Mandating people buy health insurance
Back before the individual health care mandate in President Obama's law was the thing that angered Tea Partiers the most, Gingrich was backing it as part of a proposal offered by the Heritage Foundation to compete with Hillarycare. Today, conservatives hate see this as a violation of states rights mandated in the 10th Amendment. As Slate's Dave Weigel reports, Gingrich tried to explain it away by saying the 10th Amendment just wasn't fashionable in the 1990s:
It's nonsense to start a conversation by going back 18 years and playing 'gotcha.' I was explaining the position of conservatives who were trying to defeat HillaryCare. In 1993, you had nothing like the current focus on the 10th amendment. You had nothing like the current desire to get power out of Washington.
In the 1980s -- after he was a congressman! -- Gingrich wrote to the Journal of the American Medical Association to say that legalizing marijuana would be great. He introduced a bill to legalize it in 1981, the Economist explains. But in 1996, he introduced a really different bill -- proposing a life sentence for anyone who brought two ounces of the stuff into the country, and the death penalty for anyone caught doing it twice. Since then, though he still thinks legalizing marijuana would be disastrous, he's backtracked on the whole locking-up-people-forever thing too. In April, Gingrich said we're spending way too much money on prisons. "If our prison policies are failing half of the time, and we know that there are more humane alternatives — especially alternatives that do not involve spending billions more on more prisons — it is time to fundamentally rethink how we treat and rehabilitate our prisoners," he wrote in an April letter with the NAACP.
On March 7, Gingrich had an idea: impose a no-fly zone in Libya for humanitarian reasons. "This is a moment to get rid of [Qaddafi]. Do it." On March 23, Gingrich decided that was a terrible idea: "The standard [Obama] has fallen back to of humanitarian intervention could apply to Sudan, to North Korea, to Zimbabwe, to Syria this week, to Yemen, to Bahrain. This isn't a serious standard. ... I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi."
When the Supreme Court decided the Citizens United case last year, allowing unlimited corporate spending in political campaigns, Gingrich told NPR he was "delighted." (He was so delighted, in fact, that less than a year later he decided to star in a Citizens United movie.) Of course, he had a tweak: "I think I would say that the real campaign finance reform under our Constitution would be to allow anyone to give unlimited amounts of after-tax money, with the understanding that they would file every night on the Internet what they're spending and how they're spending it, so everybody could see who was involved." But in 1995, he had a different idea. Gingrich wanted to clean up the campaign finance system. The Washington Post's David Broder hailed his proposals in a column titled, "Gingrich's Ideas On Campaign Finance Reforms On Target." What were they? Keep limits on individual contributions, but lift them to $5,000. "If this were not heretical enough, the speaker had one other idea," Broder explained. He wanted to limit the strength of political action committees by allowing political parties to spend more money.