Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Newt Gingrich’

Book Review:  “Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Let to Economic Armageddon,” by Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner.

Reckless Endangerment tells the story of how crony capitalism led to the financial crisis of 2008.  Morgenson is a business reporter for the New York Times and Rosner a research consultant on the mortgage industry.  Both conducted interviews concerning the mortgage industry and Wall Street over the last decade.

Reckless Endangerment identifies the powerful people whose actions led to the financial crisis.  In the wake of the Wall Street bailouts, “the American people realize they’ve been robbed.  They’re just not sure by whom.”  The authors explain in detail the key players who profited from the decades-long relationship between Wall Street and Washington.

The financial collapse of 2008 resulted in part from the concept of public-private partnerships.  Rather than serve as a neutral enforcer of the rules, the federal government became a “partner” of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  Freddie and Fannie are GSEs (government sponsored enterprises) benefitted from the guarantee of government credit long before the bank bailouts of 2008-09.

The book details the career of James A. Johnson, who served as CEO of Fannie Mae from 1991 to 1998.  Johnson came to Fannie Mae from politics and Wall Street.  Johnson served as the campaign manager of Walter Mondale’s 1984 presidential campaign and also worked on George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign.  From 1985 to 1990, Johnson became a managing director at Lehman Brothers.

Johnson recognized that defending and expanding Fannie Mae’s relationship with the federal government would prove lucrative.  Many of Fannie’s political champions were Democrats, including Barney Frank and Maxine Waters.  One of Johnson’s initiatives established regional Fannie Mae Partnership offices intended to promote ever-expanding homeownership by working with elected officials.  These regional offices became a political network designed to thwart any efforts to reign in Fannie Mae.  In 1995, the new House Speaker, Rep. Newt Gingrich, attended the opening of the Atlanta office.  Gingrich hailed “Fannie Mae as an excellent example of a former government institution fulfilling its mandate while functioning in the market economy.”  The GSEs, however, existed to rely on government support, not compete on an equal playing field.

Fannie Mae also used its regional offices to hire former congressional staffers from the offices of men like Sen. Robert Bennet (R-Utah)(defeated by the liberty movement in a 2010 GOP primary) and Sen. Tom Daschle (D-N.Dak.) who became Senate Majority leader and nearly became a member of President Obama’s cabinet. Fannie Mae also hired Herb Moses, Rep. Barney Frank’s partner.  Rep. Frank became a key defender of both Fannie and Freddie Mac.

Other financial firms also benefited from lobbying Congress and the White House. Sandy Weill the then-CEO of Travelers Group led the push to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act.  Clinton Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin was instrumental in the push to allow commercial banks to combine with insurance companies and investment banks into firms “too big to fail.”  Rubin became the Vice-Chair of Citigroup shortly before the full repeal of Glass-Steagall.  Glass-Steagall’s repeal did not create a “free market” banking system.  Banks took greater risks, with ever less financial transparency.   As events proved, these mega-firms could count on government support to privatize their profits while piling their losses on the U.S. taxpayer.  Long-Term Capital Management failed in 1999.  The Federal Reserve responded with a bail-out, creating the conditions for future bail-outs.  At the same time, the Fed expected the banking industry to do the right thing with little or no oversight.  Capital reserve requirements were watered down, allowing ever greater leverage, especially when combined with accounting gimmicks to manipulate profits & losses and potential liabilities.  Such policies were inconsistent with the sort of ad hoc government bailouts that followed.

Reckless Endangerment also chronicles the story of some of the subprime lenders, such as Countrywide Financial, NovaStar, and Fremont, all companies that pursued loose lending standards in search of short-term profits.

Many firms engaged in accounting fraud, including Fannie Mae.  In his last year as CEO, James Johnson received millions more in bonuses due to manipulations of the timing of earnings.  Johnson’s successor, Franklin Raines, suffered the consequences of such shenanigans.  Fannie Mae was later forced to restate earnings by $6.3 billion.  Still, Raines was allowed to resign and received substantial bonuses at his departure.  Years later, Raines paid millions of dollars in civil penalties.  The penalties were a small fraction of his total compensation from Fannie.  In 2008, Johnson was appointed Senator Barack Obama’s three-member Vice-Presidential candidate search committee, but resigned after the McCain campaign made his involvement an issue.

The authors contend that “the failure to hold central figures accountable for their actions sets a dangerous precedent.”  Many of those responsible for the financial debacle still remain in positions of influence.  Reckless Endangerment provides a glimpse of the crony capitalism that is motivating average citizens to take action. It is not the complete story of the financial crisis, but is one element of the problem that should be addressed.  Instead of recognizing the shortcomings of such purported “partnerships,” Congress and the Obama Administration are creating more regulatory agencies with even more layers of bureaucracy.  Read Reckless Endangerment, then you can decide whether you believe the political system is capable of refining crony capitalism and public-private partnerships into a workable economic system.

Read Full Post »

Paul Jacob has been a long-time activist on the issue of term limits for Congress and citizen initiative and referendum rights.  This week he highlighted Newt Gingrich’s pivotal role in Congress giving itself a 40 percent pay raise in 1989.  One of the conditions of the pay raise vote was that both parties agreed to punish any of their candidates who made it an issue in their campaigns.  In fact, a Democratic challenger nearly beat Gingrich on this issue, but fell short when the Democratic campaign committees cut off all support.

Jacob produces a daily newsletter with lots of good stuff.  Many of the topics focus on state and local misdeeds.  Jacob also does an exceptional job of covering initiative and referendum laws, including efforts in Colorado to undermine initiative rights.

You can subscribe to Paul Jacob’s free newsletter at the website thisiscommonsense.com.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Why has Newt Gingrich risen in all the polls recently? Is it because of his performance in the last several debates? Or the fact that most conservative voters are hungry for someone who will “take it to Obama?” Would conservative voters love to see him debate Obama? And as Newt said, Obama could even bring his teleprompter, “just to be fair.” Do conservatives want to see Newt “intellectually flatten” Obama? Do conservatives want to be “unconservative, and a bit revolutionary?” One thing for sure is that Mitt Romney is not revolutionary. Or is it that Newt Gingrich is not Mitt Romney?.

Charles Krauthammer explained last week why, despite all of Newt’s baggage, he may be the only alternative. “Gingrich’s apostasies are seen as deviations from his conservative core — while  Romney’s flip-flops are seen as deviations from . . . nothing. Romney has no  signature achievement, legislation or manifesto that identifies him as a core  conservative. Krauthammer also concludes that “Every conservative has thus to  ask himself two questions: Who is more likely to prevent that second term? And  who, if elected, is less likely to unpleasantly surprise?”

What are your thoughts? You be the judge!

Read Full Post »

If you didn’t have a chance to watch the Herman Cain – Newt Gingrich Lincoln-Douglas Style Debate on Cspan tonight, you really missed a good discussion. I say discussion because it really wasn’t a debate between Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich. They agreed on every topic except for a couple of minor approaches to fixing the problems. A debate is typically a time where the parties discuss differences in their ideas or points of view. The differences discussed tonight were the differences between their ideas, which they were in agreement on, and the status quo. The discussion tonight was about entitlements; Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Unemployment Benefits. It was excellent, and I wish all of the so-called debates were like this.

You can watch all of the debate on video by clicking on the link below.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/CainNew

Read Full Post »