To achieve a balanced budget by 2002, both Democratic and Republican governors will tell you it's doable, but it's hard. I don't think it's doable in a year or two. I don't think we ought to lie to the American people. This is a huge, complicated job.
I think the baby boomers are now old enough that we can have an honest dialogue about priorities, about resources, about what works, about what doesn't.
I think on a bipartisan basis, we owe it to our children and our grandchildren to get this government in order to be able to actually pay our way. I think 2002 is a reasonable time frame and I would hope we can open a dialogue with the American people.
Inaugural Speaker speech, in Newt!: Leader of the Second American Revolution, by D. Williams, p. 222-3 - Jan 4, 1995
Q: You say the unemployment problem has been made worse by the policies of the Federal Reserve. You call for auditing the Fed and stripping it of its banking powers. But Rep. Paul thinks the Fed needs to be abolished to create lasting prosperity. Why is the Fed worth saving?
A: Well, I think that having some kind of central bank is an important part of how you deal with monetary policy in the modern world. But having Chairman Bernanke deal with hundreds of billions of dollars, some estimates as much as $16 trillion in secret is profoundly against a free society. The feds should be totally audited. It should be out in public. Their decision documents from 2007, 2008, & 2009 should be public. We should know who they bailed out and why they bailed them out. And who they didn't bail out. And I think that it is a scandal that the Federal Reserve is secret. And I think, frankly, their monetary policy since the late 90s has been a major factor in the economic pain we're now going through.
Iowa Straw Poll 2011 GOP debate in Ames, Iowa - Aug 11, 2011
We were asked the wrong question at the last debate. The question isn't, would we favor a tax increase? The question is, how would we generate revenue?
There are three good ways. The Ronald Reagan technique put 3,700,000 more people back to work. You reduce government spending. You raise government revenues enormously. The "committee of 12" ought to be looking at, how do you create more revenue, not how do you raise taxes.
Second, you go to energy: You open up American energy, $500 billion a year here at home, enormous increase in federal revenue.
Third, we own 69% of Alaska. Let's set aside [some] for national parks. We could liberate an area the size of Texas for minerals and other development. That would raise even more revenue, not the normal Washington viewpoint.
2011 GOP debate in Simi Valley, CA at the Reagan Library - Sep 7, 2011
Q: Given the resistance that we've seen in Washington to spending cuts, how can you possibly slash spending by 40%?
GINGRICH: If you assume Washington remains the way Washington is right now, it's all hopeless. We might as well buy Greek bonds and go down together.
Q: How do you get us out of that?
GINGRICH: I'm going to outline a 21st century Contract with America. And it's going to be far bolder, far deeper, far more profound than what we did in 1994. It's important to remember that in September 1983, we created 1,100,000 new jobs. Obama's socialist policies, class warfare, and bureaucratic socialism, we created zero in August. I believe with leadership we can balance the budget. I did it for four consecutive years. We went from $2.2 trillion projected deficit over a decade to $2.7 trillion projected surplus when I left. I think it is doable, but it takes real leadership.
2011 GOP Google debate in Orlando, FL - Sep 22, 2011
Rep. PAUL: [to Gingrich]: He received a lot of money from Freddie Mac. While he was earning a lot of money from Freddie Mac, I was fighting over a decade to try to explain to people where the housing bubble was coming from. So Freddie Mac is bailed out by the tax payers. So in a way, Newt, I think you probably got some of our tax payer's money.
GINGRICH: First, the housing bubble came from the Federal Reserve inflating the money supply. Second, I was never a spokesman for any agency, I never did any lobbying for any agency. I offered strategic advice. I was in the private sector. You're allowed to charge money for it. It's called free enterprise. I'm not for bailing them out, in fact, I'm for breaking them up.
Yahoo's "Your Voice Your Vote" debate in Iowa - Dec 10, 2011
He DID lead the Republicans to a takeover and subsequent balanced budget. While I have no issues with people working as consultants (my dad used to do that for a living) I do have an issue with him doing so for Freddie and Fannie. Regardless of how he tries to spin it there really is no reasonable way he could assume the information he gave them would not be used by lobbyists to get what they wanted out of Congress. Given the financial ruin those two companies were complicit in it leaves Gingrich on shakey ground.
However, Newt has a minor stigma of immoral donors to deal with. Or at least, the appearance of an immoral donor. His Super PAC "Winning Our Future" has recieved donations in the neighborhood of $10 million from Vegas casino owners Sheldon and Miriam Adelson. Now, I don't personally have an issue with gambling. I think it is a mental addiction that gets taken advantage of, but at the same time people can do whatever the heck they want with their money. That includes ruining their lives if they want. Also, as a mental addiction and not a physical one it is a matter of the person wishing to control their own actions. Simple solution, if you have a gambling problem, don't go near gambling facilities! There is no evidence to suggest that people with gambling "addictions" suffer any kind of withdrawal from not being able to gamble, unlike people with various drug and alcohol problems.
There are however a good number of people in this country that disagree with me on that and look at Vegas money like it's dirty. That could have a negative effect on Newt's campaign with certain voter blocks. Just something to consider.