The Past and the Present (Thomas Sowell on Newt Gingrich)

Creators Syndicate ^ | December 20, 2011 | Thomas Sowell

[jazusamo]

If Newt Gingrich were being nominated for sainthood, many of us would vote very differently from the way we would vote if he were being nominated for a political office. What the media call Gingrich's "baggage" concerns largely his personal life and the fact that he made a lot of money running a consulting firm after he left Congress. This kind of stuff makes lots of talking points that we will no doubt hear, again and again, over the next weeks and months. But how much weight should we give to this stuff when we are talking about the future of a nation? This is not just another election and Barack Obama is not just another president whose policies we may not like. With all of President Obama's broken promises, glib demagoguery and cynical political moves, one promise he has kept all too well. That was his boast on the eve of the 2008 election: "We are going to change the United States of America." Many Americans are already saying that they can hardly recognize the country they grew up in. We have already started down the path that has led Western European nations to the brink of financial disaster. Internationally, it is worse. A president who has pulled the rug out from under our allies, whether in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, tried to cozy up to our enemies, and has bowed low from the waist to foreign leaders certainly has not represented either the values or the interests of America. If he continues to do nothing that is likely to stop terrorist-sponsoring Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the consequences can be beyond our worst imagining. Against this background, how much does Newt Gingrich's personal life matter, whether we accept his claim that he has now matured or his critics' claim that he has not? Nor should we sell the public short by saying that they are going to vote on the basis of tabloid stuff or media talking points, when the fate of this nation hangs in the balance. Even back in the 19th century, when the scandal came out that Grover Cleveland had fathered a child out of wedlock — and he publicly admitted it — the voters nevertheless sent him to the White House, where he became one of the better presidents. Do we wish we had another Ronald Reagan? We could certainly use one. But we have to play the hand we were dealt. And the Reagan card is not in the deck. While the televised debates are what gave Newt Gingrich's candidacy a big boost, concrete accomplishments when in office are the real test. Gingrich engineered the first Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 40 years — followed by the first balanced budget in 40 years. The media called it "the Clinton surplus" but all spending bills start in the House of Representatives, and Gingrich was Speaker of the House. Speaker Gingrich also produced some long overdue welfare reforms, despite howls from liberals that the poor would be devastated. But nobody makes that claim any more. Did Gingrich ruffle some feathers when he was Speaker of the House? Yes, enough for it to cost him that position. But he also showed that he could produce results. In a world where we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available, the question is whether Newt Gingrich is better than Barack Obama — and better than Mitt Romney. Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared to what Gingrich accomplished as Speaker of the House? When you don't accomplish much, you don't ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want? Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain. Those who want to concentrate on the baggage in Newt Gingrich's past, rather than on the nation's future, should remember what Winston Churchill said: "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." If that means a second term for Barack Obama, then it means lost big time.

[b9]

Thanks, but I don’t like Steyn anymore.

He’s a punk for not supporting Newt. Maybe if he were a US citizen he’d have more stake in the game, but he’s just a stupid intellectual snob concerning Newt, IMHO.

I hope Rush does NOT have him host anymore.

[llandres]

““...just as John McCain’s maverickiness was more appealing than Romney last time around...” THAT didn’t appeal to the base, at all. MS is dead wrong on this.”

He meant because McCain beat Romney in the primaries and got the nomination.

Are we going to repeat history and let Romney win THIS one?

[llandres]

“The first thing is to preserve a system that permits private enterprise. You’re worried about non-fatal corruption while leftards seek to kill our system.”

You’re SO right - we’d better start bottom-lining things like this before it’s too late. Warts are small compared to the cancer that is BHO.

[Prokopton]

The inaccurate information was an innocuous mistake on a legal form filed by an attorney that Newt signed without bothering to verify.

I'm sure you are capable of doing a little research instead of parroting Gingrich campaign points.

Gingrich gave two letters to the ethics committee, dated Dec. 8, 1994, and March 27, 1995, respectively, denying GOPAC was connected with his college teaching. That was untrue and that is why he was censured and fined.

There must be blood squirting from your ears at the speed you are spinning. Why don't you just accept the fact that Gingrich screwed up and was reprimanded for it and move on? I never even brought up Gingrich's ethics problems in my posts. Do you think this is a positive for him? With friends like you...

[skeptoid]

. . . .denying GOPAC was connected with his college teaching. . . .

Close, but no cigar.

Every one of the 20 lectures in Renewing American is introduced as a class session from Rhinehart University. It is obviously a college classroom settin and when my boxed set was purchased, it was obviously offered as a revenue source for the GOP.

The charge that brought him down was actually that he unlawfully claimed tax-exempt status for Renewing American Civilization as a political fund-raiser. That's the one the IRS investigated. They concluded that not only was Newt righteous, but that ANYONE could benefit from taking the course in question (because it is so good). . . Why don't you just accept the fact that Gingrich screwed up and was reprimanded for it and move on? . . . .

Newt has made mistakes, and will continue to make mistakes, as all we mortals do.

But he was EXONERATED by the IRS in the ethics charge that took him down.
It was BOGUS.
It was the only one of eighty-four ethics charges that stuck.

Newt has made many blunders (and will make many more) - -This was not one of them.

I'm sure you are capable of doing a little research instead of parroting Gingrich campaign points.

I went to Wikipedia's Gingrich page (including 'references") for this post. I have not had television since May 1995, and have seen maybe five minutes of Newt's current campaign video. My enthusiam for Newt comes from closely following his rise and fall in the '90's. He oversaw the only reform of congress I know of. I turned independent when the GOP turned on Newt, and they haven't gotten a dime from me since then (ditto for Newt).

[presidio9]

Actually, FNMA was started in 1936, to provied more liquidity for lenders during the Depression. At that time, the secondary market was basically other banks and large institutions (pension funds mostly). The first mortgage-backed security was issued by GNMA in 1968. The market really took off in the late 70’s. If you can find it, I suggest reading Michael Lewis’ “Liar’s Poker.” It takes some liberties, but it is highly entertaining, and it gives a basic overview of how this occured. I worked with several of the people in the book.

After that time, the MBS market dealt with a crisis roughly every 10 years, in 1987, in 1998, and in 2008. The market itself is actually an excellent idea. The problem is that once you get into derivatives like CMOs (where I worked), there is just a heck of a lot going on with the cashflows, and it becomes very difficult to keep track of things. Back in the early 90’s Bear Stearns had multiple CRAY supercomputers devoted to the task, and pricing the more esoteric offerings still ended up being more art than science. The problem is that when you start explaining these things to your average physicist who is not involved in the market on a daily basis, his eyes glaze over pretty quickly. A plain vanilla MBS pass-through is already a fixed income derivative. A plain vanilla CMO tranche is a derivative of a derivative. More complext CMO structures are derivatives of derivatives. And so on. The MBS pass-through alone typically deals with a thousand or so individual mortgage loan cash flows. There’s just no easy way to dumb it down. And part of the problem we are dealing with now has to do with the credit derivative market. These were created as a hedge against more esoteric CMO structures. A major risk with holding a CMO is the undelying mortgagee’s ability to prepay their loans. This typically happens when interest rates go down and the homeowners refinance. The bondholder gets his money back earlier than he expected, and at the worst possible time: He now has to reinvest his capital in a lower rate enviornment. But on top of that, the price he paid on his initial investment was based on future interest rate payments that he is no longer entitled to. So his effective yeild is much less. This was a huge problem in the late 90’s. Orange County, Aspin Capital, Kidder Peabody. Credit derivatives offered bond holders the ability to sell some of this risk. So, essentially, even the least complex of these is already a derivative of a derivative of a derivative of a derivative. And then hotshots started speculating on the things.

As you can see, there is no simple way to explain this stuff to Joe Six Pack. Ron Paul is correct that the GSEs may not be constitutional, but there IS a place of mortgage securitization. And, BTW, there has been a HUGE non-agency MBS market since at least the early 90’s. The alternative is banks without free capital, and the significantly higher interest rates that go along with them.

The problem that most people have right now is that people hear the word Fanniemae, and they see it as the cause of all their problems. Personally, I have a big problem with bailouts, and lack of accountability in the financial markets. But even if I wasn’t a Gingrich fan, I would not have a big problem with what he did.

[freedomfiter2]

Pay to play is just another form of socialism. The government controls and gets a cut just like an owner.

[llandres]

That’s so disappointing (I sent you the MS thread link because I thought you were a fan of his, btw). I really used to like him, but was so turned off when I heard how he disparaged Herman Cain; I haven’t caught him on Rush lately, but what you said about him slamming Newt really makes me uninterested in anything further he has to say.

[Prokopton]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/newt-gingrich-tries-to-re-write-history-of-his-ethics-scandal-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/14/gIQA4AOcwO_blog.html

[narses]

Look at their accomplishments. Newt allied himself with Ronald Reagan to build the Reagan Coalition, the Religious Right, and the Republican majority (together the Reagan Revolution) which directly led the downfall of the Soviet Union, the Contract with America, government reforms, less government, tax cuts, a balanced budget, and the great, long-standing Reagan economy.

Romney, on the other hand, vehemently denied Ronald Reagan and aligned himself with Ted Kennedy and the left. Romney accomplished installing liberal big government programs, defended and promoted Roe v Wade and legalized abortion as “settled law,” advocated and implemented RomneyCare with its liberty killing government mandates against formerly free citizens and its taxpayer funded or subsidized and mandated abortion procedures. He ran and governed to the left of Ted Kennedy on the “gay agenda” resulting in gay marriage in Massachusetts. He appointed liberal judges and liberal appointees throughout his government. Under his “leadership” conservatism and the Republican party was all but destroyed in Massachusetts.

Romney is one evil liberal progressive. No way in hell will MittBots be allowed to support this abortionist, big government, socialist scumbag on FR!

Guess my message isn’t clear enough. I have to keep repeating it and zotting would be MittBots.

79 posted on Sat Dec 03 2011 19:59:37 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Jim Robinson

[dixiechick2000]

“He meant because McCain beat Romney in the primaries and got the nomination.”

I understood what he meant.

“Are we going to repeat history and let Romney win THIS one?”

Lordy...I hope not!

[skeptoid]

Congratulations!

By citing Stretchface and Cooter and the WaPo, you have self-diagnosed with a terminal case of Newt Derangement Syndrome.

(as with BDS, there is no known therapy; you are on your own)

[Countyline]

Thank you, for posting Dr Sowell’s articles and including me in the pings. I just re-read his remarks on Gingrich and Romney. I has given me pause for thought. While Romney was first in Iowa, Santorium was second and Gingrich lower on the rungs.

Has Dr. Sowell responded to Iowa’s results?
I am not for Romney as #1 ... but I do like Santorium sp?

Did Dr. Sowell not post during the holidays? Hopefully he will write a bit about the results of Iowa’s standing on these candidates at this time.

Hope all is well with you and D. Sowell.

[jazusamo]

No, Dr. Sowell hasn’t had a column come out since Dec. 28, Republican Voters’ Choices.

I’m looking forward to his next piece and I seriously doubt the outcome in Iowa will alter his view, he’s no Romney fan. :-)

Have a Great New Year.