Opinion

The Great Debate

from Breakingviews:

Ushering Eric Cantor to revolving door

By Rob Cox

The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.

The following is a fictional letter that could be circulated in the corridors of K Street, the canyons of Wall Street and the hedgerows of the Hamptons this summer:

From the desk of Rick Rooter, Executive Placement Specialist

Dear Sirs and Madams:

I am writing to you as the exclusive agent for a former high-ranking member of the House of Representatives who will soon be eligible for employment by your organization. My client has asked to remain anonymous until he has cleared all remaining business with the current Congress, though the following will provide you with sufficient information based on his voting record, extensive legislative experience and public statements to assist with your consideration of his candidacy as a senior adviser to your business, both in counseling executives on important public policy matters and engaging with your clients on the same.

In the first instance, my client is particularly well suited for Wall Street despite never having worked directly in the financial industry. As you shall see, though, his qualifications extend far beyond banking, with a deep record of defending the interests of the food, restaurant and tobacco industries, and other major employers of import to the United States economy.

The aforementioned candidate fought hard in the legislative trenches against the bureaucratic forces threatening the lifeblood of American capitalism. He was a staunch opponent of the onerous Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, a proposal opposed by institutions large and small, and their respective trade associations. Ahead of the legislation’s passage just over four years ago, the candidate called the legislation “a clear attack on capital formation in America.”

from Stories I’d like to see:

Whither Cantor and setting the price on a cure

U.S. House Majority Leader Cantor gestures as he talks about his defeat in his Virginia Republican primary election during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington

1. An Eric Cantor sweepstakes:

Who’s going to hire the soon-to-be unemployed but highly marketable Representative Eric Cantor (R-Va.)?

He’s got a law degree, a world-class Washington Rolodex and the kind of visibility that should make him a client magnet for K Street’s law firms and lobbying and public policy shops.

Or will he go to a think tank? That path might be more complicated because the most likely home for a conservative heavyweight, the Heritage Foundation, seems to have veered so far right that it might be awkward to welcome a guy just beaten by a candidate who attacked him from the right.

What does Eric Cantor’s loss mean? Gridlock until 2023

Cantor and Boehner hold a news conference after a Republican Party caucus meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington

Gridlock is likely to rule the federal government until at least 2023.  Why 2023?  Because it may not be until after the 2020 Census that the Democrats have a good chance of regaining control of the House of Representatives.

As long as Republicans rule the House, compromise with Democrats is out of the question.  Look at what happened to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) in Tuesday’s GOP primary.  Cantor is nobody’s idea of a compromiser. But because he did the minimum necessary to keep government operating — like voting to raise the debt ceiling and to end the government shutdown — Cantor was branded a traitor to the conservative cause.  Cantor’s ultimate transgression?  His Tea Party opponent displayed a photo of the House majority leader standing next to President Barack Obama.   Oh, the horror!

The 2010 Republican landslide gave the party control of most state governments. The GOP-controlled state governments, which reconfigured congressional district boundaries after the 2010 census, drew lines that would protect and expand GOP control of the House. The next census is in 2020. That’s two presidential elections away.

The income mobility myth

By David Callahan
The opinions expressed are his own.

Top Republicans have a simple answer to surging public concern about America’s vast wealth divide: More income mobility. “We want success for everybody,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said last week, adding that Americans shouldn’t “excoriate some who have been successful.” This remedy for economic unfairness taps into the popular American belief that public policy should ensure equality of opportunity, not outcome.

Too bad it won’t work.

Changes in the economy mean that, no matter how hard people work or how much they invest in education, they may still find themselves barely treading water. Even before the financial crisis, there weren’t enough good jobs to go around – thanks to globalization, automation, declining unionization, and lax labor standards. The majority of new jobs created during the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were low-wage positions with no benefits. These trends – not, say, a lack of ambition – help explain why half of all American households bring in under $50,000 and have no assets.

“Success for everybody” is simply not possible against this backdrop of structural inequality. Ironically, conservatives like Cantor are placing ever more faith in the great American virtues of hard work and self-improvement even as these virtues deliver less and less mobility.

  •