Trump's America

by Newt Gingrich

  The results have been impressive. Without having to cover the cost of the most expensive conditions, premiums for those in their early 20s have dropped by $5,000. Older customers in their 60s have seen a drop of $7,000.

  The program is expensive, but so are the Obamacare subsidies. Congress and the Trump administration should give states the flexibility to convert the Obamacare subsidies into high-risk pool funding. The reason this model is superior to Obamacare’s income-based model of subsidization is because it maintains the core ethic of personal responsibility, insisting that most people should be responsible for handling their health care expenses, while creating a safety net for people who are struck with particularly expensive diseases. It creates significantly more savings on premiums for insurance customers while being consistent with an ethos of personal responsibility with compassion, which is at the heart of the American system.

  CURING DISEASES BY DRAMATICALLY INCREASING FUNDING FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

  The federal government has an integral role to play in the life cycle of innovation that produces new cures and treatments. While it is true that the clear majority of new medicines are created by the private sector, the basic scientific research that is at the foundation of those breakthroughs is usually funded by the federal government. Medical innovators then take that publicly available basic research and use it as the foundation to create lifesaving new medicines.

  This kind of basic research is so speculative and uncertain to result in marketable treatments that few investors would take the risk to fund it. Yet it is essential to producing new medicines. That’s why the federal government must step in.

  One of the most frustrating tendencies of the Washington budgetary process is to allow short-term budget crises to constrict smart spending in favor of urgent spending. The relative paucity of research investment at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) are perfect examples of this phenomenon.

  Alzheimer’s disease, for example, is a $20 trillion liability over the next four decades. Medicare and Medicaid already spend more than $150 billion per year treating the disease. Yet, NIH is spending only $1.3 billion on research into Alzheimer’s disease and dementia, which could produce a cure or other treatments that could delay the onset of the disease. Simply postponing the onset of Alzheimer’s disease by five years would save $10 trillion over the next four decades. NSF is similarly underfunded in the field of basic brain research where its research into computing is vital to handle the flood of new data being generated about the workings of the brain.

  The booming economy is going to produce more tax revenue than expected in our budget bills. The Trump administration and Congress should dedicate a portion of that extra revenue to effective scientific research at NIH and NSF. They should also look at innovative new ways to fund research beyond the traditional budget, such as the use of Dr. Michael Burgess’s “Alzheimer’s Bonds,” which would pay back the bondholders with money saved by breakthroughs. Cash prizes for breakthroughs should also be explored to focus research on results rather than the grant application process.

  NEW METHODS OF PAYING FOR EXPENSIVE DRUGS

  The Trump administration should build on the progress they have made in value-based purchasing contracts with additional reforms that allow Medicare, Medicaid, and the private sector to develop methods of arbitraging the cost of expensive breakthrough medicines that produce long-term budget savings.

  ACCELERATE THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR BREAKTHROUGH DRUGS

  Recent studies have estimated it takes between $1 billion and $2.6 billion to bring an FDA-approved medication to market. Much of this cost is tied up in the expensive approval process required by the FDA. The 21st Century Cures Act was a big step forward in dealing with this issue. President Trump and Congress should build on this success by giving the FDA more hiring flexibility, so it can keep up with the rapid medical advances of the private sector. Currently, the FDA is trying to evaluate new drugs and treatments it barely understands. This delays the process.

  This is just a partial list. There’s a lot more we can do to continue the 1,000-step health reform process that President Trump and Congressional Republicans have begun.

  To learn more, I recommend reading the health care chapter of my New York Times No. 1 best seller Understanding Trump and for a 15-year-old look at how little health care has been reformed, look at my 2003 book, Saving Lives and Saving Money.

  PART TWO

  CHALLENGES

  President Trump and Republicans face tremendous challenges from virtually every direction. They are being attacked by every facet of the anti-Trump coalition, which controls much of the news media, the Washington establishment, and the cultural Left. At the same time, President Trump is working to solve many of America’s toughest problems, such as the opioid epidemic that is devastating communities across our nation. This section confronts these challenges and explains how the president can overcome them.

  CHAPTER TEN

  FIGHTING FAKE NEWS

  The news media aggressively lied about the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, but this was only part of a much larger campaign of distortion and distraction the media has waged against President Trump.

  Trump has had to fight the media on a daily basis because its members are overwhelmingly, bitterly, and actively opposed to him. In fact, the media has reached a point where attacking the president is the default action—no matter what the story is about. It has become muscle memory for reporters, anchors, editors, and producers to go on the offensive.

  Yes, President Trump uses strong, sometimes harsh, language when dealing with his opponents (including the media). I am never surprised by the hostile back-and-forth over the president’s words and the media’s hurt feelings. Yes, the president, as a businessman in politics, doesn’t speak or act like a typical politician. After more than two years of getting to know him, you would think the media would be used to this by now. Still, they fill airwaves and news pages with panicked outrage anytime President Trump describes a domestic or foreign issue in blunt, realistic, or indelicate terms.

  Clearly, the media is having a hard time adjusting to President Trump’s everyday behavior. To give them the benefit of the doubt, he is a unique commander in chief. However, it is astonishing to see the complete disconnect between the mainstream media and reality when it comes to the substance and outcomes of President Trump’s policies.

  LYING ABOUT THE TRUMP ECONOMY

  As I have described in previous chapters, the economy and stock market have soared during the Trump presidency despite dire warnings from the media in 2016 that Trump would destroy our economy if elected.

  As Stephen Moore wrote for Townhall.com1 on January 3, 2018, since President Trump’s election, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) had gained 35 percent, “making the last 14 months one of the greatest bull market runs in history.” In February and March, the markets went through a correction period amid worries that, due to the strength of the economy, the Federal Reserve would raise interest rates more quickly than expected and that President Trump’s tough posture against China’s unfair trade practices would lead to decreased commerce. However, even accounting for the correction, the increase in the value of the markets since the election of Donald Trump has been historic.

  Media often like to describe stock market gains as only benefiting the wealthiest Americans, however, Moore rightly pointed out that “some $6 trillion of wealth has been created for Americans—which is very good news for the 55 million Americans with 401(k) plans, the 25 million or so who have IRAs, and another 20 million with company pension plans and employee stock ownership plans.”

  Importantly, this historically significant bull market is completely opposite the false reality the liberal media imagined prior to Trump’s election.

  Here are just a few of the completely incorrect media predictions on the economy, which Moore cited:

  • The Washington Post editorial board wrote on October 5, 2016
, that “A President Trump could destroy the world economy.”

  • Ben White for Politico2 wrote on October 21, 2016, that “Wall Street is set up for a major crash if Donald Trump shocks the world on Election Day and wins the White House. New research suggests that financial markets strongly prefer a Hillary Clinton presidency and could react with panicked selling should Trump deliver a shocking upset on Nov. 8.”

  • Finally, Paul Krugman of the New York Times3 wrote on November 9, 2016, the day after the election, “It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover? We are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight.” The piece was dramatically titled “The Economic Fallout.”

  These quotes illustrate the level of hostility the media had for President Trump before he even took office. For months before the election, the elite media was desperately trying to persuade the American people not to elect President Trump. Just hours after Americans didn’t follow their marching orders, the elite media moved to full-blown scare tactics.

  White and Krugman later acknowledged they were wrong. However, Krugman is still warning that the markets should fear President Trump.4 But they are outliers. Many in the media have never taken the time to acknowledge how completely wrong they have consistently been about President Trump or the economy since his election. In fact, to avoid addressing this elephant in the room, most members of the media have just avoided reporting on the strong and growing economy under President Trump.

  For another set of examples, gross domestic product (GDP) growth has boomed under President Trump—despite claims by so-called media experts that the sluggish sub-2 percent growth under Obama was the new normal.

  In May, when President Trump announced his budget plan, the media raced to prove the president wrong when he said that his policies would help drive economic growth beyond the 3 percent mark. Reporters immediately dialed up all the liberal economists they could find to counter President Trump’s prediction. Their so-called economic experts said getting to 3 percent economic growth was probably impossible.

  CBS News wrote on May 24, 2017,5 that Trump’s claim was unrealistic saying, “many regard the Trump projection—which shows the growth rate advancing from 2.3 percent in 2017 to 3 percent by 2021 and staying at that level until 2027—as far-fetched.”

  Finance & Commerce wrote,6 “The Trump team assumes that it can accelerate growth by more than a full percentage point—the equivalent of roughly $200 billion annually in today’s dollars. At a time of sluggish worker productivity, an aging workforce and slower spending by consumers, most economists say the promises are far-fetched.”

  Some so-called experts even said that 3 percent growth would only be possible if the United States doubled its immigrant population over 10 years—or if we nationally adopted one-day weekends. Others said growth at this level would require an unemployment rate of 0 percent. This is completely absurd. Prior to the 2008 recession, U.S. productivity growth had been regularly above 3 percent since the Great Depression.

  None of these ridiculous criteria have been met, yet in November 2017, the Commerce Department reported that GDP for the third quarter had grown by 3.3 percent, which Reuters reported7 was “the quickest pace in three years.” That figure was up even from second quarter growth under President Trump, which was at 3.1 percent. Growth slowed slightly in the fourth quarter, and President Trump’s first year ended with 2.6 annualized GDP growth. However, this slowdown was attributed to the wave of late summer hurricanes that battered Texas, Louisiana, and Florida. The storms caused billions of dollars in damage in the southern United States and brought commerce to a near standstill in affected areas.8

  These growth numbers were still astounding considering President Trump inherited Obama’s lethargic economy. In fact, the first quarter’s weak growth was the last holdover from the Obama years because Trump’s policies were just beginning to go into effect. In fact, the average growth for the last three quarters in 2017 was 2.97. Even with the first quarter included, Trump’s first year ended less than half a percentage point away from his goal, which the media had declared impossible.

  Trump and his team achieved this terrific increase in our economic growth by enacting his deregulation effort, which was largely ignored by the media. Passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will help ensure that the United States keeps this pace.

  Naturally, those on the Left are trying to claim that the significant gains in the economy during President Trump’s first year in office are due to Obama-era policies—or they say Trump is just lucky because the world economy is growing and driving up U.S. productivity. These claims are, of course, absurd.

  For a simple visual, type “Dow Jones” in your preferred Internet search engine. A chart will come up in the search results. Select the “five-year” view. There you will see a sudden spike in the stock market value around three-quarters of the way through the chart. Move your mouse to where that spike begins. The sudden jump in value between the week before the 2016 election and the week after, as well as the sustained strong growth since then is a powerful visual indicator of the impact of the Trump presidency on the markets. The growth in the markets is incredibly strong despite a correction in February and March 2018.

  The gains made in the United States are a result of President Trump destroying Obama’s regulations and economic policies so businesses can flourish. Government doesn’t create wealth or jobs; the private sector does. President Trump knows this.

  Finally, in addition to being wrong about or ignoring President Trump’s success, members of the media are doing all they can to amplify supposedly bad economic news.

  Julia Seymour for the Media Research Center9 pointed out in a January 9, 2018, article that the three largest broadcast networks in the United States (ABC, CBS, and NBC) went out of their way to report on a less-than-perfect December jobs report by the Commerce Department Bureau of Labor.

  Economists had expected 190,000 new jobs in December, yet only 148,000 were gained. Despite this, unemployment remained at a 17-year low and wages grew.

  These negative reports came from the three networks after an entire year of ignoring good news under Trump’s leadership—such as stock market records, other positive jobs reports, and success in defeating ISIS forces, according to Seymour. In fact, ABC World News hadn’t reported anything on four previous successful job reports in 2017.

  This trend continued when the January jobs report was released. The United States had gained 200,000 jobs—23,000 more than had been predicted.10

  The media has been consistently wrong about or ignored the success of the Trump economy, and they will likely continue to do so. As Americans continue to see their wages, retirement savings, and job opportunities increase, the ossified media will see its already dwindling influence decrease.

  REPORTING GOSSIP, IGNORING SUBSTANCE

  Instead of reporting President Trump’s achievements, the elite media has decided to scrap journalistic principles to chase rumors and gossip.

  The great drama of early 2018 was the release of Michael Wolff’s book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House. In the book, Wolff wrote many tales attributing odd behavior to the president—and included a host of nasty comments about the president and his family, which were reportedly made by former strategic advisor Steve Bannon.

  It was a smear book meant to embarrass the president by calling into question his mental stability and intelligence. Wolff would have us believe the man who built a multibillion-dollar business empire and then defeated 16 formidable Republicans, the Hillary Clinton political machine, and the entire elite media to become president was somehow lacking in mental faculties. Ridiculous.

  With enthusiastic media coverage of its unsubstantiated wild claims, the book was a popular left-wing hit piece from the start.

  On the Today Show on January 5, 2018, Wolff told host Savannah Guthrie that he “said what was necessary to get the story.”

/>   Later, when CNN’s Michael Smerconish11 questioned Wolff about this comment—and emails he had sent to the White House that indicated Wolff misrepresented himself and the book in order to get the access he needed, Wolff got flustered and accused Smerconish of “doing the work of the White House.” In the emails, Wolff claimed that he “liked” the president and described the book project as an attempt to “humanize” and “change perceptions” about him.

  CNN also reported that12 “while working on the book, [Wolff] also publicly flattered his sources and criticized other news outlets for being too tough on Trump.”

  Clearly, this was not an honest, scholarly work of journalism. But that didn’t stop the mainstream media from treating it as such. Despite the appearance that Wolff misrepresented himself (and despite the media’s inability to verify anything he wrote), the elite punditry devoted itself to reporting on the book of gossip and insults as though it was a serious work.

  Geoffrey Dickens with the Media Research Center13 reported on January 10, 2018, that morning and evening shows for ABC, CBS, and NBC had spent more than two hours of combined air time talking about the book from January 3 through January 9.

  At the same time, Dickens noted, “other big news, like the FBI re-opening the investigation into the Clinton Foundation scandal (11 minutes, 10 seconds) and the Dow Jones cracking the 25,000 mark (5 minutes, 46 seconds) were swamped by the Wolff book coverage (2 hours, 20 minutes, 5 seconds).”