angelo program. it names a string of lawmakers from both party, democrats and republicans who benefited from this vip treatment. kent conrad. former democratic senator chris dodd. republican house armed services committee chairman buck mckeon. all three deny any wrongdoing. the report also says the former ceo of fannie mae, officials at freddie mac and a secretary of housing and urban development were also in this friends of angelo program. so were congressional staffers from both parties that played a role in legislation that affected countrywide. these vips got, as i said, favorable mortgage rates and points. one, adolfous towns, was a chairman of the house oversight committee, the very same committee investigating countrywide. he also denies any wrongdoing. according to the house report, documents and testimony obtained documents and testimony obtained by the committee show the vip loan program was a tool used by country wide to build good will with lawmakers and other individuals positioned to benefit the company. the report went on to say that the effort, well, it worked. there's a lot to talk about. joining me is jason jafitz, republican from utah. i think people would be surprised to hear that people got a deal. in your opinion did anyone here commit a crime? >> well, there was no quid pro quo. we could not tie anybody's vote directly to getting this benefit as the report points out but it skirts awfully close. you're given a benefit to some your friends and neighbors or somebody off the street wouldn't get because they were members of congress or working for members of congress. >> what i found amazing in your report is that according to the report, these sweetheart deals basically came about because so many congressional staffers were actually complaining to the countrywide lobbyists about their own personal loans, so the lobbyists sort of spent the first 30 minutes of meetings dealing with people's personal complaints. that just seems outrageous to me. >> it does, particularly when you're on the committees that are charged with tightening up the rules and regulations as we were dealing with all these bad loans and whatnot. and these people, they were then -- so they took this program, internal program and called it friends of angelo and decided to go ahead and start helping these people. and it's just wrong. it didn't smell right, didn't look right because it wasn't right. >> it would be as if i went to interview the head of countrywide and i spent the first 30 minutes of the interview before the cameras are rolling complaining about my personal mortgage to the guy and then get directed to some program. i would be fired for that. >> look, they were put -- a little bait was put out in front a number of them bit on both unfortunately on sides of the aisle. key, important people bit at this stuff. some claim they didn't really understand what they were doing but that doesn't seem like much of a defense to me. >> a lot of the members of congress claimed they never knew they were part of any preferential program. are they lying? i mean, do you have ne proof that they did in fact know they were? >> could not directly tie that. this investigation lasted some three years. again, people on both sides of the aisle. but this was something you couldn't just pick up the phone or go down to your local countrywide representative and get, you could only get it by dealing with the friends of angelo. and it seems obvious to me but -- >> yeah, the senate budget committee chairman, kent conrad, said to politico that the senate ethics committee concluded unanimously that he didn't receive any sweetheart deal on any transaction. your report, though, alleges that he did. that he saved something like $20,000 through two preferred loans. so did the ethics committee get it wrong in the senate? >> well, the ethics committee in general is fairly impotent. usually it's the voters have to deal with this and make these types of decisions. what we could not directly tie was, hey, you got this sweetheart deal in exchange directly for this particular vote or for changing a piece of legislation. we could never directly tie these two together but you can see what the consequences were. the taxpayers ended up footing all of these bills and at the same time some of the key people on finance and banking and the key staffers, one term that was used was this person has the pen in hand. there was a staffer actually helping to write this legislation. you can understand why when this lobbyist said to the committee this is why this person was targeted, you can see that there was -- there was an attempt here to influence. >> the report now concludes that congress should consider making it illegal for companies to offer discounts or other preferential treatment to members of congress or their staff. i think most people would say that seems like common sense. do you expect that is actually going to happen, though? >> well, as you said, it's very difficult to legislate common sense. look, it is already inappropriate and illegal for a member of congress to accept something that they wouldn't otherwise be able to get. so i don't understand why the ethics committee thinks that there's nothing here in the house. i think there's still some outstanding issues. but it was wrong, it doesn't look right, it doesn't smell right because it wasn't right, anderson. and i'm glad that we did this report and hopefully it sheds more light on the issue. >> i'm glad you did too. as you point out, it's folks on both sides of the aisle here, republicans and democrats involved in this. congressman chaffetz, i appreciate your time. thank you. >> thanks. we mentioned at the top that all lawmakers named in the house report deny any wrongdoing. former senator dodd said "this report recycles old allegations that republicans and democrats on the senate ethics committee investigated for 14 months before concluding that senator dodd did nothing wrong." it went on to say "the senate ethics committee found the rates and terms senator dodd received were widely advertised and available to other borrowers. when questions were first raised about his loans, senator dodd was clear in saying he became a countrywide customer back in 1999, something noted on the first page of the senate ethics committee's report." senator conrad also denies that he received preferential rates. now in all we heard from six of the seven lawmakers named in the house report. you can find their statements at ac360.com. let us see what you think. follow me on twitter @andersoncooper. i'm tweeting in the hour ahead. a lot more happening tonight also including mitt romney's latest newest position on health care reform. he's now in line with his own party, but big-name supporters have some doubts about his campaign. that's next. >> announcer: you never know when, but thieves can steal your identity, turning your life upside down in a matter of seconds. >> hi. >> hi. you know, i can save you 15% today if you open up a charge card account with us. >> you just read my mind. >> announcer: just one little piece of information and they can open bogus accounts, stealing your credit, your money and ruining your reputation. that's why you need lifelock. lifelock is the leader in identity theft protection, relentlessly protecting your personal information to help stop the crooks in their tracks before your identity is attacked, protecting your social security number, your bank accounts, even the equity in your home. >> i didn't know how serious identity theft was... until i lost my credit and eventually i lost my home. >> announcer: credit monitoring alone is not enough to protect your identity, and only tells you after the fact, sometimes as much as 60 days later. with lifelock, as soon as we spot a threat to your identity within our network, our advanced lifelock i.d. alert system directly notifies you, protecting your identity before you become a victim. >> identity theft was a huge, huge problem for me and it's gone away because of lifelock. >> announcer: while no one can stop all identity theft, if the criminals do manage to steal your information, lifelock is there to help fix it, with our $1 million service guarantee. that's right, a $1 million service guarantee. don't wait until you become the next victim. call now to try lifelock risk-free for two full months. that's right, 60 days risk-free. use promo code: norisk. if you're not completely satisfied, notify lifelock and you won't pay a cent. order now and also get this document shredder to keep your personal documents out of the wrong hands-- a $29 dollar value, free. get the protection you need right now. call or go to lifelock.com to try lifelock risk-free for a full 60 days. use promo code: norisk. plus get this document shredder free, but only if you act right now. call now! lifelock service guarantee cannot be offered to residents of new york. keeping them honest tonight on the campaign trail on mitt romney's latest attempt to paint president obama's health care law as bad and his own massachusetts plan as good. now since the supreme court ruled last week governor romney and members of his campaign have seemingly tied themselves in verbal knots over it. ironically though the supreme court offered him a way out the penalty for not buying most republicans took that and ran with it. take a look. >> this law is a tax. >> obama care is the biggest tax increase in american history. >> the government could decide that we're going to tax you if you don't eat broccoli on tuesday. >> in fact, the affordable care act is a tax. it is the largest tax in america's history. >> the middle class tax increase. >> the largest tax increases on the middle class in history. >> obama care raises taxes on the american people. >> it's actually nowhere near the biggest tax increase in history. but all the same, according to the court, it is a tax. so there was a minor political tremor when romney's campaign chief bucked the party line and said this. >> the governor does not believe the mandate is a tax. that's what you're saying? >> the governor believes that what we put in place in massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the court's ruling that the mandate was a tax. but again -- >> so he agrees with the president -- he agrees with the president that it is not -- and he believes that you shouldn't call the tax penalty a tax, you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine? >> that's correct. >> now, that is totally consistent with then governor romney's thinking back in 2006. but as we pointed out, it's totally out of step with his own party right now and he got blasted for it. so tuesday he changed his position. >> thank you. >> mitt -- >> the supreme court is the final word, right? isn't that the law of the lapd? they said it was a tax, didn't they? so it's a tax, of course. that's what they say it is. >> so if romney is now saying it's a tax, that motion raises the inevitable question which cbs news' jan crawford asked. >> does that mean that the mandate in the state of massachusetts under your health care law also is a tax? and that you raised taxes as governor? >> actually the chief justice in his opinion made it very clear that at the state level, states have the power to put in place mandates. they don't need to require them to be called taxes in order for them to be constitutional. and as a result, massachusetts mandate was a mandate, it was a penalty, it was described that way by the legislature and by me. >> so mitt romney yesterday denying that the penalties in massachusetts amounted to a tax, just as he did back in 2006. what's interesting is that that's not how he described them when he was running for president back in 2008. >> tax penalties in massachusetts. >> yeah, we said, look, if people can afford to buy it, either buy the insurance or pay your own way. don't be free riders. >> so he seemed to agree then that they were tax penalties in 2008. he says they were fees in 2006 and a straight-up mandate today. now, as we mentioned, all the differing are versions are causing consternation among romney supporters, including rupert murdoch and general electric ceo jack welch. they're calling for a romney campaign shake up. murdoch tweeting "mitt romney last week, tough o chicago pros will be hard to beat unless he drops old friends from team and hires some real pros. doubtful." and in today an editorial with the following lead "if mitt romney loses his run for the white house, a turning point will have been his decision monday to absolve president obama of raising taxes on the middle class." let's talk about it now with red state.com's erick erickson. he's with us so is rick santorum and alice stewart. also senior political analyst ron brownstein. so, erick, where does this clarification get romney exactly? it certainly doesn't help him with the folks who are worried he's a flip-flopper, does it? >> no, that's the problem. i think the romney campaign doesn't want to be seen as a flip-flopper, so they want to be careful how they do it, but sometimes you can be so careful you trip over your feet. that's what's happening here. he just needs to go on and say it's a tax. it didn't work well for him in the primary campaign to say, well, it was massachusetts and states could do something the federal government can't do. he might as well just go on and say, yeah, it's a tax. the individual mandate is a tax. and, anderson, i do have to take one issue when you said it wasn't the largest tax increase in history. remember the cbo window only looks at ten years. the individual mandate doesn't start for a few years. if you move the cbo window to when the individual mandate starts and goes into complete effect, it is the biggest tax increase in american history. >> alice, one of your former bosses, rick santorum, who lost the gop primary obivously to mitt romney, said romney would not be able to make the argument against obama care, so-called, because of his similar plan in massachusetts. is senator santorum right? is that what's going on here? >> no. there was a tremendous difference between what was instituted in massachusetts. they have the power to do that in the states and governor romney made it very clear -- >> so you're saying it was not a tax in massachusetts? >> it was a mandate. he made it very clear in his interview with jan crawford. he said he agrees with the dissent. the supreme court has ruled. the majority ruled that it is a tax. like it or not, it's a tax. now, the real question should go to president obama. he's the one that's come full triangle on this when he was thinking -- just a second. >> wait, are you saying he flip-flopped, though? because it seemed like earlier in the week he wasn't -- or at least according to his spokesperson, he wasn't thinking it was a tax. >> what governor romney said clearly is that he agrees with the dissent but like it or not the supreme court has ruled. that's the final rule. but it will come down to the voters in november as to the court of public opinion. but as i said, it's very important also to look at where president obama has stood on this. while seeking passage, he promised the american people repeatedly this was not a tax. yet he sends his attorney to the supreme court arguing that it was a tax. now he's saying it is not a tax. so he's the one that's come full triangle on this issue. >> it's one thing when it's coming from democrats. the fact they're coming from conservatives and extremely prom negligent conservatives, how much trouble does this spell for romney. >> it's kind of a week that has your head spinning. and despite what alice said, i think it underscores what rick santorum argued that it's very difficult for romney to draw contrast with obama on this one particular issue. certainly what they did in massachusetts, you know, it would pass a dna paternity test for how the dna was structured at the federal level. the penalty for not buying health insurance in massachusetts is actually double what it is at the national level. in fact, most people, anderson, choose to buy health insurance in massachusetts. only 44,000 are subject to the mandate. which is worth keeping in mind here. what justice roberts said a tax is not the mandate, per se, it's the fine on people who choose not to buy health insurance under the mandate with help from the government. and the best estimate is that would only apply to four million people, so it's hard to see how this would be the largest tax increase in history if we're only talking about 4 million people who might choose not to buy the health insurance and pay the tax instead. >> erick, i mean, is the danger -- does it matter at this point if people say romney is a flip-flopper on this? you're saying it's more important that he -- that he basically embrace this idea that it's a tax? >> just -- just say it's a tax. listen to this conversation. in massachusetts it's a mandate. in the federal government it's a tax. in the federal level we've been all talking about an individual mandate. but an individual mandate at the federal government is a tax. is it a leprechaun or is it little person? what's the difference? it's the same thing. it's a tax. admit that in massachusetts they did it and say barack obama has done a bigger tax and say he's going to get rid of it. this compounds the problem with conservatives who don't trust him. >> but, erick, hasn't he been saying all along he didn't raise taxes in massachusetts -- >> that's the problem. >> there you go. >> well, anderson, it's important -- he has said that it's a tax. >> he said chief justice roberts said it's a tax. >> the important thing to notice, governor romney says like it or not, the supreme court has ruled. it's the law of the land, it is a tax. >> but earlier in the week he didn't seem to believe that, at least according to his spokesman. >> as i said, what governor romney clearly stated is he has agreed with the dissent, which is exactly what fuehrstrom said. but the supreme court has ruled it's the law in the land but in the court of public opinion, that will be decided in november as to overturning this law. but it's also important to point out too what governor romney wants to do, he wants to completely do away with this. he wants to institute free market policies on health care. he wants to take the government out between the patient and their doctors and he wants to make sure that people have more freedom and choice in their health care and that's what he'll do on day one. >> ron. >> yeah, i was going to say -- >> yeah, i think this does create a challenge for president obama. oh, yeah, i think this does create a challenge for president obama. they have focused mostly on somewhat peripheral issues like letting your kids stay on your insurance until they're 26. i understand that's important for people who it affects. but it's tnot the biggest part f it. the central idea is they need to explain what the logic behind the mandate, why mitt romney adopted it in massachusetts. why arnold schwarzenegger tried to do it in california. the argument that the only way to do the insurance reforms that are popular is to bring more people into the risk pool by requiring those who don't have insurance and can afford it to buy it with most cases substantial government help. >> but, ron, it's also important to note that governor romney made it clear his plan was the massachusetts plan. it wasn't a one size fits all plan. it fit for massachusetts. it's not something that should go across all 50 states. >> the logic is the same, alice. the underlying logic is the same. i was going to say, the underlying logic is the same. the exact argument that romney has made, we can play the tape of him many times talking about free riders and the need to bring people into the system, to broaden the risk pool which allows you to do the