Newt wasn't always so upset about the Fed
Published: Friday, October 14, 2011, 12:20 AM
By Paul Mulshine/The Star Ledgerhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eQ5xa7AjPXM
It's nice to see Newt Gingrich jumping on the Ron Paul bandwagon.
But back when he was Speaker of the House, Gingrich was quite comfortable with the Fed. In fact he led the fight to repeal Glass-Steagall, a move that many argue was a key factor in the financial meltdown that occurred in 2008. Consider that when he talks about jailing "the politicians who put this country in trouble."
Check this excerpt from an April 1998 New York Times article on the effort to repeal Glass-Steagall and Gingrich's cozy relationship with Alan Greenspan:
- It pitted Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, who opposed the bill, against Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, who favored it.
- All but a handful of big banks opposed the bill, as did nearly all small and medium-sized banks and savings and loan companies. Wall Street backed the bill, as did insurance companies. Consumer groups fought the bill.
- While the debate has less to do with ideology than with members of Congress forced to choose among powerful friends, the end game came down to partisan maneuvering. Republicans from Speaker Newt Gingrich on down scurried through the afternoon to line up the necessary votes.
- All but a handful of big banks opposed the bill, as did nearly all small and medium-sized banks and savings and loan companies. Wall Street backed the bill, as did insurance companies. Consumer groups fought the bill.
- Dan Mangru: Now some experts point to the repeal the Glass-Steagal act, which separated banking from stock trading and is one of the precursors of the bank crisis of 2008, where banks were allowed to take excessive risks. Would you be in favor of bringing back this regulation?
- Ron Paul: You know it's interesting, I voted on the Glass-Steagal change and I voted against it. The free market though would not have a Glass-Steagal. Banks could do what they want and they have to suffer the consequence. The reason I voted against it, that bill did have some bad parts to it, but one of the reasons I argued against it, repealing it, it was that it was going to put a greater burden on the banks and the taxpayer was at risk, at greater risk through the FDIC and other insurance programs of the government. So I saw that as a greater burden on the taxpayer and voted against it. But I'm for the free market and free market banking, therefore you would have no rules against banks being involved in commercial and investment banking.
- Ron Paul: You know it's interesting, I voted on the Glass-Steagal change and I voted against it. The free market though would not have a Glass-Steagal. Banks could do what they want and they have to suffer the consequence. The reason I voted against it, that bill did have some bad parts to it, but one of the reasons I argued against it, repealing it, it was that it was going to put a greater burden on the banks and the taxpayer was at risk, at greater risk through the FDIC and other insurance programs of the government. So I saw that as a greater burden on the taxpayer and voted against it. But I'm for the free market and free market banking, therefore you would have no rules against banks being involved in commercial and investment banking.
ALSO: In a tweet, Newt gives credit where it's due: "there is no question ron paul was the first serious national leader to take on federal reserve history will recognize him." Read this piece on Lew Rockwell about how Paul has framed the issues that are being debated now - and how he gets the least time to speak despite dominating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=C-NIbZXNRns
http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2011/10/post_151.html
No comments:
Post a Comment