Former Republican Representative (GA-6) and Speaker of the House
Mitt Romney's trade & immigration stances compared to Newt's
Do Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich agree on free trade? (Yes, but Newt would remove restrictions on China trade while Mitt would push hard on China). Do they agree on other foreign policy issues? (Their differences are mostly "tough and tougher" attitudes;
both strongly believe in American Exceptionalism). OnTheIssues' paperback book explores how Mitt's economic issue stances differ from Newt's, and where they are similar. We cite details from Mitt's books and speeches, and Newt's, so you can compare them,
side-by-side, on issues like these:
Gingrich has been a reliable advocate for free international trade, and a critic of both the politics and economics of protectionism.
In 1993, Gingrich supported NAFTA, and later argued for including Chile into the deal, with the eventual goal of
having the entire Western Hemisphere as a free trade zone.
In 1994, Gingrich supported passage of GATT, which established fast track authority for the president and the WTO.
In 1998, Gingrich supported MFN status with China. And he supported free
trade legislation between the United States and sub-Saharan African nations.
In 2010, Gingrich called for the creation of "Free Cities," Hong Kong-style free trade zones, developed from scratch according to agreements reached between the US and
the "receptive governments" controlling the agreed-upon spots.
Evidence of any pro-protectionism support is scant. However, Gingrich did vote YES to keep trade-distorting peanut subsidies in 1985, although he later voted against them in 1990.
Protectionism helps China & India challenge US supremacy
In the US, there exists a coalition of union leaders who prefer protection over competition. This liberal coalition complains about companies’ outsourcing jobs while insisting on corporate taxes that encourage companies to go overseas. They prefer that
government impose on business obsolete, absurd work rules, even though these raise costs, lower productivity, and make America less competitive in the world market.
The challenge to American economic supremacy from 1.3 billion Chinese and more than
1.1 billion Indians is vastly greater than anything we have previously seen. India’s embrace of capitalism and China’s bizarre combination of Marxist-Leninist government and free market initiatives will create a future where one-fourth of the world’s
markets will be controlled by these countries. Those who advocate economic isolationism and protectionism are advocating a policy that could help China and India surpass the US in economic power in our children’s or grandchildren’s lifetime.
Source: Gingrich Communications website, www.newt.org
, Dec 1, 2006
Mutual trade: neither free trade nor protectionism
Gingrich offered a six-point prescription:
Base the welfare system on work
expand day care--private and public--to accommodate welfare mothers
make "mutual trade"--neither free trade nor protectionism--the country's goal
government services; starting with NASA
reform the Pentagon, with a move away from all-volunteer standing forces to more emphasis on reserves and the National Guard; and
curb cost-of-living increases in social programs such as Social Security.
Source: Newt!, by Dick Williams, p.108
, Jun 1, 1995