers that don’t often find common ground, such as Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.).

Critics of China’s currency policy say that, by keeping the yuan artificially low, Beijing is able to make their exports cheaper — and thus more desirable. On the flip side, American exports become more expensive in China, which can help exacerbate the trade gap between the two countries.

But undervalued currency also is just one of many issues lawmakers and the administration are concerned about when it comes to the U.S.-China relationship.

President Obama made clear during his latest trip through the Pacific Rim last month that the United States would move forward on trade deals and other global business beneficial to U.S. firms — with or without China.

Several U.S. business groups have urged caution in passing legislation or pressing China too hard for fear of retaliation on exports.

For instance, the Club for Growth, the prominent free-market group, has warned that the Senate legislation could start a trade war, and lead to higher taxes in the United States.

NEWT GINGRICH - PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - 2012

DAY ONE OF NEWT'S JOBS AND GROWTH BUS TOUR

Newt kicked off his Jobs and Growth bus tour across Iowa yesterday with stops in Dubuque, Dyersville, and Decorah. At each stop, Newt explained why America needs jobs and growth and how we get there. Click here for a summary description of Newt's Jobs and Growth Strategy, as well as a catalog of the successful results of Newt's tenure as speaker.

At the National Farm Toy Museum in Dyersville, over 150 Iowans heard about Newt's record of being the only candidate to balance the federal budget.

Newt Gingrich brought out his resume to make the case that he's the only one of the Republican presidential hopefuls with the experience and track record to go toe-to-toe with President Obama next fall.

Gingrich told 150 people at the National Farm Toy Museum in Dyersville Dec. 27 he's running because there is a lack of leadership in Washington.

"I don't think anyone in Washington knows how to make the system work ... at the practical no baloney, how do you get the car started" level, Gingrich said.

He does, Gingrich assured an audience member who interrupted to ask, "Are you that leader?"

Jan Ireland of Marion knows the former speaker comes with baggage, but cares more about his accomplishments - and his ability to get things done.

"He's the only candidate that has experience balancing the budget," Ireland explained. "The others say they will do it, but he's done it, he's been part of it."

He's also "actually passed a major tax cut ... (and) actually twice created a national (Republican) majority," Gingrich said.

Before a crowd of over 200 at the Rotary Club of Dubuque, Newt contrasted his conservative supply-side economic record with Mitt's moderate Massachusetts record of higher taxes and more regulation.

Newt Gingrich took a swing at Mitt Romney this afternoon, telling a crowd here that the former Massachusetts governor’s tax plan has higher rates, more regulation and maintains the status quo at the Federal Reserve.

“There is a huge difference between the philosophy of a supply-side conservative in the camp Reagan tradition and the philosophy of a Massachusetts moderate,” Gingrich said before a crowd of around 200 people at the Rotary Club of Dubuque.

Gingrich made the statement at his first stop of his new Iowa tour, a 22-event affair known as the “Iowa Jobs and Prosperity Bus Tour” that will end Jan. 3.

In Decorah, nearly 200 people crammed in to Mabe's Pizza to hear Newt's plan to create jobs and economic growth.

A crowd of almost 200 people packed the Mabe's Pizza basement to capacity. Press barely fit; print reporters sat on the floor practically beneath the podium at which Gingrich spoke, while TV cameras and still photographers shoved their way into somewhat acceptable positions to shoot the event.