Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDon’t bite on GOP’s clever sequester trick, Dems
Dont bite on GOPs clever sequester trick, Dems
Posted by Greg Sargent on February 21, 2013 at 5:01 pm
So its looking more and more like Republicans will propose an alternative to the sequester: It would kick in, but Obama administration agency heads would have control to reallocate where the cuts hit at their discretion, so theyre not imposed in a slap-dash across-the-board fashion. Among those suggesting this idea: National Review and Karl Rove. My Post colleague Jennifer Rubin reports that its being discussed.
This is, as Brian Beutler notes, a clever idea. It makes Republicans look more reasonable, because theyre giving control over the cuts to the Obama administration. It allows Republicans to escape proposing a new batch of specific replacement cuts. (Remember, Republicans keep claiming the House has passed its own plans to avert the sequester, but those died with the last Congress, and theres no telling whether House Republicans could pass another one.) And it puts pressure on Dems to accept the plan, because it makes the sequester less arbitrary and threatening.
Im picking up some rumblings to the effect that some folks are worried that red state Democrats could potentially find this idea seductive. Some Dems think the GOP designed it specifically to attract them.
But Dems would be insane to embrace this. At bottom, it is simply a way for Republicans to bait Dems into accepting their insistence on reducing the deficit only through spending cuts. Agreeing to it would represent a total cave on the need for more revenues, which Dems have worked very hard to keep in the deficit reduction mix. This would signal to Republicans that Dems are prepared to accept a cuts-only approach making it impossible for them to renew any demands for new revenues later. Dems are eying the coming government shutdown as the next chance to force a GOP surrender on revenues. Signaling now that Dems are prepared to drop the demand for more revenues even temporarily would be folly.
The basic overall dynamic needs to be this: If Republicans arent willing to avert the sequester through a compromise that involves new revenues, they risk taking the public blame for the lost jobs and damage to the economy it creates. Agreeing to a cuts-only solution undercuts any leverage Dems can derive from this dynamic. Worse, since these cuts would be allocated by Obama agency heads, the Obama administration would own them. The new Pew poll found that 76 percent of Americans want the deficit reduced through a mix of tax hikes and spending cuts this public position is holding even after Republicans already agreed to tax hikes as part of the fiscal cliff deal. The public is with Dems on this. They shouldnt muddy the waters.
more...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/02/21/dont-bite-on-gops-clever-sequester-trick-dems/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 832 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Don’t bite on GOP’s clever sequester trick, Dems (Original Post)
babylonsister
Feb 2013
OP
Well then, what if the sequester was just, say, a $200 billlion defense spending cut?
OceanEcosystem
Feb 2013
#1
OceanEcosystem
(275 posts)1. Well then, what if the sequester was just, say, a $200 billlion defense spending cut?
I probably am not understanding this idea right, but if this came true, then wouldn't the Democrats therefore be able to, say, for instance, "Since we get to decide how it's done, we therefore declare that all of the sequester cuts will take place on the backs of defense spending, and not a single other program will be cut?"
And then wouldn't that be a liberal's dream come true? Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Cha
(297,325 posts)2. K&R thanks babylonsistah