Newt Gingrich’s case for boosting federal investments into private sector space projects awkwardly embraces a core tenet of modern liberalism: the belief that government spending can help the economy.
“By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American,” Gingrich said in Florida, explaining that it would entail “commercial near-Earth activities that include science, tourism and manufacturing, because it is in our interest.”
The former Speaker’s argument rests on textbook Keynesian economics: the notion that targeted government investments in industries can stimulate economic growth.
It’s a viewpoint that Republicans today reject with unprecedented vigor since they went, with a few exceptions, all in against President Obama’s stimulus package in 2009.
Not surprisingly, Gingrich’s space initiative has been criticized by his 2012 primary rivals Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.
Gingrich’s current run has thrust him into an odd and in some ways contradictory position. On the one hand, polls indicate that he increasingly is picking up the vote of the self-identified “tea partiers” who tend to oppose government intervention — sometimes even when it comes to the GOP sacred cow of military spending.
On the other hand, his record of advocating large government projects, partly for their stimulative impact, means he’s vulnerable to being attacked as a “big government conservative.” Meandering from the anti-spending tendencies of the base make it more difficult for him to push back on those criticisms.
Composite includes photos from lculig and broukoid / Shutterstock.
Sahil Kapur
Sahil Kapur is a congressional reporter for TPM. He previously covered politics and public policy for numerous publications including The Guardian and The Huffington Post. He can be reached at sahil [at] talkingpointsmemo.com.
Well, you can't make many more permanent bases on Earth -- you've already got about 1,000. So why not the moon? You'll just be adding a Keynesian space program to Keynesian militarism. Would be nice, though, if you could get some Keynesian spending in your communities. But that would be too "socialist."
Why bother with a moon base? We've already been there. And why waste our time going in our own solar system? I say that we need to prepare a five year mission that will explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations, and boldly go where no man has gone before.
The Lord of the Rings also wants to build a 600 ft Ron Paul doll on the shoreline, in a pose where it looks like it's shaking its fist at all those pesky negroes overseas. That'll show em.
Coming from Las Vegas Nevada, the SPACE AGE has arrived with BIGELOW AEROSPACE owned by Robert Bigelow the multi-millionaire owner of THE BUDGET SUITES OF AMERICA a string of low-budget hotels in Las Vegas Nevada & Phoenix Arizona. What BIGELOW AEROSPACE entails are the rental of Space Pods above the Earth where wealthy individuals, corporations & countries would rent out either for Space Tourism or Scientific Experiments. Space will explode with activity with a promotion towards private enterprise. As a Liberal Democrat, we should recognise that COST is holding us back. To save taxpayer dollars & energise the private sector, politicians should offer tax-free earnings for the first 25 years of any profits made in space. We should also establish a series of tax-free prizes: a prize for the company that can produce an orbital vehicle at a certain cost which the perfect example is VIRGIN AEROSPACE in New Mexico with Billionaire owner Sir Richard Branson. Policy-makers should also create safety standards that are tough but fair. Basically private enterprise can take some of the load off NASA whose budgets are embroiled in a fight in the US Congress with Republicans & Democrats.
Back in the day, folks in CA called Governor Brown, 'Governor Moonbeam' due to his odd ideas. Perhaps we should call Newt, 'Speaker Moonbase' because this idea is completely insane. Of course, he's saying this in FL, the home of NASA. Talk about pandering for votes...
Our countries infastructure in crumbling before our eyes. We spend about 2.4 percent of our GDP on infastructure, China 9% or GDP, India 5% of GDP and this guy wants to spend money on a moon base - OMG.
Gingrich/Romney 2012 -- We Just Make Sh!t Up As We Go Along
I thought Conservatives were all about saving money. I'm all for space exploration but putting a colony on the moon will be in the billions of dollars? With all the problems we have on Earth and in the USA, is it really rational to even be thinking about this right now. The only way I would be for this right now is if Newt said that he would be willing to go up there and never come back again
Militant Without A Cause It doesn't have to cost billions. Granted, with Republican-style, no-bid contracts, it could be really, really expensive.
But it doesn't have to be. Musk of SpaceX says they will be able to put around 16 tons into a lunar transfer orbit for $100 million a shot in another couple of years. And Bigelow Aerospace already has those inflatable space habitats available. So a small base could be put in place for under $1 billion, guessing that 3 or 4 launches would be needed.
Ideally, we would put the base on one of the poles so we could mine the volatiles. That would mean easy extraction of oxygen and even fuel production. Greatly cutting costs of maintaining the base.
Keynes wanted to spend government money NOW to create jobs immediately. There is actually a case for a moonbase, and I bet it would be both cheaper and less deadly than invading Iran (and if the moon project would make the GOP forget the Iran project, then moon it is), but the jobs aren't immediate. To the degree we can target job growth, a reason for funding (or rather trying to fund) construction projects is construction is where a lot of unemployment is found. Where would space project jobs be? In a trade that's suffering high unemployment? In a location with high unemployment? If the answer to both is "no", then job creation just isn't the best argument.
“By the end of my second term.” Ha.ha,ha,ha. This guy really is insane.
The biggest problem with Newt’s fantasy is that it would have to be accomplished entirely under Republican administration. And as today’s Republicans have shown, over and over, is that they’re simply incapable of pulling something like that off. If today’s Republicans had been running the space program in the ‘60s we’d still be practicing with Rhesus monkeys. Another Republican Boondoggle, and a lot of dead monkeys.
The biggest problem with this idea is not outcome, but the process. This is another classic example of the Republican magic asterisk. It goes like this:
1. Decide we want a moonbase.
2. Offer a prize based on a small percentage of an already depleted NASA budget
3. * A trillion dollars of money magically appears to fund the research, technology and implementation.
4. We have a moonbase!
This is exactly the problem with their approach to the deficit:
1. Declare the deficit too large.
2. Announce that we're going to cut back on government spending during recessionary times.
3. * Businesses magically start spending huge amounts of money to produce goods and hire people when demand magically increases.
4. Deficit fixed!
The Ryan budget was one giant magic asterisk. So is supply-side economics. So is Medicare Advantage plan subsidies for private insurers.
Mr.E. A/K/A "Underpants Gnome Business Plan Logic."
Yes, the Lord of the (Wedding) Rings wants to shrink the government down to where it cannot afford Moonbase Newt.
He already has a lunatic base.
AdAbsurdum ROFL!
Newt: "All your moon base are belong to us.".
So, the GOP is going to embrace the notion that the era of wanting a smaller government will be over if, God forbid, Newtron Man get elected president?
Or was I moved into the freaking Twilight Zone without my knowledge?
Damn, I hate it when that happens.
There is something about that photoshopped image of the Attack Muffin in a space suit that reminds me of the famous 'Crybaby' cover.
fargo116 I want to know how they fit him into the suit? Even photoshopped, it must have been quite the chore!
Cyberduckie They only had to worry about fitting in his head. Those helmets are WAY oversized.
Neutonicus Lococius Astronocus, Creator of Civilivations and Terrestrial . Seen and Unseen. Lead us, oh Great Leader into that certain bright yet unseen light!
Newt GingRIC: Our National Clown Treasure.
He opens his mouth and a grateful nation laughs.
Maybe if they aim him juuuuuuuust right, we can give the Moon it's own moon.
What, no mention of George Bush Jr.'s "Mars, bitches!" from 2004?
I totally think he should go.
rogierland Open the pod bay door, Callista.
rogierland Let's not add to the space garbage problems.
In space they can't hear you pander.
"textbook Keynesian economics: the notion that targeted government investments in industries can stimulate economic growth."
That's not textbook Keynesian economics at all -- although it's not incompatible with it. Textbook Keynesianism holds that there are times when government spending, preferably deficit-financed spending, can offset a lack of private demand and mop up excess private savings, preventing a drop in aggregate income.
Keynes was pretty much indifferent to HOW the money was spent -- he once suggested, only partly in jest, that governments could bury cash in jars, then pay people to dig them up again. Which isn't exactly a "targeted" investment.
What Newt is talking about is more like the kind of "industrial policy" that some lefty economists suggested in the 80s -- back when everybody thought the Japanese had it all figured out.
Of course, the Reaganites (the real Reaganites, not the shameless opportunists like Newt) hated the idea. Ironically, so did Krugman -- the Keynesian's Keynesian.
/eagerly awaiting appropriate "Space Oddity" cover upload to Youtube. Go go go!
Hundreds of silly (and funny!) comments when the story broke, but the Keynesian aspect was immediately more important to me. The big question I have is whether Newt threw this out as a one-off pander to Florida, or was he really suggesting a trillion dollar government stimulus project? (Or, very possibly he was doing both, with plausible deniability of either - he could always fall back on his "Hey, I just think grandiose thoughts!") He has always had a knack for accidentally speaking truth, and then backtracking in the face of the wrath of his party. Remember his initial comments to the Ryan budget plan?
And for the record, committing to a huge 8-year government project involving increased research, technology and local manufacturing would be good for the economy, whether we're building space stations or defenses against hostile aliens (just not as good as investing in more pragmatic research, technology and local manufacturing that would more directly improve infrastructure and education.)
http://blastr.com/2011/08/nobel-prize-winning-econ...
Mr.E. Newt is big on space exploration and development and has talked about a lunar colony for decades. It's one of the few things I agree with him on, but I don't agree with him on how to pay for it.
Flying SquidMr.E. Does it involve Sir Richard Branson?
I actually support the idea of a permanent Moon base, because the Apollo program created a huge number of successful spinoffs that have saved countless lives and improved countless industries, so it was a net gain for America even though the goal itself was mainly symbolic.
However, to have an Apollo program, you need to have an Apollo budget. NASA doesn't have an Apollo budget and will never have one with taxes so low and a deficit so high, something Newt would do nothing to help.
Flying Squid I agree, but I would like to see such an investment take second place to alternative energy research.
AdAbsurdum They could actually go hand in hand because space technology involves energy research and with no fossil fuels on the moon, powering a permanent colony would require alternative energy sources.
Flying SquidAdAbsurdum True, and really, when you consider the entire budget, NASA is and always has been a tiny drop in the budget bucket. If we want to innovation, then a real push to space is a great driver of technological improvement. And that adds up to a more competitive America.
Many of the instruments that I use at work were improved or even conceived during the push to the moon. (I use mass spectrometry). Going back in a big way isn't just more feasible than going to Mars, but it also would inadvertently add to our economy in a lot of unconceived ways. I know may Democrats often instinctively go against space exploration, but I think it gives us way more than it takes.
Newt has enough wives to form a functioning colony on the moon
tchanta take exception to the word "functioning" while agreeing with the rest.
I am awaiting the permanent human settlement on Newt Gingrich's massive head.
jaboobyville
*********************
Once established? We migrate to a new settlement on his even more massive ego.
jw1
jw1 jaboobyville "We migrate to a new settlement on his even more massive ego."
Not possible. The gravity on a planet of that size would squash you like an eggplant.
Let Him Go!! Maybe his Neo-Confederate minions will follow!
He's a space cowboy, I bet you weren't ready for that.
Yeah, he's a space cowboy
You know, he knows where it's at. Yeah yeah yeah.
peterprinciple
...some call him the Gangster of Hate...
@David Newt: You're the cutest thing that I ever did see
I really love your peaches, want to shake your tree
Lovey-dovey, lovey-dovey, lovey-dovey all the time
Ooo-eee baby, I'll sure show you a good time
peterprinciple
Take him out to the black,
Tell'em he ain't comin' back...
If I am not mistaken this would be in violation of existing international treaties. During the Cold War it was agreed that the Moon was neutral territory thanks to fears of the big powers setting up military installations once we reached the Moon.
Ground Control to Crazy Newt
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like