They played a game of chicken with the Republicans, and they lost. Badly.

[phantom power]

Sequestration was supposed to be so threatening that Republicans would agree to a budget deal that included tax increases rather than permit it to happen. That theor

Sequestration was supposed to be so threatening that Republicans would agree to a budget deal that included tax increases rather than permit it to happen. That theory was wrong. The follow-up theory was that the actual pain caused by sequestration would be so great that it would, in a matter of months, push the two sides to agree to a deal. Democrats just proved that theory wrong, too.

In effect, what Democrats said Friday was that in any case where the political pain caused by sequestration becomes unbearable, they will agree to cancel that particular piece of the bill while leaving the rest of the law untouched. The result is that sequestration is no longer particularly politically threatening, but it’s even more unbalanced: Cuts to programs used by the politically powerful will be addressed, but cuts to programs that affects the politically powerless will persist. It’s worth saying this clearly: The pain of sequestration will be concentrated on those who lack political power.

Democrats had other choices, of course. As Politico’s Glenn Thrush pointed out on MSNBC Friday, President Obama could’ve vetoed the FAA bill while standing at a Head Start that’s about to throw needy children out of the program. He could’ve vetoed it from the home of an jobless worker who just saw her benefits cut. Democrats could simply have insisted that the powerful can’t get out of sequestration unless the powerless can, too. But they didn’t — and they show no signs that they’ll start.

But that’s game, then. Absent the willingness to accept the pain of sequestration and use it to overturn the whole policy, Democrats have no leverage to end it.
It is worth noting how different the Democrats’ approach to sequestration has been to the GOP’s approach to, well, everything. Over the past five years, Republicans have repeatedly accepted short-term political pain to win the leverage necessary for long-term policy gain. That’s the governing political principle behind their threats to shut down the government, breach the debt ceiling, and, for that matter, accept sequestration. Today, Democrats showed they’re not willing to accept even a bit of short-term pain for leverage on sequestration. They played a game of chicken with the Republicans, and they lost. Badly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/26/the-democrats-have-lost-on-sy was wrong. The follow-up theory was that the actual pain caused by sequestration would be so great that it would, in a matter of months, push the two sides to agree to a deal. Democrats just proved that theory wrong, too.

In effect, what Democrats said Friday was that in any case where the political pain caused by sequestration becomes unbearable, they will agree to cancel that particular piece of the bill while leaving the rest of the law untouched. The result is that sequestration is no longer particularly politically threatening, but it’s even more unbalanced: Cuts to programs used by the politically powerful will be addressed, but cuts to programs that affects the politically powerless will persist. It’s worth saying this clearly: The pain of sequestration will be concentrated on those who lack political power.

Democrats had other choices, of course. As Politico’s Glenn Thrush pointed out on MSNBC Friday, President Obama could’ve vetoed the FAA bill while standing at a Head Start that’s about to throw needy children out of the program. He could’ve vetoed it from the home of an jobless worker who just saw her benefits cut. Democrats could simply have insisted that the powerful can’t get out of sequestration unless the powerless can, too. But they didn’t — and they show no signs that they’ll start.

But that’s game, then. Absent the willingness to accept the pain of sequestration and use it to overturn the whole policy, Democrats have no leverage to end it.
It is worth noting how different the Democrats’ approach to sequestration has been to the GOP’s approach to, well, everything. Over the past five years, Republicans have repeatedly accepted short-term political pain to win the leverage necessary for long-term policy gain. That’s the governing political principle behind their threats to shut down the government, breach the debt ceiling, and, for that matter, accept sequestration. Today, Democrats showed they’re not willing to accept even a bit of short-term pain for leverage on sequestration. They played a game of chicken with the Republicans, and they lost. Badly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/26/the-democrats-have-lost-on-sequestration/?hpid=z1

[Deep13]

1. Rather predictable, really. nt

[villager]

2. Sadly so. And another reminder that "Hope and Change" is... neither.

n/t

[HereSince1628]

28. Yes, many Duers said just that when sequestration passed.

No surprises. Is Congress dumber than a 5th grader?

Well, that would insult 5th graders, who although sometimes conniving are not really EVIL.

This was an EVIL bargain.

[ErikJ]

52. Cartoon worthy

[Honeycombe8]

62. Really. I mean, who didn't know this would happen? nt

[Dustlawyer]

63. Absolutely! This was no game of chicken. The Dems agreed to blink 1st for $ and power as usual!

When will people wake up that all of this is rigged?

[Mika]

3. Who woulda thunk this could happen?

[99Forever]

4. SSDD

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. Greatest Page for this timely and important topic. n/t

[Marr]

6. You never really loved Him.

This is ultradimensional chess. You are naive and don't understand politics. He has a Plan.

[truedelphi]

10. And the One Percent who not only got themselves some fine ponies,

they even got some damn good unicorns, they understand the plan.


And apparently the plan was not about the 99%.

[peacebird]

12. Bingo!

[SammyWinstonJack]

27. The plan was about screwing the 99% hence the beat down of the Occupy movement

early on.

[hatrack]

56. Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

I'm just waiting on one more thing - Keystone.

When we see what President Obama does on that decision (and I think one choice is overwhelmingly likely), there will be no more room for doubt.

[MisterP]

64. "there will be no more room for doubt" well that just ain't true

I mean, didn't these people blame both Iraq and Lebanon on ANSWER back in the 00s?

[woo me with science]

81. Indeed. nt

[Vinnie From Indy]

7. You can bank on it!

eom

[RKP5637]

8. Saying NO, NO. NO ad nausium can be a powerful negotiation tactic, while others run around the

ends seeking solutions as they trip ...

[TransitJohn]

9. Chess Move® n/t

eom

[Teamster Jeff]

11. Pathetic

[forestpath]

13. Saying they lost implies they wanted to win, or should I say

win according to our standards.

But I don't think the majority of Democrats in Congress give a crap about anything but the their stock portfolios and the size of the bank accounts.

[bvar22]

14. Wasn't the Whole Deal behind Sequestration...

Last edited Fri Apr 26, 2013, 09:05 PM - Edit history (2)

..that it had to be implemented In Toto?

That EVERYBODY suffers together?

That individual elements could NOT be undone?

If pieces CAN be undone or circumvented, then what is the point?

What a SCAM!!!!
Of course the Rich & Powerful will undo the parts that cause them the slightest inconvenience
if they are allowed to do so.



[font size=3]What are they going to do?
Vote for a Republican?
Hahahahahahaha![/font]





[font color=firebrick][center]The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR. [/font][/center]

[UnrepentantLiberal]

16. ^^^this^^^

[enough]

23. +1 (nt)

[woo me with science]

34. Ha ha ha ha

on the suckers.

Yeah, that picture about captures it.

[BethanyQuartz]

37. Love it. Want to throw up now.

But there are other parties besides Democrats and Republicans. No really, there are. Let's all discuss this again in three years. If we still have the ability to vote in three years, that is.

[Iliyah]

44. Join them and work within and

maybe one day they will formidable. And yes, who knows since one party don't want you to vote and if they take control you may not be able to vote with other rights taken away, but lets hope that don't happen.

[hatrack]

57. Yes, something bad might happen if we do that!

Better stick with the drifting seaweed-draped wreck we know than, y'know, get all radical at this critical juncture, right?

[Recursion]

40. That's why future limits on discretionary spending are always a joke

The next Congress (or the same Congress, later) just undoes them.

Our side mistakenly thought the GOP couldn't tolerate the defense cuts. I think that's going to be an issue in about a quarter when the Pentagon runs out of money to frontload its contracts with.

[tex-wyo-dem]

65. Yep, you nailed it, bvar22...

Sounds like another perfect example of the kabuki theatre that is the two-party system in Washington:

R: Here's the deal (wink, nudge)...we'll push back hard on your budget proposal acting like "no deal" unless spending is cut, primarily for the moocher programs, while maintaining these ridiculously low tax rates, especially for the 1%. This will also help us rein in some of our idiot teabaggers back into the fold (I mean, where else are they going to go, the Libertarians? Pffft!!). This will also make our donors very happy!...deal?

D: Deal! Here's what we'll do (wink, nudge)...we'll actually act like we have a spine and demand that taxes on the wealthy need to be increased and tax loopholes have to be closed. This will help rein in some of our idiot liberals (I mean, where else are they going to go, the Green Party? Pfft!). But at the same time, we'll offer up our golden egg of Social Security on the chopping block so it looks like we are being good little compromising democrats. In the end we'll just cave as usual and we'll...*cough*, I mean, you'll have your Social Security to pillage and low taxes on the wealthy along with your spending cuts on the moocher programs...*cough* I mean, social safety nets. Deal?

R: Deal!!

*high-five*

Audience of 1%ers claps politely while throwing rolls of cash at both actors.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

15. Still seems to be a way for the voters to see and turn their experience into action next year.

It's still a small minority who approves of the budget cuts to the programs being harmed. If only there was a way to get that message out to them . . .

[Clyde Tenson]

17. You make it sound like there were two competing parties

When will we all realize that there's only a hand-full of true politicians that try to represent their constituencies for the pursuit of happiness. The game that these whores play is only for show. When all is said and done they have danced to the piper. Nobody lost here. (in Washington that is) The losers are you and me.

[Canuckistanian]

39. True

And welcome to DU!

[russspeakeasy]

59. Well said and welcome.

[rhett o rick]

18. I disagree that they played chicken. I say they are complicit. Their current actions show

that they are not going to fight for the 99%. Why not? Either they are hapless or complicit. Once again I want to explain that this shouldnt be a surprise. Stop blaming the Republicans. They are certainly guilty but it takes help from Democrats to continue the exploitation of the 99%. Focusing on Republicans takes our eyes off a more serious problem. The Democrats, as a party, are not representing the 99%. The 1% has bought significant control of the DEmocratic Party. We need desperately to elect progressive Democrats. Without them we are toast. Pres Obama is only suggesting small cuts to SS at this time. What happens next time?

[woo me with science]

19. +10000

[markpkessinger]

71. Absolutely -- nothing but Kabuki Theatre! n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. Three years nine months.

[enough]

21. Is Obama asleep? It seems having won a second term just closed him down.

Right when you would think he would be liberated.

[FiveGoodMen]

25. You're overlooking the possibility that this is what Obama really wants.

He's either stupid, timid, and ineffectual, or ...

just not playing the game that we think he is.

[enough]

31. You're right. I resist that idea because it means I was a chump.

It's starting to look like I can't avoid that conclusion. I am more pessimistic about the possibility of change at the ballot box than I have ever been in my nearly 70 years of life. This may be Obama's lasting legacy.

[jsr]

75. Bingo.

[Doctor_J]

53. he was liberated

To enact the Reagan agenda that was his inspiration to begin with

[FiveGoodMen]

22. I think they played a game of God Cop/Bad Cop

in cahoots with the GOP and against all of us.

Let's not attribute to incompetence what can be better explained by slimy, greedy human nature.

[SammyWinstonJack]

24. SAPS! nt

[Iliyah]

26. The American people are losing

and playing chicken was not what the Dems are doing. GOPers are losing as well by allowing their party of no to be exposed. Many Americans see now that Congress can repeal the Sequester, and it will be done, if it have to be done piece by piece so be it. The GOP party thinks its won on this because they have no soul. What the GOP have shown is that this mess can be overturn. But alas some on DU just complains than help. We will stop the Sequester while you all bitch and moan and groan.

[sendero]

42. It will be done piece by piece..

.... but only the piece that affect the rich, the upper middle class and the military industrial complex will be "overturned".

Wait and see.

[ctsnowman]

91. Exactly!

[cui bono]

66. So where is the effort to undo it where it affects those who are really HURTING?

Not those who are merely inconvenienced?

[customerserviceguy]

29. Ok, so rich people might have an easier time flying

Not to mention all the middle class people coming up on vacation season, but let's focus on the well-to-do jetsetter, as they used to be called in the Sixties.

Have any of the military cutbacks from the sequester been similarly benefitted by legislation allowing rational re-allocation of resources? If not, then this might be seen as a public safety measure, rather than a triumph of the Repukes.

[Life Long Dem]

30. Who said the game is over?

The effects of the sequester has just started. And someone wants to say it is over? Sorry but this game just started.

[liberalmuse]

32. I guess they were counting on the American people to give a shit...

and maybe raise a stink with their representatives in large numbers. Nope, not this apathetic nation.

[Iliyah]

33. They are calling and writing their representatives in large numbers

just like majority wanted gun control background checks, but GOPers refuse to listen cause they don't care. They only respond to the 1-2% and thats all. GOPers must be defeated in 2014 and 2016 and hopefully by then this country can start rebuilding and putting people back to work with pay that they can survive on.

[cui bono]

67. What proof do you have that ousting the GOP majority will make any difference? n/t

[Sadiedog]

35. I am so mad I am spitting nails!

I work at Head Start and this has been so painful for all our families, children and staff! In fact I will not be able to pay all my bills at the end of this month so I am looking for a different job. After 16 years working in this program and seeing all the good it does. Stinks!

[salib]

36. And for this we put Social Security "on the table"?

[grantcart]

38. And if Obama had caved and agreed to a budget with no new revenues he would have

been roasted alive at DU.

He drew a line.

Its what we wanted.

No more budget compromise without additional revenues from the rich.

Its just that simple.

[AverageJoe90]

43. EXACTLY! n/t

[JoePhilly]

50. being perpetually disgruntled is hard work

[tularetom]

58. Yep, he drew a line and that's a good thing

But now he's starting to erase the line and you can believe that this won't be the last attempt by the republicans to restore cuts that affect their buddies.

Already McCain is talking about how to get around the cuts that sequestration imposed on the pentagon budget. And all this bullshit emanating from the white house about Syria and WMD's tells me that Obama will go along with restoring defense funds as well.

[cui bono]

69. Nobody wanted him to cave. We never wanted him to cave when he did in the past either.

We want him to fucking fight for something for once. He ALWAYS gives the Cons what they want in his first offer. That is NOT how to negotiate and get what you want. He needs to use the bully pulpit and explain to the people what is really going on. He needs to inundate the airwaves with his people and elected Dems saying exactly why things are happening the way they are. The silence is deafening. The only conclusion is that he wants all this to happen. I mean why would he put Wall Street firmly in the White House? Why is he fighting for big pharma while he throws SS under the bus.

It's not as simple as you seem to think it is.

[grantcart]

83. Thanks for the laugh

Your hyperbole is so far from reality that it gave me the morning laugh I so richly needed this morning.


It also proves my basic point vis a vis the OP: For many at DU its damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

[cui bono]

90. What I said was true. Your empty response shows you can't deny

what Obama has done.

Did he not put Wall Street firmly in the WH?
Did he not have secret meetings with big pharma then try to deny it until he had to admit it?
Has he not made a habit of caving even before the negotiations begin?

Just because you refuse to see it doesn't make it not so.

Damned if he does? Depends on what it is. If what he does needs criticism then he shall get it. If what he doesn't do needs criticism then so be it. I'm not into idolatry. I'm not into blindly supporting someone just because he has a D after his name. It doesn't take much investigation to see that the policies he is putting in place are more in line with the Republican party than with the Dem party.

If I were married to someone who was nice to me 1-2 days a week and beat me the other 5-6 days, should I still sing their praises?

Here, just saw this downthread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2764235

[sendero]

41. One more reminder......

.... that Obama can't play that n-dimensional chess the bamaBots keep harping about.

If it takes any more blatant capitulation than what we've just witnessed to understand Obama is not doing any progressives any favors, I don't know what it would be.

Once again, cave is almost too nice a word, it's much worse than a mere cave.

[Number23]

45. This is an interesting read. Thanks for posting.

[bluedigger]

46. BOHICA. n/t

[judesedit]

47. 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 VOTE! Get the greedy out of office asap

[ReRe]

49. Exactly!

[Bake]

89. While I agree wholeheartedly, I have to ask one question

If Pres. Obama gets a Dem majority in both houses of Congress, what will he do differently than he has done so far?

Frankly, I don't think there will be that much difference.

Sigh.

Bake

[ReRe]

48. I'm so discouragd, I can't go read the whole article...

...and I read little of what you printed here. Sorry. It's not that you didn't do a wonderful job and link a very important article. It's just me. I'm sick of the game playing. Lives are on the line. People are not pawns on a game board. Main Street didn't make the mess we're in and we should not have to pay any more than we did back in Oct of 2008 under Bush...the original Wall Street bailout. No sequestration easing for the powerless, but plenty for the powerful. It all makes me sick to my stomach...

[dkf]

51. If that was the plan, it was really stupid.

Republicans aren't going to raise taxes, they just aren't. The only chance to raise them was to get rid of all the Bush taxes. Once that didn't happen I knew there wasn't going to be any more revenues.

How obvious do things need to be?

[kelliekat44]

87. Yes, but what are WE going to do about it? I say work hard to get rid of those in who hate the 47%.

[dkf]

88. Turn the gerrymandered house around...

That is why the ACA might come back to bite us as the legacy of the last Democratically controlled legislature. It would have been difficult enough, but the ACAs problems are going to be exposed soon.

[ctsnowman]

92. Yup.

[marmar]

54. What else is new?

We have a wimpy center-right party and crazy-ass thuggish far-right party. The picture is bleak, folks.

[blkmusclmachine]

55. More 11-Dimensional chess. Win by losing.

[Phlem]

60. Exactly!

I detest this legislation there fore I'll promote it!

Get It! It's really simple blah... blah... blah... blah... blah...FFS

It's beyond ridiculous.



-p

[ChairmanAgnostic]

79. please explain this "win by losing" idea

It just seems like he keeps kicking us in the gut.

[JDPriestly]

61. No more DLCers. No Hillary. None of them. Please.

Otherwise, Democrats will not win.

[pecwae]

68. Isn't that political

pragmatism, as defined a few years ago by DU, in action? It was made to sound so pleasant back then.

[cui bono]

70. And playing chicken is exactly what he did with SS according to his fans.

I think he wants it cut, I don't see what else you can take from his actions. Wall Street put in the White House, big pharma getting special treatment, main street getting thrown under the bus. It's pretty clear isn't it?

[bigtree]

72. second guessing bullshit (outside of the truth that the sequester is a bust)

. . . the most bullshit line:

"Democrats showed they’re not willing to accept even a bit of short-term pain for leverage on sequestration"

Just what is it that this author wants Democrats to give up?

Tell again how giving up something is going to make republicans fold.

Tell me again how republicans could be embarrassed and shamed into voting for things like Head Start by Obama showing up at a head Start classroom. This is so dirt-dumb. THIS is the heart of the reasoning behind blaming Obama for not being able to avoid sequestration?

Tell me again how republicans felt any 'pain' from the way they voted over the years. All they've been willing to do is sacrifice OUR interests, OUR concerns, OUR needs. Tell me again how it's smart to gamble with them. Tell me again how Obama wasn't willing enough to put the full faith and credit of our government at risk.

Fucking joke. On one hand it says republicans are obstinate; on the other hand, it insists they can be moved to vote for progressive legislation by shaming them. What a fantasy. They have absolutely no shame. They need to be voted out of office.

Crystal ball punditry.

[watoos]

73. My guess is

that Republicans are getting ready to bring out the we need to exempt the military cuts or else we will accuse you of being un-American.

[ctsnowman]

93. Bingo!

[Hugin]

74. K&R

[graham4anything]

76. We don't need two parties. We need 80-20 with President Obama's agenda leading the way nt

[proReality]

77. Dare I say this?

Yeah, why not!

The Beltway area should be walled up and filled in......while they're all inside it.

Okay, now I've let that out I'll go change and wait for the agents to arrive at my door.

[Rain Mcloud]

78. Lets just give them everything they demand up front.

That is some grand bargaining!
Maybe we will hit the powerball and move the 350 million poor to Monte Carlo where there is no income tax,then who will be laughing?

[L0oniX]

80. Government enforced class warfare is what this is. n/t

[RVN VET]

82. I'm actually afraid we've lost

I don't think this president, or the majority Senate he enjoys, really care. It's not that they've been out maneuvered. It's that they honestly don't care. Whether it's guns or immigration or healthcare/insurance reform or taxes: they just don't give a rat's skinny butt about us, at all.

It really is the only explanation, isn't it? Reid promises to reform the filibuster rules so he won't need 60 votes to pass anything -- and he reneges for no apparent reason; he first indicates no support for gun legislation, then offers support, then has it both ways with a "no" vote on the legislation that can be interpreted as a cagey political tactic (yeah, right) while at the same time winking to the gun manufacturers "I still got your back, boys." And now this sequestration relief -- offered to the worthless wealthy pigs who helped engineer the destruction of the middle class and the anointing of the U.S. of A. as another 3rd world Oligarchy.

The president is losing the war, not by inches, but by miles. Worse, he's not withdrawing from the fray bloodied and bruised. He's surrendering without a goddamned fight. Whether that's because he's a craven coward (which I doubt) or a sham Democrat with a conniving Republican heart (which I believe) makes no difference.

The result: we have no representation (Bernie Sanders and a handful of others notwithstanding). We can't vote Green, they say, because it's a minority party, teeny tiny and powerless. And the characterization may be right, but the claim that we can't vote that way is flat wrong. I'll vote Green even if it ensures a Republican majority. It won't really make that much of a goddamned difference -- but it will give comedians so much material to keep us laughing in our despair!

I'm through with this Republican "Democratic" Party. I'll never vote for a Republican candidate again, ever. And I'll vote Green or on occasion for select and vetted Democrats. The Party is garbage, trash, and dead to me. Its concessions to the 1% and the gun manufacturers on sequestration and gun control were the final nails in the box.

[gulliver]

84. Nope.

Do you think the defense industry lacks political power? It's far from over, all premature teeth-gnashing and whining aside.

[kentuck]

85. Here was a good cartoon from another thread...

[texanwitch]

86. Yep.

Don't even try.