captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> there will be a new sheriff in town, and this sheriff will listen to the american people. >> charlie arango learns his fate. the senate republican leader does an about-face. >> i have to lead a first bite example. >> what is holding up a nuclear arms reduction treaty? >> it is imperative that the united states ratified the new treaty this year.

>> the first guantanamo detainees to be tried in court almost walks. passengers are getting a touchy about being touched. willis sarah palin run for president? >> could you beat barack obama? >> i believe so. >> if you thought things were going to calm down after the midterm elections, you were wrong. house speaker nancy pelosi knocked back a rebellion from her own troops. she will be succeeded by john boehner. mitch mcconnell decided it was better this week for earmarks it than to fight. a veteran democratic congressman

and charlie arango got his comeuppance from the house committee -- a veteran democratic congressman charlie rangel got his comeuppance from the house committee. where do we stand on tax cuts? >> the house democrats stand with the president and on cutting them off and at $250,000, but senate democrats have settled off the reservation by flirting with the idea of extending them for everybody. >> if the tax cuts are expected, the richest americans -- we are all the deficit hawks now. >> in the end, the only way to solve the problem is with

entitlements and growth and raising income taxes, marginal taxes, by at least 13%, on what will amount to half of the small business income in america. it is not exactly a wise way to promote employment and growth in the middle of a bad recession. as the best solution which peter orszag himself has suggested is extend them temporarily, and when the economy improves, then you terminate them. >> although most people do not kn it because god knows president obama did not tell them, there were tax cuts for middle-class americans in the stimulus package. to add more tax cuts now i think it is fiscally irresponsible especially for people making under $250,000.

this is christmas time. >> i am looking to you for optimism. >> high and the wrong guy -- i am the wrong guy. [laughter] >> temporarily extend them -- congress is so dysfunctional now, particularly at the senate, it is possible they will not come up with a solution. i guess they will in january but they are going to ticket down the road, i think pretty >> you have to extend them temporarily because of the state of the economy. the real debate should be about what the commission is recommending in entitlements, and reducing tax rates. the deficit commission had recommended a whole new structure of tax rates. that is what everybody should be talking about, a real debate about cleaning up the tax code. >> according to wall street

journal poll, a large majority of people are opposed. >> it did show that. it is the classic -- we know in order to deal with the out-of- control deficit, we have to cut federal expenditures, federal programs, and we have to raise federal revenues. the only people who do not want that are the taxpayers, and the only people who do not want their federal programs touched are those who are benefiting from them. it reminds me of a boston politician who said "everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die." >> what about earmarks? this is mitch mcconnell. >> you could eliminate every earmarked and you would save no money. >> been in earmarks is a small but symbolic step we can take to show that we are serious. >> what turned mitch mcconnell around?

>> he was losing his caucus. to continue what mark was saying, we have to have an adult conversation about the budget. the problem is, there does not seem to be that many adults in the american public. it earmarks are a perfect example. if you eliminate them u, he woud cut three tenths of the budget. it is symbolically important but it would knock you anywhere. you have to deal with the social security, medicare and medicaid too. >> and there is only one adult who can turn this around, the president of the united states. the only way to get what we need to do is if the president runs himself for reelection, asking for a referendum saying if you vote for me it means we will step up to the problems and deal with them. he has to make a national referendum.

otherwise, it is not going to happen. >> everybody thinks it is a big joke. that is the only way to get it done. >> in the absence of a referendum, you had a break-in and it tip o'neill and bill bradley in 1986 on the tax reform is that everybody will tell you was the best thing for the tax system and the economy that anybody had devised. it has been corrupted over a quarter of this century but it eliminated loopholes, deductions, and tax breaks and it would lower rates across the board and improve our economy. the way to do is to have a commission to employ a base closing commission. it makes its recommendation and then you have one choice. >> and that was the proposal before the senate. seven senators co-sponsored that with a gubernatorial

support. >> they were wrong. >> is the only reality out there now is that we have a deficit that is so out of control, it is going to bring this country to>s

leadership team. our consensus is we got there listening to the american people. it is about jobs, reducing the deficit, and fighting for the middle-class. i look forward to doing that with his great team. >> nancy pelosi will now be the minority leader. i was talking to democrats who thought she would retire. >> she decided to stay and there was nobody who was going to challenger, nobody who was a serious challenger.

there was a symbolic challenge by a blue dog democrat. half of the blue dogs were depleted. the fact is, nancy pelosi was the architect and engineer of the democrats take over. she raised the money and was the national organizer of it. the question is, can she bring it back? there were 68 votes cast for postponing this vote within the caucus which is a vote against her. its shows there is restlessness within the ranks. >> the house democrats defeated a republican attempt to cut off funding for unemployment benefits. what does that get them? >> i think they are acting on principle. it is going to give them a lot of hostility. the question is if it is necessary to do that because then you end up in europe.

they have growing unemployment of over 10% and there is a large element of the population currently on the dole. it is a tough decision and not easy to do. the democratic argument that it increases employment seems to be odd. it is a question of whether we are in the middle of a recession if these people have a chance to get other jobs or not, and whether it is going to act as an incentive. i think for a lot of these folks in their 50s, there is no chance. >> house democrats did defeat a motion to cut off funding for npr. >> we are not not seize it either -- we are not nazis either. >> it is pathetic. he is all weepy and cannot afford a lawyer.

he is heartbreaking. he had a great career and has been a great patriot. i wish he could quietly step aside and not put us through this. >> what is the new house going to look like? what is going to happen? >> we got a democratic caucus that is more liberal than the one going out, and a republican caucus that is more conservative. i think the real focus is going to be on how john boehner who has been short footed so far how he deals with the restless in the ranks. a tax crusader says on friday he wants the government to close down. there is a certain element within the caucus that would like to do that pretty >> how does john boehner deal with that element? >> as i have said before, the

rubber hits the road when we get to the debt ceiling. you cannot have a continuing resolution forever. you have to vote to have a higher debt ceiling. if they don't vote for that, and then the government shuts down. >> i keep looking for the moment that is going to provoke the reality of a breakdown in washington because there is a certain never-never land quality. we were talking earlier about walter mondale. that was in 1984. hello? look at what happened to him. washington is perpetually stuck in the past and has become so dysfunctional at some point something breaks. there is some moment that the weather breaks. maybe it will be a debt ceiling. >> let me get back to the present.>> he was not responsib.

we would like to express our sympathy for the 224 people who died and of the hundreds of others who were injured on august 7, 1998. >> that is a defense lawyer. attacks on american embassies planned by osama bin laden killed 224 people. it is been said that the suspect help to allocate up with a truck and brought explosives and so forth and said he served at a time as osama bin laden's cook and bodyguard. how could you not get convictions on 224 counts? >> there is the possibility that his tale is true, but i am

dubious because i think i know some things that the jury did not know. it-it would certainly reignite the debate over this. there is no decent appeal of this decision. all of the big questions that probably would have come up if there was a military commission, those questions got obliterated with this trial. he is going to jail for a minimum of 20 years, maybe life, and there was no discussion on the bush's administration's torture policies in the courtroom. that was avoided, it too. >> charles, he was captured in pakistan in 2004 and held by the cia, and then transferred to guantanamo bay. critics say he should have been tried in a military commission. >> that probably would have been better. when you have the administration

announcing suspects not tried at all, you have the collapse of the way to deal with detainee's in guantanamo with civilian trials and. the force of this case which mentioned 280 counts are tossed out in a case where a guy purchases a truck, he buys a detonator, there is all kind of evidence that he was aware of this pretty he gets an essentially office except on one count. it tells you do not try them or try them in military tribunals. >> i am with charles on this. it is a farce. >> i think he makes excellent points, but this is certainly going in the direction of military tribunals. >> the possibility of the senate not ratifying a treaty of arms reduction with russia this year.

>> he has a problem with modernization. he wants assurances from administration that the arsenal will be kept intact. i think the other issues that ought to be aired, obama says he has to have it done this year as a national security priority. is anybody aware of the fact that we have not talked about this the entire year? if it was such an integral part of our national security, wouldn't it be on that it has not arisen once here in the 11.5 months? you would think that if it is a critical element, he might have mentioned it in 11 and a half months. >> the fear now is with the republican congress is not going to get it done at all. >> you want to give this some

time. it is fair to have the senate have questions. they have had 18 hearings, 900 written questions and answers. they have unaccommodated more money, billions more. it begins to look like a shakedown. >> a $4 billion was the latest, 29 meetings, exchanges, sessions to the president's and kyle, the staff, to work out the details. why is henry kissinger for it? why is condoleezza rice for it? why is dick lugar for it? because it is the right thing to do. >> we are no longer existential enemies. if it does not matter. this treaty is irrelevant. the reason is, if the russians

wanted to spend themselves in developing a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons, it would make no difference at all to our national security. >> do you have any feelings about the new pat down thing at the airports? >> i go through it every time i go through an airport because i set off the metal detectors like a fire alarm. it is completely idiotic. we know that the problem of fighting terrorists is not looking for explosives on a 6- year-old pre searching for objects instead of looking for a terrorist is at the heart of the issue, which is why 98% of this stuff everybody in the line and knows it. >> political correctness. >> we know it is worthless it. >> i don't think it is worthless.

the truth is, we had somebody get on a plan with stuff and his underwear. that is why they are doing this. >> i had an emotional experience the last time i flew, and the thought we were engaged. [laughter] let me make one point on charles closing point. this would allow the united states to inspect rushes facilities. >> who cares? >> at 90% of all the nuclear arsenal in the world -- >> we need to catch up with iran, the week? >> do you stay up at night worrying about russia? >> it is complete watered-down. they have zero effect.

>>

when my husband got sick and couldn't work anymore, it was up to me to support our family. karri danner went back to school, to become a nurse. my education made all the difference but now some in washington want regulations restricting access to career colleges and universities, denying opportunity to millions of people like karri, letting government decide who can go to college. it's my education, and my job,. don't let washington get in the way. >> i am looking at the of light

of the land now and trying to figure out if it is a good thing for the country, discourse, and my family. >> could you read barack obama? >> i believe so. >> she believes she could beat barack obama. does anybody agree with that? >> i used to think it is a joke. now wonder. i think is going to take a smarter demigod to beat barack obama. the inconceivable now is possible. >> sarah palin is going to be on the cover of new york times magazine and has the best- selling books. >> i think it is mostly a celebrity and nonsense but i am

not 100% sure. >> we are living in an era where you can say almost anything. she is a very gifted and attractive candidate. i still think she polarizes people so much, she cannot win. we also have to remember that this is a woman who has exactly two years of governance in a small stake. that is her only experience it. >> can she win the nomination? if she gets it, can she went? >> i am not sure. she is certainly a possible nominee and she is going to influence the debate. i don't allow anybody winning because once you get on the playing field with only two, anything can happen. she does not have an ally in alisa murkowski. >> let me explain to the viewers out there this is a mandatory

service segment in every show. if the sarah palin did not exist, what would the liberals have to talk about? >> michelle bachman. >> donald trump. >> i want donald trump to run so somebody could pull out the rug from under him. >> thank you. see you next week.

look inside a more than 17 billion dollar investment, and what do you see? at at&t, we see the dreams and ambitions of everyday americans coming true. we see an economic recovery taking root as businesses grow and prosper and add jobs, thanks to the amazing power of an open internet that works. america needs an internet that is always getting faster, safer, and more secure. at at&t, our investment last year of more than 17 billion dollars in the wireless and wired networks of tomorrow is what's fueling innovation today and creating jobs and opportunities now. we invest because we know the internet works. it's working for our children, our families, our economy and our future. and if there were ever a time to stick with what works, now is it.