Month: October 2013

Globalization and outsourcing leading to inequality among corporations, too

by David Atkins

Ezra Klein has a fascinating look at the way globalization, worker-free productivity and outsourcing are leading to rampant inequality even among corporations:

We’ve known for a while that Apple has a mind-bogglingly large stockpile of cash: $147 billion, as of the latest count. On Tuesday, we learned that it’s also a huge chunk of the total amount of cash held by U.S.-based companies overall, not including banks: About 10 percent, according to a report from Moody’s.

The more interesting thing, though, is how Apple’s domination reflects an increasingly unequal cash distribution across American corporations generally.

First of all, it’s important to note that cash reserves have been rising steadily over the past five years, as corporations seek to shore up their reserves — a behavior known as “liquidity preservation” — in an uncertain economic environment…

Another factor may be the compounding effects of globalization. Companies are making more and more of their profits overseas, and lose a lot of it to the U.S. Treasury when they bring that cash back home, which they have to do in order to paying dividends and doing share buybacks. So they’ve tended to sit on it instead — and now, 61 percent of the total stockpile is stored outside the U.S.

But the ballooning reserves haven’t been equally distributed. The 50 richest companies accounted for 64 percent of the $1.48 trillion total cash pile as of mid-2013 — up from 61 percent last year, 59 percent in 2011, and 54 percent in 2006…

Lane says rising inequality has a lot to do with the emergence of tech companies that are both extremely profitable and have relatively low staffing costs and capital expenditures (compared to, say, Walmart, which is number one on the Fortune 100 but has only the 28th-largest cash pile). They also tend to pay lower dividends and do fewer buybacks, keeping more of it to themselves.

Ezra’s post is chock full of great must-see charts as well. Head over there and check it out.

I’m beating a dead horse here, but it has to be said again: old answers won’t work to solve new problems. Capitalism as we understand it today worked fairly well with physical products and smaller economies of scale. Everything worth buying needed lots of people to produce it, and those people needed to paid well enough to buy other things. Non-material goods were at a minimum, and mass producing items in one part of the world to be sold in another was limited to mostly to trade goods like tea that could not be supplied at home.

So long as the worst inequalities could be tempered with social safety nets, the most basic universal services provided or subsidized by government, and wages buoyed by labor organizing, the system worked as well as any economic system run by human beings could be expected.

But few people are asking themselves what becomes of human economic organization when the world’s most profitable companies sell intellectual rather than physical property, and employ only a small number of people? What happens when the companies that do sell physical goods automate most of their processes? What happens when the few previously skilled jobs humans can still do become low-skill routine, when booksellers become Amazon warehouse stockers and cab drivers cease to exist entirely in a world of self-driving cars? What happens when local labor unions are helpless to organize against employers because almost any product can be produced almost anywhere in the world in a globally integrated economy?

You get rampant inequality. Countries run by right-wing politicians suffer increasing barriers to entry between classes, social instability and horrific gaps in wealth, while more left-leaning countries protect their middle classes and safety nets at the expense of high cost of living, graying demographics, choking deficits and skyrocketing unemployment.

The symptoms of a global disease are everywhere, and the old cures won’t work anymore. There simply isn’t enough honest work that needs doing at decent wages–perhaps at all, and certainly not within the control of any one nation-state. Technology has allowed capital to become disconnected enough from labor that the foundation of our economic systems needs serious re-examination.

.

“The bottom line”

by digby

So the president said this to the Business Roundtable on September 18th. Not that he hasn’t said it before (during the campaign he was much more vague calling it “a balanced approach”) but it’s probably important to recognize that he’s still saying it:

So here’s where we are — and I think this is the bottom line, and I want to make sure everybody is clear here. I have presented a budget that deals with — continues to deal with our deficit effectively. I am prepared to work with Democrats and Republicans to deal with our long-term entitlement issues. And I am prepared to look at priorities that the Republicans think we should be promoting and priorities that they think we should be — we shouldn’t be promoting. So I’m happy to negotiate with them around the budget, just as I’ve done in the past.

What I will not do is to create a habit, a pattern, whereby the full faith and credit of the United States ends up being a bargaining chip to set policy. It’s irresponsible. The last time we did this in 2011, we had negative growth at a time when the recovery was just trying to take off. And it would fundamentally change how American government functions.

He’s right about not creating a habit or a pattern of bargaining with the debt ceiling. Thi is simply unsustainable. But once he says he’ll deal, and they agree to take what he’s offering, it’s just a matter of timing the announcement isn’t it?

.

The incredible hubris of Grover Norquist

by David Atkins

From one perspective, Grover Norquist’s little victory lap yesterday is understandable. After all, government funding has dropped to near Ryan budget levels due to sequestration, and it appears that more damage may be done soon as the result of some kind of new “grand bargain” over the debt ceiling. Norquist assumes there will be another Republican president in the near future and that Ryan budget spending levels will be solidified, so it’s worth it to trade sequestration items for long-term cuts of earned benefits programs. With an intransigent House and a Democratic president keen on deficit reduction, it would be hard to blame Norquist for his bullish attitude. He certainly does appear to be winning in the short term.

But that perspective overlooks a few very important facts.

The first is that among the general public, Norquist is losing the argument badly. Republicans fare extremely poorly in public opinion polls, and Republican ideology fares even worse. Large majorities want higher taxes on the wealthy, and almost no one wants cuts to Social Security or Medicare. The successful implementation of Obamacare will only make matters worse for conservatives looking for broad national appeal.

The only reason Norquist is in a position to declare victory at all is quirky happenstance: a Republican wave driven by a poor economy and Democratic missteps in 2010 happened to coincide with a redistricting year, delivering a House of Representatives nearly structurally unable to fall into Democratic hands. The districts have become so gerrymandered that Republican House members are more afraid of losing their seats in a primary challenge than to a Democrat. That is a happy accident for them, but an accident all the same that only intensifies the problem of epistemic closure on the Right.

It’s important to remember that in 2012, 1.4 million more votes were cast for Democratic House candidates than Republican ones. That’s in addition to President Obama’s smashing victory over Mitt Romney. Under normal circumstances we wouldn’t be talking about grand bargains and government shutdowns today: we would be talking about gun control legislation, an equal pay amendment or some other progressive priority. That Norquist is even in a position to chortle is due to temporary good fortune for the Right.

It’s also a product of being willing to use the most extreme hostage-taking measures to secure their legislative aims. Norquist cheers sequestration, but it’s important to remember that sequestration only happened because Republicans took the government hostage and no one actually believed they would follow through. This time is different, which is why we are seeing much stiffer spines from Harry Reid and the White House. It’s always possible that Democrats will capitulate once again when Republicans hold both the debt ceiling and the budget hostage, but Democratic talking points are already fairly firm that they will not “negotiate” under those conditions. Nor is it credible that Republicans will continue to get concessions from Democrats via hostage taking, year over year, budget after budget, debt ceiling after debt ceiling, for the next nine years (assuming Democrats control at least one of the Senate or Presidency–a likelihood given the unpopularity of Republican tactics themselves.)

And there’s greater danger ahead for conservatives. With every act of contempt for good governance Republicans make themselves even more unpopular. Norquist is counting on a GOP president taking office someday soon. But there’s no indication that such an event is likely, at least within the next 11 years. It’s not clear that any of the current GOP frontrunners can touch Hillary Clinton, or even Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren for that matter.

Finally, there is demographic change. Every year, national elections become that much tougher for Republicans. Every year, solidly conservative states become purple, and purple states shade into blue. This isn’t just a factor at the Presidential level: states that used to reliably send two Republican Senators are shifting blue as well. Demographic changes aren’t just a nakedly partisan issue, but ideological as well. Millennials have just as positive an impression of socialism as capitalism. Most minority populations do not have hostile views of government. The older, white, mostly male base of the Republican Party is dying out. With Republicans still afraid of primary challenges from the right, their chances of appealing to the emerging majority of much more progressive voters are essentially nil.

Analysts often roll their eyes at the long-term demographic arguments. What matters is the short term, they say. Anything can happen in the long run, they say. True. And on any given night, it’s impossible to know if the championship team will beat the cellar dweller in professional sports. That doesn’t mean the odds aren’t stacked against team with the worse roster.

Anyone looking for an example of how this shift takes place need look no further than California, home of Ronald Reagan and governor Pete Wilson just a couple of decades ago. It didn’t take long for a combination of minority and young voters to change the face of state politics. A non-partisan redistricting law sealed Republicans’ fate here. When demographic changes come, they come slowly and then reach a tipping point. Once that tipping point is hit, look out below. Republicans failed to shift with the demographic winds, and are now a near forgotten irrelevance in California politics. The same thing can and will happen nationally, absent dramatic changes.

Norquist and his allies can feast now on their temporary gains. But 9 more years of Republican dysfunction combined with demographic changes and redistricting in 2022 mean that whatever wins he notches are almost certain to be short lived.

Remember: budgets are easily changed. Spending levels are easily massaged. Indexing rules are easily altered. But once is a conservative voter ages out of the electorate and is replaced by a progressive one, that’s much harder to change.

Given the extraordinary circumstances under which Norquist’s ultimately Pyrrhic victories have come, he would be unwise to display such hubris about the future.

.

Gimme that old time kabuki

by digby

Brian Beutler is reporting that the GOP is getting the message that the White House isn’t prepared to deal with a gun to its head:

After struggling for weeks and weeks in stages one through four, Republicans are finally entering the final stage of grieving over the death of their belief that President Obama would begin offering concessions in exchange for an increase in the debt limit.

The catalyzing event appears to have been an hour-plus long meeting between Obama and Congressional leaders at the White House on Wednesday. Senior administration officials say that if the meeting accomplished only one thing it was to convey to Republican leaders the extent of Obama’s determination not to negotiate with them over the budget until after they fund the government and increase the debt limit. These officials say his will here is stronger than at any time since he decided to press ahead with health care reform after Scott Brown ended the Democrats’ Senate supermajority in 2010.

Ezra reports a similar tale:

Top administration officials say that President Obama feels as strongly about this fight as he has about anything in his presidency. He believes that he will be handing his successor a fatally weakened office, and handing the American people an unacceptable risk of future financial crises, if he breaks, or even bends, in the face of Republican demands. And so the White House says that their position is simple, and it will not change: They will not negotiate over substantive policy issues until Republicans end the shutdown and raise the debt ceiling.

That’s awesome. Except the GOP still has the hostages. They aren’t just throwing their guns to the ground and stomping off in a huff. And they aren’t going to do that.

Here’s Greg Sargent with reports that Boehner’s signaling he won’t allow a default … but he will need some concessions:

Multiple reports today inform us that John Boehner is privately telling colleagues that in the end, he won’t allow default and will even let a debt ceiling hike pass with mostly Dem votes if it comes down to it. Plenty of folks are rightly skeptical about this development. But it’s not entirely without significance.

The Post’s account points out that this may be a trial balloon designed to gauge how this will play with conservatives. Meanwhile, a spokesman for Boehner has been reiterating that Boehner does not intend to allow default, even as that spokesman is simultaneously reiterating that he will expect concessions in exchange for raising the debt limit, anyway.

I suspect that what’s happening is that a deal is being made about the deal. After all:

The White House says that their position is simple, and it will not change: They will not negotiate over substantive policy issues until Republicans end the shutdown and raise the debt ceiling.

You’ll notice they aren’t saying they won’t negotiate.

It’s absolutely true that the White House must make it clear that you cannot hold the world economy hostage over wingnut bullshit every year. And I’d guess the GOP leadership is happy to have them make that point — the Tea Party faction is too stupid to understand such an abstraction when it’s explained to them. But there is no way the Republicans are prepared to just tuck their tails between their legs and run off into the woods. They can’t. Sooo, what seems to be happening is that we are doing some kabuki dancing around the shutdown and the debt ceiling while a deal is being quietly made outside the process.

We don’t know if the wingnut faction will go along, but it’s not impossible that after this freakshow, Boehner will be able to corral enough semi-sane Republicans to get over the hump and, more importantly of course, save his job. But he’ll have to give them something for their trouble. We don’t know what that might be because it’s all on the QT, but I’d put my money on Norquist pegging this one right:

I think the original plan for the Republicans was to move the continuing resolution past the debt ceiling and then to sit down with Obama and decide whether he would be willing to trade some relaxation of the sequester for significant reforms of entitlements. That was something Obama might well do. Democrats in the House and the Senate are very concerned about caps and limits in sequestration. Republicans could get significant long-term entitlement reform — all on the spending side, I’m assured by leadership — for some relaxation of sequester.

.

John Roberts: Mission Accomplished

by digby

He may not have been able to completely block the plan but they made sure the people they like to call “welfare queens” (aka parasites) got theirs. And that’s what’s most important:

A sweeping national effort to extend health coverage to millions of Americans will leave out two-thirds of the poor blacks and single mothers and more than half of the low-wage workers who do not have insurance, the very kinds of people that the program was intended to help, according to an analysis of census data by The New York Times.

Because they live in states largely controlled by Republicans that have declined to participate in a vast expansion of Medicaid, the medical insurance program for the poor, they are among the eight million Americans who are impoverished, uninsured and ineligible for help. The federal government will pay for the expansion through 2016 and no less than 90 percent of costs in later years.

Those excluded will be stranded without insurance, stuck between people with slightly higher incomes who will qualify for federal subsidies on the new health exchanges that went live this week, and those who are poor enough to qualify for Medicaid in its current form, which has income ceilings as low as $11 a day in some states.

People shopping for insurance on the health exchanges are already discovering this bitter twist.

“How can somebody in poverty not be eligible for subsidies?” an unemployed health care worker in Virginia asked through tears. The woman, who identified herself only as Robin L. because she does not want potential employers to know she is down on her luck, thought she had run into a computer problem when she went online Tuesday and learned she would not qualify.

Feature, not bug.

I’m going to guess that the Republicans may think this is a good way to drive a wedge between the Democrats and this loyal voting bloc of poor people. But I doubt it will work unless they literally die. Which may actually be the plan. They love human sacrifice.

.

Rep. Tim Griffin, political black ops professional first out of the gate

by digby

So the first words out of Arkansas congressman (and Karl Rove protege) Tim Griffin’s mouth, just minutes after the shooting incident at the Capitol, was this repulsive drivel:

Griffin is a professional GOP political hit man from way back. He knows from violent rhetoric. This is from the 2000 campaign when he was a major player in the black oppo research team for George W. Bush:

And so – on the night of the first debate – we see a pumped-up Tim Griffin (deputy head of RNC Research) barking orders to his large team of “oppos.” Lehrer tosses Gore the question about him having cast doubt on whether Bush has sufficient experience to lead. Gore demurs and parses his response. Griffin leaps into loud action. Within minutes his team have tracked down an obscure Gore quote buried within the transcript of a lengthy speech. Gotcha! “It directly contradicts what he just said in the debate! He just lied!” crows Griffin. Seconds later Griffin has fed the contradiction to the Associated Press. This is beyond post-debate spin. This is play-by-play impeachment. And incredibly effective.

Moments later the topic is the Balkans. Gore speaks of how the First World War started there and says “my uncle was a victim of poison gas there.” The RNC oppo staff giggles at this and Griffin bellows: “This family stuff is killing me… let’s check his uncle! Let’s see if it’s Witt Lafont. He’s under investigation for drug-trafficking…” There is a flurry of activity and history books being consulted – and then palpable disappointment that Gore’s uncle really was a gas victim. “OK so that is not a lie…” Griffin grimaces and phones the bad news to a waiting colleague: “Hey… we confirmed the uncle tear-gas story….”

But when Gore makes what turns out to be his misstatement about visiting Texan fire sites with James Lee Witt (Director of FEMA) – Griffin senses blood. “Have Jeanette take a look at that!” he cries. And his hunch is right. Gore has transposed dates or people. And that gives Griffin another opportunity.

The BBC cameras catch him on the phone exulting to a colleague: “You know what this would be perfect for is… Get one of these AP reporters or somebody on it for the next few days and then we get a lie out of it… and roll a few days with a new lie!”

And “LIE” was what they got. The New York Post trumpets LIAR LIAR on its front page – and the post-debate spin cycle becomes about Gore’s perceived chronic character flaw. And so it has gone every week since the debates. The image is enshrined.

Was the fact that Gore DID visit Texan firesites – but on that occasion with another FEMA executive relevant? Did it matter that he had made other visits to Texas with James Lee Witt? Were Gore’s words a misstatement or a lie? What would have been the benefit in intentionally lying about such a trivial fact? Was it important either way?

To Griffin it is all very simple:

“If there’s something really good that we can attack on then we will… Research is a fundamental point. We think of ourselves as the creators of the ammunition in a war. Research digs up the ammunition.. We make the bullets.”

Uhm. Yes.

Update: Griffin has now explained that he was tweeting “out of emotion”:

Arkansas Congressman Tim Griffin, a Republican, said he had “tweeted out of emotion” on Thursday after appearing to blame Democrats for a shooting on Capitol Hill.

“The victims and their families are in my thoughts and prayers,” Griffin said in a text message to BuzzFeed. “The shooting today is a terrible and inexcusable tragedy and an act of terrorism. No one but the shooter is to blame.”

“We are still processing information about this shooting, but as I have been saying for days, we all need to choose our words wisely because violent rhetoric only coarsens our culture, creates an atmosphere of incivility and is not helpful. I tweeted out of emotion but agree that the timing was not helpful,” Griffin said.

Yes, he’s the picture of civility.

Update II: Weigel caught this as well:

Once a hack, always a hack.

.

Seth Pecksniff,  Press Secretary

by digby

Yes, it’s hissy-fit time. You can always tell by the unctuous sanctimony:

WW II veterans were and are essential personnel. The WW II Memorial should be considered their place of work.
— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) October 2, 2013

Here comes the “investigation”:

House Republicans have already started probing the decision by the Obama administration to close off Washington’s World War II monument in an effort to turn the videos of veterans in wheelchairs pushing past barriers to visit the site into a defining image of the government shutdown.

House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa is “in the early stages of examining it,” spokesman Frederick Hill told POLITICO. “I don’t think we’ve sent any letters or requests at this point, but they’re possible.”

Senior House Natural Resources Committee Republicans sent their own letter Wednesday to National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis to ask him to “take steps as necessary to keep and not destroy documents related to the decision this week to restrict public access” to open-air memorials and monuments in the Washington area, including those honoring veterans of multiple wars, Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King.

The committee is “considering an oversight hearing in the near future,” wrote Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings and Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Subcommittee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah).

And here’s a real GOP jerk for you, having a truly embarrassing hissy fit on camera:

var nbcLP={};nbcLP.aRandomNumber=Math.floor(Math.random()*10000);nbcLP.currentPageLoc=encodeURIComponent(window.location.href);nbcLP.currentSiteLoc=encodeURIComponent(window.location.host);nbcLP.defaultWidth=652;nbcLP.defaultHeight=367;nbcLP.cmsID=”226223731″;nbcLP.vidPid=”KHb4CgiZ7Y8j”;nbcLP.vidSec=”TK”;nbcLP.vidSubSec=”TK”;nbcLP.vidFrame=document.getElementById(“nbcLP226223731″);nbcLP.vidFrame.style.border=”none”;nbcLP.vidFrame.width=nbcLP.defaultWidth;nbcLP.vidFrame.height=nbcLP.defaultHeight;nbcLP.vidFrame.scrolling=”no”;nbcLP.vidFrame.src=”http://www.nbcwashington.com/templates/nbc_partner_player?cmsID=”+nbcLP.cmsID+”&videoID=”+nbcLP.vidPid+”&width=”+nbcLP.defaultWidth+”&height=”+nbcLP.defaultHeight+”&sec=”+nbcLP.vidSec+”&subsec=”+nbcLP.vidSubSec+”&turl=”+nbcLP.currentSiteLoc+”&ourl=”+nbcLP.currentPageLoc+”&rand=”+nbcLP.aRandomNumber;

“How do you look at them and … deny them access?” said Neugebauer. He, with most House Republicans, had voted early Sunday morning to pass a funding measure that would delay the Affordable Care Act, a vote that set up a showdown with the Senate and President Barack Obama. With the parties unable to agree on how to fund the federal government, non-essential government functions shut down Tuesday.
“It’s difficult,” responded the Park Service employee.

“Well, it should be difficult,” replied the congressman, who was carrying a small American flag in his breast pocket.

“It is difficult,” responded the Park Service employee. “I’m sorry, sir.”

“The Park Service should be ashamed of themselves,” the congressman said.

“I’m not ashamed,” replied the ranger.

QOTD: Congressman Greg Walden (R-Nervous)

by digby

He’s the head of the GOP campaign arm. He was speaking to donors who were evidently wondering just what he hell was going on inside their Party:

“Listen, we have to do this because of the Tea Party. If we don’t, these guys are going to get primaried and they are going to lose their primary.”

I wonder if these donors who have paid for all the propaganda the conservative movement has produced over the past 30 years feel good about their investment now?

.

The Big Win

by digby

.@GroverNorquist: “Sequester is the big win. It defines the decade.” http://t.co/06BaJYuf7d
— Ezra Klein (@ezraklein) October 3, 2013

Dylan Matthews interviewed Michael Linden of Center for American Progress about the Democrats’ adoption of the Paul Ryan Budget numbers:

The continuing resolution (CR) that the Senate passed, the one that’s ostensibly the Democratic position in this dispute now, spends $217 billion less on discretionary programs than Obama’s budget would have. Break that number down for me. Where’s it coming from?

Surprisingly, while it’s a little bit more of a cut for non-defense spending, it’s not all non-defense. Some of the difference is defense as well. The Obama budget had $600 billion in it for non-defense discretionary spending, and the Senate CR says $467 billion. It’s a $133 billion difference. But that leaves a big chunk in the defense as well.

And it’s mostly coming because of sequestration.

It’s sequestration but also the Budget Control Act’s cap. One of the things that’s interesting about that chart is that the Senate budget resolution is a pretty far move from the initial democratic position. At that point, we were already pretty far away from where Democrats started.

When you mention the “original” Paul Ryan budget, which one are you referring to?

The one we were using was the one they released when they took over, in early 2011.

So we’ve been cutting spending at a faster pace than Paul Ryan wanted to when Republicans took over Congress.

On discretionary spending at least, that’s right. And that’s what we’re pointing out. We’ve already essentially adopted that Ryan budget, and obviously that was not seen at the time as a moderate approach to government spending.

One hates to point fingers, but back in the first term, austerity was all the rage in the administration and among its institutional allies you’ll recall. They were fighting with the Republicans over who could be the biggest deficit cutter in town. And that includes CAP. And here we are now with the Paul Ryan proposing to hold the debt ceiling hostage for even more cuts.

Read the whole interview. You will find that this is even more batshit crazy than you thought. The arbitrary budget caps are different in each house and yet if the numbers were in any way fairly obtained we wouldn’t even be hitting the caps under sequestration. It’s that looneytunes.

I am actually getting a little bit frightened that the revelation of this budgetary malpractice (which is the only thing you can call it) is going to be the thing that finally scares investors out of buying our bonds. This country is clearly being run by charlatan’s and fools and one of the main ringleaders is named Paul Ryan. And the Republican Party nominated him to be the Vice President a couple of years ago. Doesn’t bode well.

Anything you want to touch on before we wrap up?

Just how remarkable it is that we’re having a budget shutdown and there’s been very little discussion of the actual budget. The Republicans have shut down the government over Obamacare and Democrats have not made a very concerted effort to highlight just how bad the levels of funding in the CR really are. What they’re trying to do is keep the government open, so I understand that, but we’re not having a debate about if this is the right investment in NIH, or schools, or health inspectors.

No kidding. But that is by design. Ezra spoke with Grover Norquist about all this and Grover has an interesting perspective. He’s not happy with Ted Cruz because Cruz didn’t go along with his devious plan:

Ezra Klein: So, do you think a shutdown is good for the issues and ideas you’re trying to push?

Grover Norquist: Not necessarily. I think the original plan for the Republicans was to move the continuing resolution past the debt ceiling and then to sit down with Obama and decide whether he would be willing to trade some relaxation of the sequester for significant reforms of entitlements. That was something Obama might well do. Democrats in the House and the Senate are very concerned about caps and limits in sequestration. Republicans could get significant long-term entitlement reform — all on the spending side, I’m assured by leadership — for some relaxation of sequester.

Look at what Linden said above and you will see that he’s likely right about that (and that this is what Ryan has to trade over and above raising the debt ceiling.)

He’s really feeling his oats. Ezra asked him about the end game.

GN: Republicans have their principles. Let’s have health-care be more consumer-oriented, let’s not raise taxes, let’s reform government. I could imagine many things that would work inside those principles, but I’m not in Obama’s head. I don’t know how he values those things. 

If I were him I’d trade some money off the sequester today for reforms in entitlements that take place a long time from now. Those reforms will be done by somebody. You might as well get something for them. Someday Republicans will hold the White House and the Senate and they’ll pass the Ryan plan. You might as well get something for it.

EK: One aspect of this that you mention quite a bit, but that’s been somewhat lost in the debate, is that Republicans have really managed to hold the spending levels in the CR down. They’re below the original Ryan budget, for instance, and well below what President Obama and the Senate Democrats wanted. Yet Republicans feel like they’re failing because they’re focused on Obamacare. Do you think Republicans are winning on spending?

GN: Yes, absolutely. We won in 2011 and then again with the president making 85 percent of the Bush tax cuts permanent. We really did get caps and sequestration that limits government spending. If we just went home and put the government on autopilot it would be a win. This Republican Congress has made a fundamental shift in the size of government equation.

Sequester is the big win. It defines the decade. You still have to fix long-term entitlements, but the other team isn’t willing to do that. So you either wait for a Republican president and the Ryan plan or you get people so concerned about sequestration that they’re willing to come to the table and fix entitlements long-term.

Mr Norquist? With all due respect, please take your “fix” and stick it where the sun don’t shine.

.

Grandfather of the year

by David Atkins

If the Republican shutdown of the government is getting you down and making you feel hopeless about humanity and the country, here’s something that should lift your spirits:

Remember that the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice. The Dixiecrats fought to keep slavery. They lost. The Republican Party fought to prevent Social Security and to deny the New Deal. They lost. The Republican Party fought against Medicare. They lost. The Republican Party fought to stop Obamacare. They lost. The Republican fought to stop marriage equality and gay rights. And they’re losing.

It may take some time, and it may take a lost generation economically to seal the deal. But they’re going to lose this fight, too, as they’ve lost all the rest. Their revanchism will ultimately be short-lived.

If, in the broad arc of American history, the civil rights movement inevitably spawned the Reagan Southern Strategy backlash, which in turn must be undone by the same Millennial generation that Reaganism bankrupted, then so be it. It will have been worth it. We’ll suffer our lives with a worse economy and worse prospects than our parents, but all the while we’ll gladly dance at gay weddings on the interred remains of the political ideologies that caused the mess while giving our own children a better future. Let the Koch brothers’ fortunes comfort them when worms are eating the remnants of their bodies and their souls await whatever punishment a potential afterlife might have to give, even as their descendants are taxed on their inheritance by a generation of happy warriors who will gladly cast their greedhead parents as the villains of history.

And we’ll give a happy salute to all the amazing members of the previous generations like this grandfather, who stood and fought the good fight their whole lives even as their square conservative counterparts tried and failed to drag the nation into the mud. In the end, this child and his grandfather will shape the future even as his mother’s cruel, narrow beliefs are despised and ultimately forgotten in the sands of time.

.