Who wins the sequester political debate?

>> good morning from new york. military forces in chad claim to vo killed the mastermind at a gas facility in january. his death has not been confirmed. voters in switzerland are the tightest controls. executive pay in the world including giving veto power . i am joined by msnbc's chief economist and policy director to joe biden . the chair of the economics department at the university of kansas city and the new economics perspective blog. back to the future of a 1980s explaining the world we live in now. the director of budget and policy of conservative americans that advocates a national single flat tax . we are 32 hours into washington budget cuts. the government is now phasing in a series of across the board spending cuts and they had discretionary programs with 1.2 trillion over ten years. he refused to be part of a deal to replace the sequester.

>> how much more money do we want to steal from the american people to fund more government? i'm for no more.

>> the economic damage from the latest self-inflicted wound will almost certainly cause hardship for hundreds of thens of struggling americans . 150,000 people can lose their job and take a major hit. if you know one thing for sure, for each of these battles, first of debt ceiling and remarks like boehner's have been damaging with the goppo brand. most americans would like a deal to consist of new spending cuts and revenue. a " washington post " poll published wednesday found that just 26% of americans approve of the way they are handling public spending . by contrast, 43% approved of the way president obama is handling spending. republicans seem to be failing political low and achieving at the goals and setting the terms of the debate in washington . everyone is talking about how it best to achieve austerity and no one is talking about how to get back to full employment as the president said.

>> not only congress, but washington in general spends all its time talking about deficits and not a lot of time talking about how do we get out of this.

>> the lone few voices of sanity has been memberses of the congressional caucus . they remain marginalized in getting people to focus on the deficit. many call it a victory despite their costs. they set up the cuts and said this will be the first significant victory. what we got will set out in changing washington .

>> the trajectory of people's way that they are being spun. the sequester is a bad thing and it'sobama's fault hence the hash tag. at the end they said it's a good thing. i felt like members of the tea party caucus. they said look, this is what we wanted. paul ryan said this in 2011 . do you view this as a success for fellow travelers ?

>> absolutely. i think you are right in terms of republicans. the last part i would point out is if we are talking about the balanced approach with revenues and spending cuts, that's the fiscal cliff. that was part of this debate.

>> for started last year.

>> we were supposed to have the biggest hike in history. they kicked out three months, but if you are looking for revenues, you already had it.

>> it runs a good article and with the sequester in place, we are on track to get the $4 trillion of deficit deduction. a small amount of people would tuck too each other. that was the target. with the sequester we have, the ratio of spending cuts for the one. simpson bowles was 2-1. if you are looking in terms of the raidio, it's the spending cut side.

>> madi did a thing that republicans do which is start talking about the tax increases that had a part of the fiscal curb deal. i don't see why you get the spending cuts that started with the budget control act. if you add on the other trillions in ongoing cuts, you get to the ratio. regarding your introduction, another person has been talking about this in terms of jobs which i believe is the most immediate deficit we face. it is i think a very bad out come that republicans and democrats have contributed to that were stuck in hair on fire deficit obsession of which i believe is a medium or long-term constraint and not an immediate one.

>> it's important what you said about democrats. bill clinton and i am not blaming him, but he touted surpluses. talking about surpluses and deficits as opposed to job and it is economy. this is the box that politics are now in. dick cheney was the guy who said deficits don't matter.

>> to a point they don't matter. if you are a conservative, you looka the size, but you don't care the government is not taking, but that they are overspending.

>> thank you for being honest. conservatives don't care about the deficit.

>> it's the rhetorical device. it's not the product we are focusing on.

>> 1,000% true.

>> i don't see why it's a problem to say that. size of government is the problem.

>> that's what you care about.

>> don't you use it to reduce the size of government?

>> the size of government means many, many things. deficit, that relates to people and it's a narrative that people understand.

>> i don't think it does relate to people, but i agree. you want to make sense to ignore when they care for the deficit. the people who are ideologically committed to reducing the size of government.

>> george bush was not someone who cared about the size of government.

>> that's correct. is he the token republican?

>> he's not a token. he led the party for eight years.

>> in a certain sense it's making the reagan argument. by saying we should be focused on jobs and growing the economy.

>> and stephanie, you are an academic who does academic work concluding what dick cheney sides right.

>> it's not that the deficits don't matter, but they don't matter in the way people think they matter. the democrats give them help along the way and focus on the deficit and use that for cover to do the things they want to do. go after the progressive ooh jenda and dismantle and undermine the great society and the new deal and pull apart the things.

>> here's the thing about that. this gets to what i think is fascinating. my emerging pet theory is that the republican party , i'm not convinced. i used to be convinced they wanted to go after social security and medicare . based on their behavior, i am convinced they don't want cuts to medicare and social security . they don't want to make cuts to current beneficiaries. that's their base. b, poll republicans about social security . tea party . wildly unpopular. if they really wanted cuts to social security and medicare . they could have had it by now. it is extended time and time again. i want to show the president complaining about the fact that he tried to give them this and they won't take yes for an answer. they talked about the deficit reduction.

>> i put forward a claim that calls for serious spending cuts and entitlement reforms and goes right at the problem that is at the heart of a long-term deficit problem. i offered negotiations around that that offers a balanced approach.

>> and it's nowhere. an off the record briefing said if the president would offer something like chain cpi which is a different calculation, in real terms , they said if you get somewhere, that's in the one-page thing they propose.

>> hold that thought. i want to take a break and come back and talk about who wants to cut entitlements.