Abbreviated pundit round-up: The sequester, slapping babies and the 'N' word, and guns

The Editorial Board of The New York Times states in Defense and the Sequester:

After 9/11, the Pentagon was handed a virtual blank check and its base budget soared from $397 billion in 2001 to $557 billion in 2013. Spending is expected to decline in real terms this year, but after that it will rise slightly, even if the sequester takes effect, experts say. By some calculations, President Obama will still spend more on defense than most postwar presidents. The Pentagon needs to focus on shaping the force for new threats. Now that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are ending, it also needs to make reforms and rein in spending.

Doyle McManus at the Los Angeles Times concludes in D.C. doubles down on the sequester that neither side wants it but each thinks it can benefit from it:

In the end, there will be some kind of compromise, probably around March 27, when Congress has to pass a law to keep the government operating for the rest of the year. It will probably include spending cuts that approach what the sequester demands, but with more flexibility'and, if Democrats have their way, a longer delay before the cuts kick in.

Joshua Holland at Alternet writes 4 Bogus Right-Wing Theories About Poverty, and the Real Reason Americans Can't Make Ends Meet:

Nearly four years after economists tell us the 'recovery' began, almost half of all American households lack enough savings to stay above the poverty line for three months or more if they should find themselves out of work. Another third are living paycheck to paycheck, teetering on the brink with no savings at all.

It would require a lengthy sociological treatise to fully explain why this isn't considered a huge national crisis. But one part of the equation is the existence of a long-standing and ideologically informed project by the right to portray the burden of living in or near poverty as a liberal delusion.

More pundits can be found below the fold.