To: HPilot who wrote (7457 ) 1/25/2012 4:16:28 PM From: Win Smith Read Replies (1) | Respond to Shoot, now I have to briefly break from taking my leave. Those reports about "reverse engineering" came exclusively from Newt himself, near as I can tell. A better indication of what Newt was actually doing for Freddie Mac might be gleaned from web.archive.org . Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, discussed his vision for transforming government into a 21st century organization at a recent meeting for Freddie Mac employees. In our feature interview, Gingrich explains the unique role of the government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) model. . . .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.Media accounts in 1999 said Freddie Mac first hired Gingrich that spring when he had just left Congress. His next known contract with Freddie was in 2006, when the George W. Bush administration was pushing Congress to regulate Freddie and Fannie. For its part, Freddie Mac won't confirm or deny that it ever hired him. Guy Cecala, the publisher of the industry newsletterInside Mortgage Finance, says Freddie wouldn't have hired Gingrich for his historical and financial perspectives. "They had rocket scientists and their own brain trust for doing it," he says. "What they were looking more for was political protection and cover, and they wanted it on both sides of the aisle." And indeed, NPR spoke with two sources who were at Freddie Mac in 2006. They said Gingrich was hired to help Freddie Mac build alliances on Capitol Hill, and to burnish Freddie's reputation. They said he also met with donors to the company's political action committee. On Monday, Gingrich told Iowa Public Radio simply that he has never lobbied Congress. "I explicitly do no lobbying of any kind, and my advice was generic. It wasn't specifically aimed at House Republicans or Congress in general," Gingrich said. Cecala is dubious. "I guess it's not a surprise that, you know, someone's trying to reinvent history in terms of some advice they gave to Freddie Mac," he says. The reality, Cecala says, is that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae hired legions of former lawmakers because they were the ones who best knew the ins and outs of Capitol Hill. npr.org
