Is the Sequester the GOP's Leverage?

    They certainly want to convince us of that. Even since they folded on debt ceiling chicken they've been acting as if they hold the cards here.

     The media is replete with pessimistic headlines that that the chances of a deal look bleak because "both sides" are dug in. A piece in Huffingtonpost today says "Sequestration Likely to Happen."

     " Lawmakers and economists urged Congress to reconsider the massive spending cuts set to begin in March in light of Wednesday's alarming news that the nation's gross domestic product shrank for the first time in more than three years. But in a testament to beltway inertia, Congress seemed more likely than not to hit the fiscal snooze button."

     "Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said Wednesday's report from the Bureau of Economic Analysis was further proof that implementing "big austerity measures now will hurt the recovery." But the ranking member of the House Budget Committee added that the findings may not be enough to persuade lawmakers to replace the looming sequester, or a decade's worth of automatic cuts to defense and domestic spending."

    "The question is how far over the ledge do we go before people take action," Van Hollen said in an interview. He said he hoped sequestration wouldn't be triggered. "But that may be required to bring some sense to the process. If you look at this report, there is no doubt that the spending slowdown contributed to the contraction and that was before the sequester. That was just in anticipation to the sequester."

    "Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said he was unsure how Wednesday's report would "be used in the debate about the sequester and what we ought to do going forward." But his outlook for a legislative compromise was pessimistic nonetheless."

    "There doesn't seem to be much of an appetite by the president or Senate Democrats to do that," said Thune. "So I'm not sure how that ends up. What the Democrats want to do is they want to raise taxes to replace the sequester. That would make matters in the economy much worse in my view."
With both sides convinced that the other's solution to sequestration would result in further economic woes, a resolution appeared far off, even after Wednesday's unexpected news. In issuing its report, the Bureau of Economic Analysis blamed a combination of factors for the 0.1 percent contraction of the economy, most notably a 15 percent reduction in federal spending and a 22 percent decline in national defense spending."

    "While the report suggested that economic growth had paused, the underlying indicators weren't all depressing. With personal consumption up, an increase in the purchasing of durable goods and general improvement in the housing market, the shrinkage may be more a fluke than a trend."

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/2013-sequestration-gdp-report_n_2584742.html

      There is a good deal of talk on the GOP side that they want to "pocket" these discretionary spending cuts they've "won" and that they are willing to let the cuts also take effect for military spending though they have been telling us for 15 months that these cuts will degrade our military strength significantly.

      Yet if they really are anxious to pocket the domestic cuts and prepared to let the Pentagon cuts happen then Thune's comments above that the Senate Democrats and Obama aren't willing to compromise make no sense. Do they think having them take effect as they are now written is the best effect or not? If not then what do they want?

      Thune's comments also suggests that if only the Dems would compromise something could be done. Yet there's the rub. The GOP has denounced the Pentagon cuts since they agreed to them as part of the 2011 deal yet they've never suggested they'd be willing to engage in horse trading to mitigate them-by mitigating the domestic cuts.

      What they're "offer" has been is to demand that the Dems unilaterally stop the military cuts while they refuse to consider mitigating the domestic cuts.

       So even if the GOP is as willing to allow the military cuts as they clam-a claim I'm not sure of; there's some posturing here as well-it wouldn't mean that the Democrats should compromise more-as there really is no way to compromise with the GOP 'offer" so far; it's not been an offer but a unilateral demand.

       No doubt the Dems are willing to compromise if that means they accept some but milder cuts in exchange for the same on military cuts. So the actual GOP strategy-whether they are bluffing or are not-doesn't matter. The Dems have the same task. Point out to the American people that the GOP is willing to risk an economy that showed a contraction in GDP that may be caused to a significant extent due to the idea of cuts that haven't even started as they think it gives them "leverage."

      It's going to take awhile for them to realize that they have no leverage. It's baby steps. They gave up on fiscal cliff "leverage" for debt ceiling "leverage." They gave up that for sequester "leverage." At some point-it may not be till next year, they'll realize that they have no leverage in general. If these cuts go into effect and do hurt the economy they again will rightly take the blame.