By: Jim Meyers and Kathleen Walter, Newsmax

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview that Republicans have a “2 out of 3” chance of winning not only the White House in November, but the Senate and House as well.
The reason, he says: President Obama “doesn’t have a clue about what he’s doing,” and Americans can’t afford four more years of this “disaster.”

Gingrich suspended his presidential campaign on May 2 and has endorsed GOP front-runner and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. The veteran Georgia lawmaker was first elected to the House in 1978 and served as speaker from 1995 to 1999 before announcing his retirement.

In his interview with Newsmax TV, Gingrich discusses the role he intends to play in the Romney campaign.

“I’ve told Gov. Romney and his team I’ll do anything I can to be helpful. I’m a citizen. [Wife] Callista and I both believe in citizenship. We’re both prepared to be surrogates and go out and make speeches. We’re both prepared to do other things.

“In addition, I want to campaign for House candidates and for Senate candidates. One of the lessons of the gridlock of the last two years is you need under our Constitution the House, the Senate, and the presidency, so I want to help elect all three.”

Asked what the chances are for the GOP to win all three, Gingrich declares confidently: “Probably 2 out of 3. When you have the weakest economy since the Great Depression, you have high gasoline prices, you have people losing their homes to foreclosure, you have more Americans on food stamps than ever before in history, and you have the biggest deficit in history, all that is Barack Obama’s legacy.

“I think in September and October the American people are going to say, I can’t afford four more years of this. So I think there’s a very real chance that we can have a big sweep.”

He adds that Republicans “absolutely” can win back the Senate, “and I think we could win it by a surprising margin.”

Gingrich refers to James Carville’s recent warning to Democrats not to be overconfident about Obama’s re-election, and discloses what Romney needs to do to assure victory in November.

“I think it’s very important that James Carville is warning Democrats, because he’s the guy who in 1992 had a sign on the wall that said ‘It’s the economy, stupid.’ And I think the Romney people have been brilliant in coming up with ‘It’s still the economy, and we’re not stupid’ as their phrase.

“Mitt Romney needs to answer virtually every question by going back to jobs. If a reporter says, Forty-eight years ago, did you do something really stupid in high school? he should say, I’m really glad you asked me about jobs, because jobs are what matter to the American people.

“And I think every time president Obama does something to try to get our attention away from jobs, Romney should ask, So how many jobs did that create? Nothing is more important to this economy than getting people back to work, and that’s why I’ve advocated that we really build the key part of the Republican platform in August around how are we going to get this economy moving again.”

Discussing that platform, Gingrich says: “It’s going to be a very conservative platform in the best sense of the word.

“It’s going to be a problem-solving platform. It’s going to address getting to a balanced budget, getting the economy growing, developing American energy independence, fundamentally overhauling the government in Washington, implementing the 10th Amendment — a whole series of things that I think Romney is going to be able to go to the country and say, This is how big the difference is. Here’s where Barack Obama would take us; here’s where I would take us. You choose where you want America to go.”

Gingrich predicts that Romney will win in key swing states North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Ohio, and Florida.

“Because you have the worst economy since the Great Depression, you have a president who doesn’t have a clue about what he’s doing — he’s the most radical president in American history, and we don’t hire somebody to be an entertainer,” he tells Newsmax. “Obama’s a very charismatic, entertaining, pleasant guy. He’s just a disaster."

Gingrich was optimistic on the GOP's chances for winning swing states: “In every one of the states mentioned, there’s a very great likelihood that we can put together a majority not just for Romney, but keeping the seat in Indiana, picking up the Senate seat in Virginia, picking up the governorship in North Carolina, picking up the Senate seat in Florida. I see tremendous opportunities for us this year.”

Asked if he would accept a position in the Romney Cabinet if asked, Gingrich responds: “I’m not seeking one. I’m not particularly interested in one.

“I spent six years advising the Bush administration, 2001 through 2006, on both health policy and national security. I’d be very glad to try to be helpful to President Romney. If the president asks for my advice I’d be glad to help him pro bono, just as a good citizen. But I’m more of a visionary strategist, and I’d rather focus at that level.”
He also says he “doubts” that he will run for elected office again.

“I’ll be 69 this summer. I’m probably going to teach some courses, write some books, focus very heavily on innovation and the things that are happening in science and technology. We’re in a period where our institutions are decaying and we need to innovate our way out of that decay. To me that’s the exciting potential of the next 10 years.”
Gingrich has updated his book “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Slashing Gas Prices and Solving Our Energy Crisis,” and the new work is being issued as an electronic book.

“I was fascinated to watch once again exactly where we were in 2008 when gasoline prices rose,” he says.

“We led a petition drive called 'Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less,' and also had a book of that title. We basically argued that an American energy policy would dramatically bring down the price of gasoline. When I was campaigning for president I made that case, and we had a very strong response from the public.

“The American people know that they want American energy independence so that no future president will ever again bow to a Saudi king. They also know that they want to keep $500 billion a year here at home buying American energy, creating American jobs, paying royalties to American governments.

“It will be our first electronic book. It comes out May 22. It’s called, I think, ‘$2.50 a Gallon Gasoline: Why Obama’s Wrong About the Ability to Get to Cheaper Gasoline.’ It’s been updated and substantially rewritten.”

In his interview with Newsmax TV, Gingrich also says:

• Republicans have a wealth of talent to choose from in selecting Romney’s running mate, including Sen. Marco Rubio who would “make a good president someday.”
• Obama changed his position on same-sex marriage because he wanted to placate “his most powerful constituents,” and as a result can’t attack Romney for flip-flopping on issues.
• JPMorgan’s recent $2 billion trading loss doesn’t reinforce the need for more bureaucratic oversight, which will only “guarantee you’ll never win” in a free-market system.

Watch the interview with Speaker Gingrich here!

By: Dow Jones Newswires, courtesy of FOX Business News

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.'s (JPM) revelation that it had taken a surprise  and stunning $2 billion--possibly $3 billion--loss due to a high-risk trading  strategy carried out in its London office raises questions about U.S. regulatory  oversight of global bank operations, former regulators and observers say.

"They are too big to regulate," Sheila Bair, chairman of the Federal Deposit  Insurance Corp. between 2006 and 2011, told MarketWatch.

"Regulators would be better to focus on simple rules that rely on incentives  like capital and risk retention and even with the Volcker rule focusing more on  compensation incentives for trading," said Bair.

Bair and others have raised concerns about the losses that were a result of a  trading strategy involving credit derivatives and whether they would contribute  to systemic problems in a more hostile economic scenario.

But the trades also raise questions about the ability of U.S. regulators to  effectively monitor and understand the systemic implications of trades taking  place in jurisdictions outside the U.S.

Questions are likely to be raised at the company's annual meeting scheduled  for Tuesday, where nonbinding but influential shareholder votes on pay packages  of top executives will be tallied.

Specifically, the questions are being raised after J.P. Morgan announced that  Ina Drew, the head of the bank's London-based Chief Investment Office, will  resign as well as the head of its London CIO office, trader Javier  Martin-Artajo, in the wake of the trading issues, according to reports. It is  unclear whether trader Bruno Michel Iksil, dubbed "the London Whale" for the big  position he took in credit derivatives will resign as well.

Robert Litan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington,  said U.S. regulators have difficulty monitoring and regulating operations of big  U.S. banks with global operations. He said the cross-border issue could be  limited if U.S. regulators clarify what kinds of hedging could be permitted in  light of the J.P. Morgan transactions.

Kurt Schacht, managing director of CFA Institute in New York, said a major  problem for U.S. oversight is that U.S. regulators have not set up systems with  the U.K. to cooperate and exchange data. Schacht said that he would be more  comfortable if the U.S. Financial Stability Oversight Board and the European  Systemic Risk Board were fully cooperating.

"U.S. regulators have access to everyone they regulate and have jurisdiction  over, but if the counterparties of those U.S. institutions are other  institutions in Europe, they may not have that information," Schacht said. "The  FSOC and ESRB should be cooperating, and that system isn't set up yet...it's a  reason why the Fed may be having a difficult time figuring this out yet."

Bair, a Republican who is now a senior adviser at the Pew Charitable Trusts,  added that the trade indicates that J.P. Morgan and other big banks are too big  to manage.

"I think Jamie Dimon is a very talented manager and I think J.P. Morgan is  the best managed of the mega-banks, but can even a talented manager manage a $2  trillion institution that is trying to be a commercial bank and derivatives  dealer and fixed-income market maker with international operations and  investment bankers?" Bair asked. "Can anybody really manage that, much less  regulate it appropriately?"

Some Improvement, But Not There Yet

Nevertheless, Donald Kohn, member of the Bank of England interim Financial  Policy Committee and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, said that  since the financial crisis of 2008 the Fed has improved its coordination and  cooperation with other countries including the U.K.'s securities regulator, the  Financial Services Authority.

He added that the Financial Stability Board, an international bank regulation  standard setter, has helped improve communications among bank supervisors in  different countries.

Kohn noted that the Fed and other regulators have been aware of the J.P.  Morgan trades and he didn't think the U.S. regulators are responding to the  trades any slower because they took place in the institution's London  office.

Kohn added that a key aspect of the Volcker Rule--regulation that is in the  process of being approved that would prohibit speculative trades by big  banks--is a requirement that banks supply regulators with data flow information  so regulators can monitor more effectively what is going on.

He added that whether that data was coming from London or from the U.S., the  Fed would receive it at the same speed.

"I doubt that it being in London affects the speed of the regulatory  response," Kohn said.

Bair added that she believes that regulators have the authority to order J.P.  Morgan to simplify their legal structures and move the high-risk derivatives  activity outside of the insured-commercial bank and put it in a separately  capitalized unit. She added that regulators also have the authority to set up  separate intermediate boards that are focused specifically on the kind of higher  risk activities taking place outside of the insured commercial bank where  depositors put their funds.

By: Staff, FOX News

Newt Gingrich says he will join the campaign trail for Mitt Romney next week  with two events in Georgia, including the state’s GOP convention.

Gingrich, the former House speaker who represented Georgia, last week  suspended his 2012 GOP presidential campaign. Gingrich won only two  primaries in his campaign – Georgia and South Carolina.

A Gingrich campaign spokesman told CNN on Friday night about plans to help  Romney, the likely GOP presidential nominee, starting at the GOP convention next  weekend. He also reportedly will campaign for Romney in Las Vegas.

Gingrich has said he fully backs Romney and did so in his May 2 exit speech,  though the endorsement seemed less than overwhelming.

“I am asked sometimes is Mitt Romney conservative enough?” Gingrich said. “And my answer is simple – compared to Barack Obama? This is not a choice  between Mitt Romney and Ronald Reagan. This is a choice between Mitt Romney and  the most radical leftist president in American history."

Gingrich’s arrival to the campaign trail is followed by that of several other  former GOP candidates including GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Minnesota  Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

Rick Santorum, Romney’s once-closest challenger, endorsed Romney on Monday  night, toward the end of a letter to supporters that also acknowledged their  remaining “differences.”

Santorum said in the letter he would “keep lines of communication open with  (Romney) and his campaign,” but gave no indication he would join the campaign  trail.

On Saturday, Pawlenty will attend two events for the Romney campaign,  including the state GOP convention in Norman.

Bachmann, R-Minn. and Tea Party candidate, endorsed Romney last week at a  campaign stop in Portsmouth, Va.

By: Kristina Peterson, the Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Regulators may need to tighten what hedging activities banks will be permitted under the Volcker rule, former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair said Friday.

Given the uncertainty over whether the $2 billion trading loss announced by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM) Thursday night would be prohibited under new regulations still being drafted, the Federal Reserve should consider whether it needs to define more narrowly what hedging will be allowed, Bair said in an interview with Dow Jones Newswires.

"There is a risk that a loosely defined hedging exception can open the door to a lot of mischief," she said. "The Fed should look at tightening the definition of hedging as a result of this situation."

Regulators have yet to finalize the regulation spelling out exactly what is and isn't permitted under the Volcker rule, which seeks to limit risky trading by commercial banks that enjoy government backing. Two Democratic senators said Friday that the language of the Dodd-Frank overhaul of the financial system was intended to allow only hedges that were designed to reduce risks tied to specific assets or positions held by a company, not broader bets, as in the case of J.P. Morgan.

However, a draft regulation put out in October by the Fed, the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators did permit portfolio hedging, though it added an extra layer of compliance above what banks must do for other types of hedging.

"That proposed regulation is full of ambiguities and loopholes," Bair said. "There should be some tightening of making sure that any event that's hedged is clearly correlated with an underlying economic risk."

Bair also said the J.P. Morgan loss illustrated the need for large banks to have separate management for their major business lines. Even a well-managed bank like J.P. Morgan couldn't stay on top of all its complex operations, she noted.

"It is just extremely difficult to manage these institutions from the top of the house," Bair said.

Departments of a mega-banks should be split into divisions with their own executives and boards, even if they share a brand under one bank-holding company, she said.

J.P. Morgan's lapse "raises a serious question about whether these very large associations are too big to manage," she said. When dealing with such large, complicated institutions, "even the best managers can miss things."

Progressives, led by Paul Krugman, believe that we can fix our economic woes with more consumer debt and higher inflation. The reality is that near zero interest rates encourage speculation, discourage savings, weaken pension funds, and put millions of baby boomers at risk.

By: Sheila Bair, FORTUNE Contributor

In the late 1800's, coal mine barons found no shortage of ways to maximize profits at the expense of their workers. Miners were paid subsistence wages then required to shop at the notorious "company stores" where they were sold over-priced goods on abusive credit terms. As time passed, coal-mining families would find themselves "another day older and deeper in debt" as Tennessee Ernie Ford lamented in the popular 1950's song "Sixteen Tons."

Much attention has been paid to rising income inequality in the U.S. over the past several decades. Less attention has been paid to rising disparities in debt between the haves and have-nots. According to a recent IMF report, debt to income ratios for the bottom 95% of income earners in the U.S. skyrocketed from 60% in 1983 to a whopping 140% in 2007. For the top 5%, the debt load actually decreased from 80% in 1983 to 65% in 2007. At the same time, real wages for the working classes stagnated. Our economy followed a business model akin to the company store. American workers experienced little real wage growth, but instead were given ready access to credit to buy over-priced houses, imported goods, and other things they could not otherwise afford.

Now comes a group of progressives, led by Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman, who propose, you guessed it, more consumer borrowing and spending as the main solution to our economic woes. They advocate aggressive action by the Fed to keep interest rates near zero, as well as to raise the inflation target to 4%-5%. They argue that consumers, enticed by low interest rates, will borrow and spend more while those of us who have built up savings will start spending those savings rather than let higher inflation erode their value. All of this new consumer spending will create jobs and get us out of our economic doldrums, or so their theory goes.

Here is my question: Once we've all borrowed as much as we can and spent down our savings, then what? Their arguments assume that our problems are cyclical, not structural, and that we can somehow successfully return to the pre-crisis good times if we can just stimulate enough consumer demand. But if we learned anything in 2008, it is that credit-infused consumer spending based on accommodative monetary policy is not a sustainable model. The Fed can print lots of money, but it cannot control what is done with it. Instead of supporting new lending for healthy, sustainable economic growth, those newly minted trillions can just as easily support asset bubbles and irresponsible lending and risk taking by yield hungry financial institutions and investors. Near zero interest rates discourage savings and weaken pension funds. At the same time, they encourage highly leveraged speculative investments based on short-term price fluctuations, not long term economic fundamentals.

Given the millions of baby boomers at or near the cusp of retirement, and the dwindling resources of Social Security and Medicare to support them, the last thing we should be doing is pursuing policies to erode private savings. And with overburdened consumers only midway through the process of de-leveraging, now is hardly the time to try to entice them to take on new debt. To be sure, the ability to refinance mortgages into much lower rates has been a positive outcome of the Fed's near zero interest rate policies. But mortgage refinancings will eventually run their course.

Krugman and his allies want to increase the target inflation rate as a way to manipulate consumers into spending more with today's higher-valued dollars. They downplay inflation's harmful effects on those whose incomes do not keep pace with the cost of living. History has shown that once inflation starts to accelerate, it can be hard to control.  Moreover, it is unclear whether even the mighty Fed can keep rates low while explicitly raising target inflation. This may simply lead bond investors to demand higher interest on their investments to compensate for inflation risk. In addition, it is unlikely that the Fed could generate inflation in the one area where it might be helpful – housing – given the huge amounts of inventory projected to come on the market over the next several years which will put countervailing downward pressure on home prices.

The harsh reality is that the solution to our problems lies with fiscal policy, not monetary policy. Unfortunately, it is easier to call on the Fed to keep printing money than it is to convince our political leaders to start doing their jobs. The major road blocks to America's economic future lie with inefficiencies in the tax code, unsustainable defense and entitlement spending, and most importantly, massive uncertainty on the part of both businesses and households over how or even whether these core issues will be resolved. Progressives would be better served by focusing on how we can get more bang out of our social spending bucks, given our high per capita expenditures on health care and education and subpar results. Similarly, conservatives need to face up to the fact that we need more tax revenues, with the real question being whether we do so by raising rates, imposing new consumption taxes, or, dramatically cutting back on tax loopholes (my preference).

Those who favor fiscal responsibility over lax monetary policy should not be branded with the scarlet A of austerity. Unlike many European countries which have tightened too rapidly (though some have little choice, given their dire fiscal situations), we can and should phase-in tax and spending reforms over time. What's more, in some areas, additional spending makes sense. I agree with Krugman that even with current budget constraints, we should undertake well-designed and administered programs to repair infrastructure. That type of "stimulus" will create construction jobs while providing long-term benefits to our economy through more efficient transportation systems, uninterrupted water supplies, and safer buildings for our kids' schools.

Structural fiscal reforms will give our economy real, lasting benefits. On the other hand, too much easy money from the Fed, while well-intentioned, contributed to asset bubbles, excessive risk taking, and a populace over-burdened by debt who, like the coal miners of yore, will be taking years to dig out.

By: Carly Fiorina, CNBC Contributor

Dear Mark,

Congratulations!

Through vision, grit, persistence and brilliance, you are about to launch the largest IPO in American history.

You have understood our needs and desires for connection and communication better than we understood them ourselves.

You have gathered a great management team around you, hired the brightest and most motivated employees, and maneuvered through a competitive landscape that is unprecedented in its complexity and pace of change. You are a great entrepreneur who will now define and personify our ideal of American innovation. You have made history and changed history, not just on Wall Street but on streets around the world. You have altered everything from teenagers' social lives to tyrants political calculations.

None of us can imagine what it feels like to be you, which is one reason the cameras are ever-present and there will be more books and movies.

However, some of us can imagine the transition Facebook must now go through as the company rushes, with huge fanfare, headlong into the world of publicly traded stocks. (In 1995, I helped lead what was then the largest-ever IPO, spinning out Lucent Technologies from AT&T. On the day of our New York roadshow, the WSJ headline read: "It's The Rolling Stones, it's Barbra Streisand, no it's the Lucent roadshow".)

Whatever the ultimate valuation of Facebook, it will be one of the most sought-after equities in the world.

It is in that spirit that I humbly offer three tips:

1) Do not change your focus on the creation of long-term value or deviate from your strategic ambitions.

While this may seem simple and obvious, it will become increasingly difficult. The majority of investors now hold stock for an average of four months. Most money-managers are rated annually on their performance against benchmark indices. While you are focused on the longer-term, those who buy your stock are focused on the shorter-term. And because your stock has received so much hype, these short-term investors will be very impatient. While you, your team and your Board know that their impatience cannot drive company strategy, their pressure will be real.

Do not establish the precedent of providing quarterly earnings guidance. While you must of course protect competitively sensitive information, communicate as proactively and transparently as possible about your strategic goals and operational performance metrics as well as how you track your own progress and performance against both.

2) Whatever the ultimate valuation of Facebook, it will be one of the most sought after equities in the world.

A lot of people are now counting on your performance. Beyond risk-tolerant venture capitalists, risk-averse pension funds and 401ks will now own your stock. Expect a lot more questions about how you make decisions.

Many of these questions will be driven by current headlines and conventional wisdom, but they are nevertheless legitimate. Your new owners want to understand how you lead and how you evaluate choices.

Answering them will encourage longer-term holdings.

3) Be patient.

No one knows more about Facebook, or has more riding on its performance, than you. That won't stop what will quickly seem to be endless commentary, scrutiny, suggestions, questions and sometimes, criticisms. Some of it will be thoughtful, some ignorant, some well-intended and some malicious. Be open to what makes sense and try to ignore the rest.

You have come very far, very fast and the sky is still the limit.

You represent all that is right about our economy, our markets, our nation. In the midst of all the pressure and expectations, hold onto who you are and what you do best. We are all rooting for you.

Carly Fiorina

By: Newt Gingrich, Newt Gingrich Letter, an Exclusive Publication of Human Events

In the past few weeks, a number of elections in Europe have offered telling signs for American politics about the effect of the current pain on voters.

Two consistent patterns are emerging in virtually every European country where citizens have the opportunity to make their voices heard.

First, incumbent parties are being punished without regard to ideology. Whichever side is in power, the right or the left, it is being punished for failure.

Second, centrist parties everywhere are losing ground to anti-establishment parties.

These patterns are holding firm in France, Britain (local elections), Germany (one major local election), Greece, Spain and Italy.

Again and again voters are protesting bad economies with their votes. And they are increasingly rejecting policies of austerity and pain.

In significant numbers, they are also repudiating the establishment parties and moving to both right and left wing protest parties.

These rising protest parties indicate that more and more European voters are rejecting the performance, the ideas and the authority of the traditional establishment parties.

The results in France in particular offer some interesting suggestions for American politics—and it isn’t good news for President Obama.

First, the defeat of French President Nicolas Sarkozy very much follows the pattern of the 2006 and 2010 American elections. In both cases the opposition party (Democrats in 2006 and Republicans in 2010) were able to ride a wave repudiating the failed reform efforts of the incumbent party.

Sarkozy ran as a reformer in 2007. In fact, his book “Testimony: France in the 21st Century” was the best conservative statement in the last decade of the need for fundamental reform. His defense of the work ethic as essential to French prosperity was a clearer case than any American has offered since Ronald Reagan.

Unfortunately, Sarkozy was unable to deliver on his reforms. His personality overwhelmed his policies. The French economy’s failure overwhelmed his personality.

The French Socialist Hollande won in part by deemphasizing his personality and focusing on his desire to serve France rather than dominate it.

President Obama has every reason to be worried by European results. They offer solid proof that high unemployment, high gasoline prices, weak growth and big deficits can overwhelm his billion dollar campaign.

They also suggest that picking his NCAA bracket and flying off to Afghanistan may not count for much when voters look at their own pocketbooks.

For Gov. Mitt Romney, there is solid evidence in these results that his "it’s-the economy-and-we’re-not-stupid” message is the right focus for his campaign.

His recent call for the goal of 4 percent unemployment—a full employment economy—is exactly the right one.

The voters want a balanced budget through growth and opportunity and will reject austerity and pain. The governor and his team are working to build this positive contrast based on policy, not personality—much as Hollande did in France, though his politics could not be more different from Romney’s.

The European results also put the popularity of Ron Paul in a wider context. The support for his ideas and his anti-establishment campaign is not a uniquely American phenomenon. He is, in fact, challenging the establishment in exactly the same manner as the various protest parties of the right and left in Europe.

These election results suggest the tea party movement and the support focused on Ron Paul is not a small development. It betrays historic discontent, and I doubt we have seen the last of it.

If Gov. Romney succeeds in giving voice to that discontent in a serious discussion with the American people, he has a strong chance in the fall. Indeed, the European elections suggest President Obama faces a much steeper mountain to climb as the choice clarifies over the next few months.