TPM Reader HJ says I wasn’t emphatic enough below about what Grover Norquist’s endorsement of the McConnell plan means, pointing to Norquist’s oft-repeated line that he wants to shrink government until it’s small enough to drown in the bathtub:
I think you guys have buried the lede a bit in your excellent reporting on the debt ceiling, specifically regarding Norquist’s endorsement.
It seems to me that the “starve the beast” method of governance, often cited as the motivation for the Bush tax cuts, has been obliterated. Norquist’s raison d’etre was advocacy for huge tax-cut driven deficits, which could only be resolved by dismantling the welfare state.
As of three days ago, Norquist had won. The Republicans apparently had an offer in hand that included previously-unthinkable cuts to Medicare and Social Security, and all they had to concede was new revenues to the tune of less than a quarter of the cost of the Bush tax cuts.
I know that this is implied in your article, but in my opinion the reader could really use a bit of context re: Norquist’s championing this idea over the years.
