it was trading stamps for cash that got dan rostenkowski.it was a few bad check albeit for big amounts that sent a number of members of congress to jail then. you have to sweat the small things because it is the small things often that will jump up and bite you and it is that openness and transparency of the process that needs to there if we are going t to keep that . with that. you point out one of them, it is not under control of president because appointed for a term, single person, not under the control of the fed. the statute has specific language that says the fed can't have anything to do with what the director does but finally -- and this is the most striking thing -- they are not under the control of congress through the appropriation authority because they are given by statute 10% now but then later 12% of the fed's operating funds to use, which comes out to something now about $600 million a year. let's remember what we have with the fed. the fed is independent of congress and doesn't get any operating funds from congress anyway f

it was trading stamps for cash that got dan rostenkowski. it was a few bad checks albeit for big amounts that sent a number of members of congress to jail then. you have to sweat the small things because it is the small things often that will jump up and bite you and it is that openness and transparency of the process that needs to there if we are going t to keep that >> this weekend on newsmakers, james clobbered on how democrats of view their role and the 112 congress which begins in january. here is a look. >> it would have been very simple as everybody says, everybody step back one step. if you have been share, go back to being chair. the with can gback to being the whip and nancy pelosi will go back to being a leader. and that was not a tactic to me. i thought that things that i learned out there could be put to great use in our leadership discussions if we were to bring another chair to the table. i do believe that we are in a different political environment and we have a caucus that is a little bit different from the republican caucus

a very unusual situation rarely major policy made in a second term, but reagan working with dan rostenkowski and dick gephardt the exception to that, sweeping tax reform, it could broaden the base and lower the rate or might move to a very different form of taxation, away from payroll and income taxes to either a consumption tax or something else -- it could be on the cards. that is not out of the question. but the prospects remain quite slim and it will be nasty and brutish for a couple of years, much greater. >> i'm sure you will have questions. i will last one and then we will turn to the audience. john boehner gave a speech where he talked about reorganizing the house and a different way. talk about what he said in your reactions for that. >> it was a very good at an impressive speech. it was not the kind of speech in my expects in the weeks leading up to an election. it was one that said, hey, we did not run things well. we were in charge. i am determined to make it better. we will open it up to have many more amendments on the floor, to have sunshine in the spotlights, insisting that t

it was trading stamps for cash that got dan rostenkowski.t was a few bad checks albeit for big amounts that sent a number of members of congress to jail then. you have to sweat the small things because it is the small things often that will jump up and bite you and it is that openness and transparency of the process that needs to there if we are going to keep that check and balance constituents need. host: we talked process and policy. thank you for being here. as promised on the phone with us rob green principal at a polling firm. thank you for time with us this morning. we worked with you to ask a question of the public, the people that you polled who were voters in the last election how to make congress more accessible. can you talk about what you learned? >> essentially there is very strong interest in making congress more accessible. there is a very clear message to the house leadership in these national poll findings. it is time to accept the digital age. i will give you an example of some of the findings. we tested a series of things

a chicagoan, as you will recall, was very involved, the late dan rostenkowski, and said the enemy is not the other party. the challenge is to go after the scores and scores of special interest tax breaks that are tax expenditures or really tax earmarks, as i would call them, mr. president, that consume hundreds of billions of dollars and keep us lowering the rates for the middle class and small businesses and those who manufacture in the united states. and so i think the relevant comparison, mr. president, is not george w. bush against barack obama. the more relevant measure is what happened when democrats and ronald reagan worked together in the 1980's as opposed to what happened between 2001-2008, mr. president, when tax policy was partisan. and let me lay out for the senate those specific numbers. when democrats and ronald reagan worked together to reform the tax code in the 1980's, payrolls expanded by 17.6% and the economy grew by 16 million jobs. by contrast, when tax policy was partisan, mr. president, between 2001-2008, there was 2.3% payroll expansion, just three million new

jake pickle and dan rostenkowski wanted to close the long-term gap and they went the route of raising the age. they brought along with them a number but not most, most of the committee democrats but not most of the democrats on the floor. and they won. congress enacted the increase in age and added that to the greenspan package and there is two things to notice here. one, as of simple factual matter it's important to understand that anytime you increase the full benefit age, it lowers the benefit at any age that you collect them. so that if you wait till '67 to take your benefit, your benefit at '67 is lower than it would have been without the change. so it affects people all up and down the line. the second thing is to notice what this does to the so-called balance of the '83 amendments. of the long-term savings -- and again, there's a chart in your pack -- in the brief, i think it's on page 5. it details when what you wind up with that 70% was from reductions for beneficiaries. 10% were from those who contribute to the program and 20% was from coverage extensions. so the balance shi

it was trading stamps for cash that got dan rostenkowski.a few bad checks albeit for big amounts that sent a number of members of congress to jail then. you have to sweat the small things because it is the small things often that will jump up and bite you and it is that openness and transparency of the process that needs to there if we are going t to keep that >> a live picture of the u.s. capitol where the senate is in recess. there is word of a possible agreement on the cases which referred to long-standing trains that the federal government mismanaged funds owed to american indians and discriminated against black farmers. and news from the house at the capitol involving california representative maxine waters. the ap is reporting that new documents have surfaced in the ethics case of representative waters. the house ethics committee says it has postponed her november 29 trial on charges that she improperly tried to obtain federal assistance for a bank where her husband is an investor. of course january marks the beginning of the 112 congr

policy made in the second turn of the two term presidents, 1986 with ronald reagan working with dan rostenkowski and gephardt and bill bradley was the exception to that with sleeping tax reform. a kind of tax reform that either would broaden the base and lower the rates or that might move to a very different form of taxation away from payroll and income taxes to either a consumption tax or something else could be on the cards. now, that's not out of the question. but the prospects remain quite slim and the prospects of a nasty and brutish couple of years are much greater. >> thank you very much, norm. i sure all of you have questions but i would like to ask norma one question and then turned to the audience. on the letter did a speech a couple of weeks ago he taught at reorganizing the house and a couple of weeks and i wonder what your reaction is for someone who watched the house for a long time. >> was a very good and impressive speech. it wasn't the kind of speech you might expect in the weeks leading up to an election that bashed nancy pelosi and the democrats. it was one that said we didn't

>> and it was one of those bills everyone thought, boy, this is going to be great, and then dan rostenkowskigot the heck beat out of him by a bunch of senior citizens, and they repealed it next year. i'm not saying that's going to happen this time around, but i do think that repealing this legislation is a, in its totality, is a possibility and could be a campaign issue in the presidential elections. in the meantime, i think that dick armey's right, the congressional republicans on the house side have to put this up for a vote. my other advice to congressional republicans on the house side is to focus on the weak link in the whole legislation which is the individual mandate. if they can repeal that and make that be the singular issue, i think the whole house of cards comes crumbling down. and i think this legislation is extraordinarily unpopular who have health insurance which is the vast majority of people in the country, and because the rates have gone up since this legislation passed. so i do think that's a good fodder for republicans, and i think they're going to keep pounding on it. >>