I first met Newt in 1973, when he was making his initial unsuccessful bid for Congress. Fortunately, I have not seen him since 1980. I was a local office holder and he wanted my help. He failed to obtain it. My standards were never that low and he was always transparent.
Despite his claims, Newt’s intellect should be an embarrassment to him. My first degree was in history. It is weird listening to this former college instructor in history try to speak on the subject. His lack of comprehension, beyond a handful of names and dates, is astounding. Then, again, he seems also proud of his marital accomplishments.
Economics? A total absence of credentials and comprehension in no impediment to this jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none. Facts? He tenaciously holds to that same standard.
Since the media decided to forgo journalism in favor of entertainment, buffoons have become the networks’ stock in trade guests. That provides Newt with a level of exposure that is toxic to the public.
Naturally, ABC invited Newt, as shill for the plutocrats, on this Sunday’s “This Week” show. Giving the network its money’s worth, he provided some of his usual fatuous fare. This resulted in him proving that math is just one more item on his long list of areas of ignorance.
Commenting on the recent McCutcheon v. FEC joke by the Supreme Court of Wall Street, Newt stated, “The next step is the one Justice Clarence Thomas cited — candidates should be allowed to take unlimited amounts of money from anybody. And you would, overnight, equalize the middle class and the rich.” I’m guessing that the amount available from most of us in the middle class is severely limited. Perhaps he doesn’t count us as “anybody.”
Let me provide a little math. The limit before this week was $123,200. That was $48,600 from individuals to candidates and $ 74,600 to PACs and parties. The Court eliminated some of the bans. Nearly 600 of Newt’s “rich” had bumped up against that limit. The effective new limit is $3,600,000. My CPA says that will not be a problem for me.
So, the Court’s decision is one step towards equalizing nearly 600 people with the few score millions still temporarily left in the middle class. Another aspect which the brilliant Newt fails to take into account is that rich people generally have more disposable, discretionary funds available.
I changed my major from math over 56 years ago but am willing to match whatever math skills remain against the ones that Newt never had.
.
.
