Letters: Gingrich On Bailout

Most of the e-mails in response to Monday's show was about the interview with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. He commented on the economic crisis and listeners had a range of responses.

Copyright © 2008 NPR. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.

MICHELE NORRIS, Host:

Now to your feedback. And one of our guests on yesterday's show generated lots of it.

MELISSA BLOCK, Host:

That would be former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. I talked with him about the economic crisis. He explained his view that Congress should not rush to pass the Bush administration's $700 billion bailout package.

Mr. NEWT GINGRICH (Republican Politician; Former House Speaker)I think we need to slow down, take a deep breath, hold public hearings, have experts testify, understand exactly what the agreement would be, where the money would go, how we would account for it. I don't think the taxpayers should be socked for $700 billion for welfare for Wall Street.

NORRIS: Your responses were mixed. Many of you responded much like Gordon Lindsey(ph) from Charlottesville, Virginia. He was surprised to find himself agreeing with the former congressman. He writes:

NORRIS (Reading) As a Democrat from way back, I have never been any great fan of Newt Gingrich. I always thought his Contract with America was a disaster for the country. But listening to him talk about the proposed Wall Street bailout, I found I agreed with him point by point. There was a lot of rational sense to what he said, and I think Congress should heed his counsel. What a surprise that All Things Considered would bring this old Democrat in unison with what I've always considered an arch opponent.

BLOCK: But we did get letters from some of you who didn't think Gingrich was the best person to turn to on the financial crisis. John Daley(ph) of Nevada City, California, writes that he was amazed. He says this...

BLOCK: (Reading) Here is a man who left office in disgrace, had many ethics issues during his career, and now the collapse of our economy is a direct result of his and the other conservative Republicans' economic philosophy. And yet, you interview him as if he is a knowledgeable elder statesman and don't even question his part in this whole problem.

NORRIS: We thank you for your comments and your criticism. You can send them to us at our Web site, npr.org. Click on "Contact Us" at the top of the page.

Copyright © 2008 NPR. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to NPR. This transcript is provided for personal, noncommercial use only, pursuant to our Terms of Use. Any other use requires NPR's prior permission. Visit our permissions page for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio.

Gingrich On Why Bailout Plan Is 'Just Wrong'

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich i i

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, pictured here in January 2008, calls the $700 billion bailout a "very, very bad idea." J. Scott Applewhite/AP hide caption

itoggle caption J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, pictured here in January 2008, calls the $700 billion bailout a "very, very bad idea."

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

One prominent conservative urging Congress to step hard on the brakes in the $700 billion bailout plan is Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House of Representatives.

In Sunday's National Review online, Gingrich writes: "Congress was designed by the Founding Fathers to move slowly, precisely to avoid the sudden panic of a one-week solution that becomes a 20-year mess."

In a conversation with NPR's Melissa Block, Gingrich says he thinks the bailout plan is "just wrong," and that "it's likely to fail, and it's likely to make the situation worse over time." A transcript of their conversation follows.

This $700 billion bailout plan, this potential 20-year mess that you're talking about, comes from a Republican administration, comes from your own party. What's happened to Republican faith in small government and free markets?

Well, I think you have a Goldman Sachs chief of staff to the president and the Goldman Sachs secretary of the Treasury. And they convinced the president that the American people ought to send $700 billion to Wall Street, which I think is a very, very bad idea, and I would argue is a very un-Republican idea. I don't understand what they think they're doing.

Do you feel betrayed by the Bush administration and by the president?

Well, betrayed is too strong a word. I think what they're doing is just wrong. And I think that it's likely to fail, and it's likely to make the situation worse over time. And I think that [U.S. Treasury] Secretary [Henry] Paulson has shown almost no understanding of how a democracy operates. His initial draft would have given him $700 billion of your tax money with no oversight, no judicial review, no accountability. I mean, we're not a dictatorship.

But the idea, obviously, is that this goes to Congress and that provisions are written in — and that's just what they're doing now. Are you not reassured by what the debate is in Congress right now?

Well, the last time we were promised they were going to save us, it was $300 billion; it was a housing bill. Now we have brand-new liberal Democrats, many of whom — for example [Connecticut Sen.] Chris Dodd — was the largest single recipient of money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he is the chairman of the Banking Committee. So the guy who got the most money is now going to write a bill to give taxpayers' money to the people who gave him money. Somehow, I am not reassured.

But Mr. Gingrich, a lot of the Republicans in Congress seem to be saying this needs to go forward.

Well, I think they're just wrong. I think we need to slow down, take a deep breath, hold public hearings, have experts testify, understand exactly what the agreement would be, where the money would go, how we would account for it. I don't think the taxpayers should be socked for $700 billion for welfare for Wall Street. I think it's fundamentally wrong, and I think that it is very likely to create a bureaucratic control of our financial system in a way that will cripple us for 20 years.

You know, when congressional leaders met on Thursday night with Secretary Paulson and with the Fed chair, Ben Bernanke, the message was dire. You heard Sen. Chris Dodd saying they were told we are maybe days away from a complete meltdown of our financial system. Don't you think that there's an imminent crisis here, that if they were to wait, there could be really drastic results?

To be honest, I don't know. Secretary Paulson has been consistently wrong for a year-and-a-half. He told us for a year-and-a-half this wasn't a dire crisis; this wasn't going to happen. So the very people who told us for a long time not to worry about it are — I know they're panicked. Whether that means that we should be panicked, I'm not sure. And I think the purpose of the Congress, the purpose of the House and Senate, is to be a check and balance on the executive branch, not to automatically write blank checks.

What if you're wrong?

Well, if I'm wrong, then we're going to have a significant problem. And if I'm right, we're going to have a bigger problem. So I think part of the question is, why can't this be done out in an open debate, have an openly marked-up bill, have the American people know what's being asked of them?

I was just reading an analysis by a very sophisticated person who said that there's been at least one leak from a congressional staff briefing by Secretary Paulson, in which he clearly indicated he intended to buy assets at above their market value. And that — why should the taxpayer do that? I mean, why are we not saying, 'We'll provide enough capital to avoid collapse, but we're not going to provide enough capital to guarantee the profits of Wall Street people' — who, after all, last year, at Goldman Sachs alone had three people each earning $73 million a year. Now, why should we bail them out?

What are you saying the incentive would be for, say, Secretary Paulson or Ben Bernanke to be rushing something through if it weren't urgently needed? What would their motivation be for that?

A couple of things — first of all, they're probably genuinely panicked. And I think that's real. I think they're tired; I think they've been consistently wrong, and now they're looking at a precipice that's very frightening. I think, second, that they have a very Wall Street-centric view of the world. And I think that rather than saying, 'What are the big, profound changes we need to fix America?,' they are saying, 'What are the immediate quick fixes for Wall Street?' — which I think, in the long run, just makes us weaker and sicker.

I think, third, they know that if they don't rush it through, it has no hope, because as the American people learn the details, they're just going to scream at their House and Senate members.

Comments

 

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.