Gingrich releases Freddie Mac contracts

The contract seems to offer no insight other than this: Gingrich was for a time employed by Freddie Mac as a consultant for $25,000 per month. This of course neither substantially expands the public record nor accounts for all the money Gingrich received directly or indirectly from Freddie Mac, but it will allow Gingrich to brag about releasing his contract in the debate starting within the hour.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #6
Newt Gingrich releases Freddie Mac contracts: Read them here - The Washington Post

Seems he is attempting to be as forthcoming and transparent as possible. Like or hate the man he's been more open during this process than any recent candidate in memory.

Yes or no.

Do you think he was lobbying for Freddie Mac?

Well since I wasn't privy to the context of his conversations it would be impossible to know for sure. If I were a gambling man I would say in the technical sense he probably was. But two points.

First, lobbying is legal. Second, no congressman to my knowledge has come forward to say Newt tried to influence them and their legislation.

Until either of those two things change the point is moot.
 
This is like someone releasing their personnel paperwork from any job. It is one step up from a job application.

This is not a release of work product. I want to see the part where he told them what they were doing was "insane".

I want to see the part where they told him they were being forced to make bad loans to negroes.

For now, all we have is this Q&A session between Newt and Freddie Mac employees:

Q: A key element of the entrepreneurial model is using the private sector where possible to save taxpayer dollars and improve efficiency. And you believe the GSE model provides one way to use the private sector.

Gingrich: Some activities of government – trash collection is a good example – can be efficiently contracted out to the private sector. Other functions – the military, police and fire protection – obviously must remain within government. And then there are areas in which a public purpose would be best achieved by using market-based models. I think GSEs provide one of those models. I like the GSE model because it provides a more efficient, market-based alternative to taxpayer-funded government programs. It marries private enterprise to a public purpose. We obviously don't want to use GSEs for everything, but there are times when private enterprise alone is not sufficient to achieve a public purpose. I think private enterprise alone is not going to be able to help the Gulf region recover from the hurricanes, and government will not get the job done in a very effective or efficient manner. We should be looking seriously at creating a GSE to help redevelop this region. We should be looking at whether and how the GSE model could help us address the problem of financing health care. I think a GSE for space exploration ought to be seriously considered – I'm convinced that if NASA were a GSE, we probably would be on Mars today.

Gingrich: Certainly there is a lot of debate today about the housing GSEs, but I think it is telling that there is strong bipartisan support for maintaining the GSE model in housing. There is not much support for the idea of removing the GSE charters from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. And I think it's clear why. The housing GSEs have made an important contribution to homeownership and the housing finance system. We have a much more liquid and stable housing finance system than we would have without the GSEs. And making homeownership more accessible and affordable is a policy goal I believe conservatives should embrace. Millions of people have entered the middle class through building wealth in their homes, and there is a lot of evidence that homeownership contributes to stable families and communities. These are results I think conservatives should embrace and want to extend as widely as possible. So while we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself.

Q: This is not a point of view one normally associates with conservatives.

Gingrich: Well, it's not a point of view libertarians would embrace. But I am more in the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism. I recognize that there are times when you need government to help spur private enterprise and economic development. Look at our own history. The government provided railroad land grants to encourage widespread adoption of what was then the most modern form of transportation to help develop our country. The Homestead Act essentially gave land away to those willing to live on it and develop it. We used what were in effect public-private partnerships to bring telephone service and electricity to every community in our nation. All of these are examples of government bringing about desired public purposes without creating massive, taxpayer-funded bureaucracies. To me that is a pragmatic and effective conservative approach.

"We have a much more liquid and stable housing finance system than we would have without the GSEs."

And there is no such thing as "the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism."
 
Newt Gingrich releases Freddie Mac contracts: Read them here - The Washington Post

Seems he is attempting to be as forthcoming and transparent as possible. Like or hate the man he's been more open during this process than any recent candidate in memory.

Yes or no.

Do you think he was lobbying for Freddie Mac?

Nah, I don't think so.

But he was a cheerleader and was paid to tell Freddie how to lobby and convince conservatives to support the GSEs.
 
FULL TRANSCRIPT: Bloomberg/Washington Post GOP Debate in N.H. - - NationalJournal.com

NEWT GINGRICH: And if you want to put people in jail, I want to second what Michelle said. You ought to start with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. And let's look at the politicians who created the environment, the politicians who profited from the environment and the politicians who put this country in trouble.

CHARLIE ROSE, HOST: Clearly, you're not saying they should go to jail?

GINGRICH: Well, in Chris Dodd's case, go back and look at the Countryside deals. In Barney Frank's case, go back and look at the lobbyists he was close to that -- that -- at Freddie Mac.
 
Newt says that in his contract with his firm that Lobbying was not in it and he was there to lend 'Historical advice'.

Gingrich campaign plays defense on ties to Freddie Mac

"I offered them advice on precisely what they didn't do," Gingrich responded. "I have never done any lobbying, every contract that was written during the period when I was out of the office specifically said I would do no lobbying, and I offered advice. And my advice as a historian...I said to them at the time: This is a bubble. This is insane. This is impossible.'
 
Newt says that in his contract with his firm that Lobbying was not in it and he was there to lend 'Historical advice'.

Gingrich campaign plays defense on ties to Freddie Mac

"I offered them advice on precisely what they didn't do," Gingrich responded. "I have never done any lobbying, every contract that was written during the period when I was out of the office specifically said I would do no lobbying, and I offered advice. And my advice as a historian...I said to them at the time: This is a bubble. This is insane. This is impossible.'

Well we know that's a big fat lie. See my earlier post with Newt's Q&A with Freddie Mac employees.

"We have a much more liquid and stable housing finance system than we would have without the GSEs." - Newt Gingrich, 2007.
 
Last edited:
It lists the "Gingrich Group" address as "1425 K Street". Hmmm, what king of shops are on K Street? :eusa_think: ..... LOBBYISTS!!! :rofl: The hypocritical lobbyist/revolving-door, Washington- insider did the right thing.
 
Last edited:
Newt Gingrich releases Freddie Mac contracts: Read them here - The Washington Post

Seems he is attempting to be as forthcoming and transparent as possible. Like or hate the man he's been more open during this process than any recent candidate in memory.

Yes or no.

Do you think he was lobbying for Freddie Mac?

Well since I wasn't privy to the context of his conversations it would be impossible to know for sure. If I were a gambling man I would say in the technical sense he probably was. But two points.

First, lobbying is legal. Second, no congressman to my knowledge has come forward to say Newt tried to influence them and their legislation.

Until either of those two things change the point is moot.

Incorrect.

Lobbyists have to register. If he didn't register, he was breaking the law. So can we assume that you think he was "probably" breaking the law in this case?
 

Forum List

Back
Top