Larry Schweikert

I think when he came in, he still believed that there was a class of professional politicians that could be reasoned with.

that they really did love America, and that if he just gave them the right programs, showed them how it would benefit Americans, that he would get support and his programs would sail right through.

And I think what he learned in his first term was that most of these people, not all, but most of them, are in fact there to make sure nothing ever changes.

Their goal is to keep the gravy train flowing, especially as you get military kickbacks or whatever, and

I'm a strong defense guy, but let's not play games.

A lot of these people have major defense.

It's been occurring, you know, Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex for a lot of reasons.

This was one of them, that there would be feedback loops set up in which people in Congress would approve weapons systems because their portfolios had various weapons contractors in them, you know.

general dynamics, whatever it is.

I hate to use the term corrupt, but I would say I think a majority, not all, but a majority of the actors in the House and in the Senate are in fact tied into one lobby or another in such a way so that rationally they say, well, we shouldn't allow this to happen.

That will be bad for America.

But in fact, if you look at it, they're kind of looking at

what they've been used to their entire lives.

Let me go to 1995.

I see that as a pivotal moment in the minimizing and what I think will be the ultimate loss of almost all power in the House and in the Senate.

In 1995, Newt Gingrich and the class of 94, the freshman class,

that had all these great names in it, went up against Clinton and had a government shutdown.

And after a few months of bad media, Newt caved.

And he never had the same kind of power after that at all.

Well, what has happened since then is that Congress increasingly has been unable to force a showdown over a budget.