I spent the 90's securitizing mortgages from FNMA, FHLMC, and GNMA, structuring them into CMOs and trading them. For decades, these agencies existed with little or no controversy, succeeding in their mandate to free up capital for banks, so that they would be able to create more loans to homeowners. The MBS market became the largest credit market in the world, larger than US Treasuries. The problems that we are now dealing with can be traced directly back to changes in how the GSEs went about doing business, starting in the late 80's, when they started trading and inventoring their own products, and then exacerbated during the Clinton Administration, when they were required to adjust their credit quality standards (particularly for minority homeowners). While the GSEs get all of the blame for what took place, they actually provided a very valuable service to American homeowners, and to the economy. Again, for decades they operated profitably. And because of their size, they lowered interest rates for all borrowers. Assuming your home is your largest investment you benefitted directly from the GSEs. Assuming you have ever taken a loan from anyone (including holding a credit card), you benefitted indirectly.
I actually learned something from your comment. For one thing, I thought the securitization process started in the 2000’s, not the 90’s. While it can be argued that we would have been better served if functions of these GSE’s were performed by smaller, competing private entities from the start, it seems clear that the corruption of these entities started (or at least accelerated) with the politically attractive idea to use the Community Reinvestment Act and these GSE’s to extend credit to virtually anyone.
Problem is, I can’t think of a political soundbite in which Gingrich can explain these issues. In politics, if you’re on defense, you’re losing. So Gingrich’s only alternative is to double down on those issues in which he’s on offense.