Tweet
"I'll take my check now, thankyouverymuch."
Newt Gingrich has selflessly released his contract with Freddie Mac. It’s available at the Washington Post website, where you can read it in all its glory.
Much of the contract is legal boilerplate, saying things like if you give us a report in electronic form, you won’t crash or hack our computer system, or do things that will allow someone else to do that. (Yes, that’s really there. See page six.) Everything Newt produced for Freddie Mac is now the property of Freddie Mac, including not just final documents but also drafts and notes that led up to those documents. (See page seven.)
The fun part of the contract, though, is the “Scope of Services” on page 14. Here’s where the contract lays out just what it is that Newt is expected to do for his $25,000 per month consulting fee:
SCOPE OF SERVICES AND FEES
Agreement between The Gingrich Group and Freddie Mac Consultant will provide consulting and related services as requested by Freddie Mac’s Director, Public Policy in exchange for which Freddie Mac will pay Consultant $25,000 per each full calendar month during which Consultant provides Services.
That’s it. That’s the whole discussion of what Freddie Mac and Newt agreed would be Newt’s job description.
It’s like Newt’s whole job is contained in the bottom line of every job description most of us have ever seen: “. . . and other such duties as may be assigned.”
Kind of makes you wonder what “consulting and related services” Freddie Mac’s Director for Public Policy would have asked Newt to do for his $25,000 a month.
Folks around here have pretty decent imaginations . . . If you’ve got any ideas for what Newt might have done that would have been worth $25,000 a month, please put them in the comments.
UPDATE:
This contract says more about confidentiality of work product than it does about the actual work. Indeed, the actual subject of the work is to remain confidential. From page 4:
The term “Freddie Mac Information” means all information provided by Freddie Mac (or by others working with Freddie Mac) to Consultant, or to which Consultant is exposed as a result of or in connection with this Agreement or while providing Services or Deliverables, whether delivered orally, electronically or in writing and whether or not it is specifically marked or designated confidential. The term “Freddie Mac Information” also includes: the subject matter of Services and Deliverables [i.e., reports, memos, etc.] for which Freddie Mac has engaged Consultant to provide: and (ii) all materials that Consultant prepares based on Freddie Mac Information, including, without limitation, notes made by Consultant based on discussions with Freddie Mac employees and any reports and other Deliverables.
Consultant will treat all Freddie Mac Information as strictly confidential. . . .
IOW, Newt would be breaking the contract if he disclosed exactly what he was asked to do.
Gosh. And here we all thought Newt was trying to hide something, when all along he was being a good upstanding contract-abiding guy.
________
photo h/t to Gage Skidmore
34 Comments
How many $25,000 a month Newts are out there?
More than we know or need.
They are clearly NOT an endangered species.
Help his insurance industry clients to coordinate with Fanny and Freddy? Hell, leave him alone, he said in the debate tonight that his consulting money more or less created jobs through his company. Always thinking about the little guy.
Every time I read or hear of any kind of “consulting contract”, the amount paid turns out to be appalling and obscene.
$25k/mo, for what I’m sure was no more than introducing his buddies to each other once in awhile. Probably at whatever was the hot DC restaurant at the time.
Meanwhile, out here in the world, ordinary workers wages have gone down by a couple dollars an hour from 3 years ago, and local politicians (including Gov Christie) applaud retail hourly part time jobs that might pay $12/hr tops as “middle class” jobs for which we should all be grateful.
Every time Newt pronounces anathema against “the elites” I want to grab him by the throat and shake him, hard.
Let alone when he goes on to criticize food stamps for the unemployed or any kind of help for those NOT making $25k/ mo.
One of the most troubling aspects of Newt Gingrich is that all of his defects, contradictions and vulnerabilities seem to leave a great many so called conservatives completely unfazed. Even people who are being punished severely by this recession/depression seem to connect with this weird man.
Obviously some strange sort of chemistry is at work to enable this serial adulterer to win handily in a southern state chockablock with Bible-beating family values Evangelicals… I suspect that he is able to subliminally plug into America racism, to connect with a mass of white America that simply sees the President of the United States as an “uppity negro”… Obviously Gingrich is willing to go where McCain (and I imagine Romney)never would.
Rather than analyze the endless incoherence of Gingrich, it might be more interesting to analyze why, despite them, people want to vote for him.
Yet more evidence, along with Mitt Romney’s tax rates, in support of Moyers and others: the system is fixed. The game is rigged. Yes, they’ve paid according to the tax code. Yes the tax code is unfair.
The tax code is unfair because the uber-rich have the resources to buy the lobbyists and influence peddlars and politicians to make it unfair.
Hmmm…as I read it, that would imply that ALL Newts work product could be obtained via FOIA.
A prick might also enquire as to why a contract of this size was issued without competative bidding.
Boxturtle (No way an unpopular FOIA request would be completed before the election)
I have almost 35 years of management consulting experience, some of which was with the largest consulting firms in the world. Any client personnel that would approve a contract so lacking in scope definition is either incompetent or guilty of malfeasance. Any consultant who would propose such a contract is either trying to take advantage of incompetent management or is collaborating with management to hide something.
Newt claims he was hired as a historian to look at past housing prices. Fine given that Newt has not been a working historian for decades has he produced ANY papers on this subject before he got this contract on to study historical housing prices?
Is Newt really going to try and claim that he was the best qualified and available
Historian around to be hired? Lets face it Newt got hired because he was connected and politicians get corporate welfare once out of office as a reward. Why isn’t Mitt bringing this subject up this contract smells like a Rahm city of Chicago contract to an ex Daley aid.
It is also hard to believe that Free Market Newt before the housing crisis would ever say anything that would argue against a housing bubble when Newt pushed to deregulate the banks and helped create the housing bubble.
Next question just how often do Non politicians with PH.Ds get contracts that big to do government studies? How much does Freddie or other groups pay lobbyists?
I have no numbers but Newt’s pay does seem more in line with what lobbyists get paid than academics.
Rightwing think tanks have worked overtime to push the meme of the Uppity “N” word in the White House, believe me.
And that goes a hugely loooooong way to “explaining” why so-called “Family Values” Talibangicals will vote for serial adulterer & general all-around asshole Newt GingRICH.
That and: IOKIYA. That’s always true.
Top Maryland lobbyists (2011)
Lobbyist Income
Gerard E. Evans $1,232,000
Timothy A. Perry $1,217,793
Joel D. Rozner $1,215,161
Robin F. Shaivitz $1,156,368
Gregory S. Proctor Jr. $1,107,144
John R. Stierhoff $1,059,766
Michael V. Johansen $1,050,234
Nicholas G. Manis $1,016,250
D. Robert Enten $863,193
Lisa Harris Jones $857,000
Source:
State Ethics
Commission[70]
Top power-brokers such as Gerald Cassidy have made fortunes from lobbying:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States#Lobbying_as_a_career
I don’t know what exactly was in the report Newt gave Freddie so I can’t evaluate the price he was paid but Newt seems to have gotten what a top state lobbyists makes in a year lobbying for several issues and clients on one issue for one client.
But to be fair I am sure Newt as a lobbyist commands a higher price for lobbying than a mere state lobbyists.
Does Newt really want to argue that eggheads make more money than lobbyists just off of one study?
Again why is Mitt not on this he has cash to hire the best opp research people .
Explaining this really does look like a choice between idiot and crook, doesn’t it.
No offense intended, but: No shit, Sherlock!
However, the question is whether conservatives will actually, you know, look at the facts and realize the truth of what you say.
My take: doubt it. Rush is, no doubt at this very instant, dutifully instructing the conservatives on why Newt’s very suss $25k per month “consulting fees” were just, correct & proper for “services rendered.” So there!
Freddie and Fannie are not part of the government, strictly speaking, but are what are known as “Government Sponsored Enterprises.” They are a public/private hybrid, complicated further by the government’s assumption of conservatorship.
As of last August, Freddie and Fannie were not subject to FOIA, as the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that they were (for purposes of FOIA) private. A bill was introduced to change this and make them FOIA-able, but to my knowledge it never got anywhere.
“Why is Mitt not on this?”
Because the PTB told Mitt to stay away from it??? Because uncovering what Newt was allegedly “paid for” might highlight stuff that the 1% don’t want us 99%ers to see??
Just some random thoughts. Have no idea, really.
Do you really want to analyze why Republicans would want to vote for Gingrich, despite their deep unease with his marital infidelities and flighty disposition and all the baggage from his days as Speaker? I can help you with that, if you can get past the lazy assumption that it must be racism (that all-purpose explanation).
Republicans would prefer a candidate without Gingrich’s flaws. I imagine Democrats would have preferred an anti-Bush candidate in 2008 who didn’t suffer from Obama’s appalling skeletons. But they voted for him anyway, even if they’d have preferred Hillary Clinton or some better candidate who couldn’t get any traction in the primaries at all, because they believed Obama was the candidate who came closest to embodying their political agenda. Similarly, Republicans will hold their noses and vote for Gingrich, or Romney, or whoever they have to, in order to get a president who has a clue about the free market and the proper role of government. They’ll do it because, as unappealing as these candidates are, they beat the alternative. And we’ll work and hope for better choices in the 2012 primary.
No, we don’t like having to support a candidate who we know is going to disappoint and embarrass us. That we’ll do it anyway should indicate to you how serious we are about rejecting the policies of the current administration. That rejection is very close to absolute.
So mostly we’re hoping for good results in the Congressional elections, and aiming for a president who won’t veto them or appoint anyone too crazy to the Supreme Court. Low expectations.
Agreed it smells like Newt produced what Freddie wanted to hear despite Newt’s claims otherwise why would Freddie pay for a report that said the opposite of what they wanted to hear?
Corporate America kills their OWN research all the time when that happens they almost never pay to hear bad news from outside consultants.
Also if the housing bubble was going to burst why didn’t Newt argue publicly against it? An academic could not make mention of his contract or what he studied publicly however he could argue in other ways a lobbyists however is bound to support the cause he lobbies for.
I also agree with BoxTurtle I want that study and if O had any brains he would release that stud… accidently of course.
Agreed Onitgoes but Mitt is desperate right now if he wants to beat Newt somethings are going to have to be sacrificed even when your evil in order to win you must be willing to sacrifice.
So now there is a university degree worth as much as the theoretical mathematics credentials that made the “quants” so very rich.
No doubt the graduate history programs at Ivy League schools will be overrun with talented history majors looking to cash in. As Newt has proved, you can make more in a month doing “historical consulting” than you make in a year as a part-time TA at some shitty state college.
Finally, history students can forget about their student debt and start prowling the Bentley showrooms!
Rachel Maddow’s guest who had received a copy of Newt’s contract asked somebody from Freddie Mac if they had any paperwork that Newt had done for them. Of course they didn’t. Said they couldn’t find any. Convenient huh?
I can actually understand and accept your point. (And would add that I deeply regret being fooled into voting for Obama, and will never do so again, but that is because I regard him as being TOO CORPORATIST.) But, here’s the hard part. Was the financial industry properly regulated pre-the crash, should they have been bailed out or allowed to fail, and should they be more closely regulated now than they were before the crash? Your answers to those three questions would do a lot to show us where you are coming from, and how much you actually understand.
Texan99 racism works as an explanation because Obama is the third term of Bush O folded and let the Bush tax cuts continue even though it meant we had to cut SS and Medicare 2 things the Dem base loves O is no threat to the 1%.
O did nothing during the Gulf Oil Spill except feed his kids Gulf Shrimp. O eased back smog emission standards O is not killing America with government regulation.
The oil pipeline O would have approved that but we Lefties started protesting outside the WH O did not want that to continue during an election year.
If the GOP base thinks Cutting taxes for the rich, letting companies keep outsourcing is something a GOPer would do more of than O I cannot disagree.
I do disagree that that would create jobs the Bush/Obama tax cuts have yet to create jobs to match the growth in population we have 10 years of real world experience that tax cuts for the rich, outsourcing and less government regulation does not produce jobs.
Its either racism and or ignoring the real world evidence of the last 10 years that drives GOPers.
We Lefties argue FDR got America working by getting America jobs and THAT did work to fix the economy.
Laws can be unfair and arrived at through corruption. That is where the difficult conundrum comes from–respect them as part of the rule of law, or recognize that their adoptiuon was via a process so corrupt and inimical to basic precepts of democracy that they do not deserve to be followed and that, in fact, the moral postion is to actively oppose them.
MickSteers See thats the kind of thing Mitt needs to say if he wants to win the election. Onitgoes is right about why Mitt won’t say it.
But Mitt does not have the luxury anymore of protecting the 1% if he wants to win.
If Mitt can’t, won’t sacrifice the 1% to get Newt then he lacks the spirit needed to win a fight.
Newt has a gift of telling mean lies he is better than Mitt at this. Mitt’s only chance to win is Samurai philosophy accept your own death as a given then ask how can I beat the other guy if I’m willing to risk death.
A better fighter which Newt certainly is who acts to protect himself will lose to a lesser fighter who does not care to protect himself.
Morning, Things. Newt is not anything but a MINDFUCKER. As such, he adopts various labels at different times, but always as cloaks to conceal the true nature of what he is doing. Then he sits back and laughs at the fools (that would be us) who waste their energy debating over the meaning of the labels.
Newt dont you no its bad for employees to have contracts with thier employers,oh thats just for us middle class workers you say?
It’s not just the infidelities, it’s their stated policies. Voting for any of the Republican candidates, for their avowed policies, is like trying to cure a headache with a hammer. The policy is not only racist, but mercenary, predatory, jingoistic, corrosive and fundamentally flawed. Face it, the lurid sideshow is a badly needed decoy from the horrendous conservative policy. No one in their right mind could claim they’re holding their noses voting for the corrupt product of such a warped political perspective.
More like he’s the crook taking us for idiots.
“Newt claims he was hired as a historian to look at past housing prices.”
That’s a belly-laugh. As if any former low-level accountant from the BEA wouldn’t have a better take on that.
There’s obviously a political or personal reason for Newton’s free ride on the taxpayer’s dime. Do we know the connection of the head of Freddie Mac or the people involved with issuing the contract?
In other words, America suffers from Democratic deceit and Republican sincerity.
Only if they learn the revised history. And ignore what’s around them.
Crap. Thanks for the correction.
Boxturtle (Fannie/Freddie rules confuse me horribly sometimes)
Collista’s pocket money