The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller
Republican presidential candidate, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich talks with Al Nadeau during a factory tour of Freudenberg-NOK Sealing Technologies, Thursday, Aug. 25, 2011, in Manchester, N.H. (AP Photo/Jim Cole) Republican presidential candidate, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich talks with Al Nadeau during a factory tour of Freudenberg-NOK Sealing Technologies, Thursday, Aug. 25, 2011, in Manchester, N.H. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)  

Newt’s Trillion Dollar Answer: Sell Alaska?

Forget the Super Committee, just sell Alaska. That’s GOP Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich’s tongue-in-check solution to America’s debt dilemma.

Newt’s already gone on record saying the Super Committee is a “tragically dumb idea.” Now, the Former Majority Leader says we are trapped in ideas of the past – and need to think outside the box to find $1 trillion dollars in savings.

Gingrich’s brainchild: a “Seward’s Folly” in double reverse?

Fox News: Newt’s Trillion Dollar Answer: Sell Alaska? – FoxNews.com.

  • Pingback: Diseased Seals in Alaska may have radiation poisoning – Dec 29, 2011 | Is the End soon?

  • Apex321

    Sell the Palin family…

  • Pingback: Newt’s Trillion Dollar Answer: Sell Alaska? « Articles « Blog News- Left and Right Views

  • lukuj

    Selling California or New York or Illinois would be smarter.  Liberals could buy them and have their own state free of the United States.  They could ruin it all they want and not destroy the rest of the country with them.  Perhaps Mexico would like to buy California, debt and all.  Then illegals would no longer be an issue.

    • loudog

      For every dollar California gives to the federal government they get .78 cents back. New York .79 cents. Illinois .75 cents. Without these states, the rest of you will have to rely on states like Alaska, Mississippi and Louisiana, who get $1.41, $1.44 and $1.41 back for every dollar they give. Good luck with that.

      • AIS

        The discrepancy is due to the per capita income and consumption. CA, IL, WI, MI, NY, NJ, CT and DC, have a higher cost of living, and as a result pay much more in federal taxes. You also need to take into account the number of people in these states as well as the industrialization of the states. In addition,  there are more millionairess living in CA and NY than in MS or LA.

        As usual, a liberal who conveniently twist and spins facts.

        • Hamilton-Jeffersonian

            Isn’t Perry’s argument for taking stimulus money that it was money sent in from Texas anyway?  Why shouldn’t cash strapped blue states demand their money back as well? 

          • loudog

            Of course, states with the benefit of good education and employment opportunities have to kick in a little more to help those red states that don’t have the same advantages. How…progressive.

          • AIS

            What is so hard to understand? Let me try to explain it once more: In states like CA the per capita income is much higher; as a result, they pay more federal taxes…do you follow? Also, the CONSUMPTION is FAR more than any state in the US – you buy, consume, and pay more…are you still with me? Moreover, industrial states like CA bring more jobs to their state, which means more federal taxes. They pay more because there is more productivity and consumption taking place, that’s why the notion of “earn more-pay more” does not apply to this discussion. The correct notion is ” spend more-pay more”. Except for DC, the current ratio of give and take is quite fair. It is believed that when baby boomers retire, the state of CA will receive plenty more than it gives.

            FYI, there are plenty of wealthy Republicans in your so called ‘blue states’. If I was to believe the usual liberal rhetoric, I would have to assume that all the millionairess in your blue states are Republicans. In the end, who’s really helping who? And that’s why Loudog’s initial remarks never held water and were quite childish.

          • loudog

            That’s a really great explanation of something already known. California, New York and Illinois pay more into the federal government than they receive and Louisiana, Mississippi and Alaska do not. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

            btw, the entire thing is tongue in cheek, like Newt’s comment, so lets not take ourselves too seriously, mmk? 

      • Bubbaford01

        Check who is getting those benefits… minorities and illegals

    • Anonymous

      Beat to the punch by 15 hours!  :)   For sale: California, slightly used, low mileage….   :)

    • StargazerInSavannah

      Sweeten the deal by including Washington D.C. and Illinois.

  • loudog

    Lets just donate it to the Tea Party, it could be a far right mecca, free from any federal aid. Let them experiment with a no taxation, no government services, no health care, no unemployment or social security, polluted, militaristic, no minimum wage, third world banana republic. 

    • ursine

      Interesting idea… I suspect Alaska will do much better than California, where experimenting with liberalism led to the massive unsustainable debt and falling state revenue, among many other problems.

      • loudog

        CA does have some problems but they also have the 8th largest economy in the world. And they pay into the federal government instead of being a recipient of federal spending. CA gets .78 cents back for every dollar they give.

        On the other hand, Alaska gets more federal money than they give. CA would be doing alot better financially if they weren’t giving their wealth to states like Alaska.

        • Abortdemocrats

          The 8th largest economy in the world is hardly worth bragging about if you are broke. That’s like being the world’s fattest person, sure it’s a record but there is a price to be paid for that record. You keep spouting those statistics, where do they come from? I think that if California is such a haven for illegals and so rife with liberalism that your numbers are suspect. Other than that, you seem to be a typical liberal troll. Keep up the good work, everyone needs to see just how stupid liberals are. Do you do the same thing with girls? I mean hang around and bother/stalk them? The thing about people like you is that no one likes you, so it’s no different with you staying on a site you hate or going to a bar, either way no one likes you.

          • loudog

            don’t like those pesky facts do you. Are you a resident of Mississippi or Louisiana?

          • AIS

            The numbers are real but I believe they were taken in ’04 or ’06. Nevertheless, he’s looking at them from the surface and–of course– biasedly.

          • loudog

            and nobody else here ever takes things biasedly… get over yourself. The numbers are real and you can’t take a joke if it’s directed at your “side”.

          • AIS

            The numbers are real but I believe they were taken in ’04 or ’06. Nevertheless, he’s looking at them from the surface and–of course– biasedly.

        • Bubbaford01

          Depends on how you look at it, the loons in CA keep Alaska from pumping oil i.e. ANWAR.  Now if Alaska pumped/drilled freely, they would not need any extra income, not to mention the gold, silver, and diamonds there that the loon activists will not let Alaska touch.  If we sold Alaska to say Russia or China… those places would be drilled/mined with a net loss to the U.S.

    • Hamilton-Jeffersonian

      Sounds good.  I have a state flag for them already.

      • loudog

        God bless the M-16 and military industrial complex.

    • Anonymous

      Well, other than Alaska is pretty intense on individual rights unlike gun-banning Kali or any other “third world republic” and pretty pushy about pollution and spills, unlike glorious L.A, who into the mid ’90′s piped most of their raw sewage straight into the ocean.    Alaska was also earlier in working on petty drug decriminalization – because they are more Libertarian than Conservative.   Careful there, loudog – libs trying to give Right Wingers insulting advice often backfires.   Remember when y’all tried to insult us with the supposedly anti-gun movie “Lord of War” (which was really anti-arms trafficking and had little to do with civil gun control)?    We made it our favorite movie right up there with “Red Dawn”!    I remember many  very upset at that too.    Republic of Alaska, huh?   Yeah!    I could move there!

      • loudog

        I didn’t say Alaska was currently that way. Imagine a state/country that was governed and populated by the far right…get it?

    • AIS

      You’re as ignorant about economics as you are about the world and it’s history. If you closely look at all the ‘third world banana republics’, you will find that the majority have been and are, under the control of Left-Wing idealouges.

      • loudog

        Actually the left wing governments in south america were born from a history of being banana republics for foreign corporate greed. Try to brush up on your knowledge a bit.

  • Hamilton-Jeffersonian

    I have no problem with this proposition, as long as the buyer promises to take Palin as well. 

    • Abortdemocrats

      You are just a stupid person trying to appear intelligent. The only thing you have in common with your username is that they both contain alphabetic characters. Nobody likes you, either. I don’t mean here on this website, I mean anywhere. That much is obvious because you apparently live here among people you hate. That is a textbook definition of an idiot. I guess that’s better than violating restraining orders, so at least you are obeying the law.

      • Hamilton-Jeffersonian

        Nobody likes me??  waaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!  That’s it, goodbye cruel world!!

  • Anonymous

    Typical statist response.  Alaska belongs to the ALASKANS, not the federal government.  This land belongs to the state of Alaska and the federal government has unconstitutionally held this land and OUR resources from us. Who would he sell to, the Chinese??

    What Caused the “Sagebrush
    Rebellion?”

    74.
    Shouldn’t all of the states have been admitted to the Union on an equal basis?

    Yes. This was set forth by Congress in the Northwest
    Ordinance of 1787.

    75. Which
    states were strong-armed into accepting statehood without being admitted on an
    equal footing?

    All of the Western
    States and Alaska.

    76. In
    what way were they forced to accept statehood unequally?

    Large regions of
    these states were retained by the Federal Government for purposes not authorized
    by the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.

    77. About
    how much of the land did the Federal Government usually withhold from these
    states?

    The government
    retained around 50% of the land in most Western States, but 79% of Nevada and
    96% of Alaska.

    78. Are
    any of these states attempting to get this land back?

    Yes. The press has
    labeled this effort the “Sagebrush Rebellion,” but it is not a rebellion. These
    states are simply following the legal and Constitutional procedures necessary to
    have this land turned back to them.

    What About Locking Up
    State Territory As Wilderness Areas?

    79. Does
    the Constitution authorize the President and the Secretary of the Interior to
    lock up large blocks of land within a state as a “wilderness reserve?”

    No. This violates the express provisions of the
    Constitution but was upheld by the Supreme Court on extremely tenuous grounds.

    80. Does
    the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to have a national forest
    within the confines of a state?

    No. This is not included in the list of territories which
    the federal government is allowed to occupy with the consent of the state. (See
    Article I, Section 8, Clause 17) The Supreme Court had to distort the
    Constitution to justify it. Historically, the states have had fewer forest fires
    and have maintained the state forests on a higher level than the national
    forests.

    81. Does
    the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to have national parks within
    the confines of a State?

    No. For the same reasons as those cited above, the Supreme
    Court should have disallowed them. It has been observed that as a rule state
    parks are better maintained and provide better facilities than those operated by
    the Federal Government.

    What About Federal Control
    of Energy Resources?

    82. Does
    the Constitution authorize the government to control, regulate, or inhibit the
    production of energy resources within a state?

    No.

    Please read this, my source for this
    letter: NATIONAL
    CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL STUDIES http://www.nccs.net/101questions.html

    • MJHBAMA

      Besides which we would have to import all that oil we now call domestic.   The libs would probably like that.

      • Anonymous

        If Alaska had control of it’s lands and resources, we could produce a LOT more oil for the USA, than the twenty percent we currently supply.  We need to bring ANWR and the offshore fields online and we could replace most mid east oil with domestic and create a bunch of jobs and royalties that our country needs.

  • Anonymous

    It’s actually a very compelling idea.  Alaska has no real strategic value anymore.  With the environmentalist wackos preventing the full exploration of natural resources up there, there is no real economic value other than a limited amount of tourism.  The Russians and/or Chinese would pay an absolute fortune for Alaska….and they would open up the entire state to energy exploration, which would go on the market and stabilize prices.  I’m with Newt – SELL ALASKA NOW!