Republicans' Sequester Trick Shows They Understand it's not Leverage

     They understand enough to know that they stand to lose a lot from the sequester. They've been trying to convince everyone that any bad impact of the sequester hike will hurt Democrats more because since Obama suggested it as a way out of the 2011 debt ceiling impasse, this shows that he supports the sequester and all its ill effects. However, while they've claimed this is leverage for some time, their latest actions suggest otherwise.

     They  now have a plan that would give cabinet heads a lot more discretion on where the cuts go: it won't hit things indiscriminately as it's currently structure. So they are effectively giving the President-who they've compared to Hitler and claimed he is a fascist set to destroy the country: can you say dissonance?

      No doubt, in part this might enable them-or so they hope-to turn around public opinion on sequestration by arguing that they tried to avoid it and mitigate the cuts some but Obama and the Dems refused to work with them. Greg Sargent urges them not to take the bait.

      "So it’s 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 they’re 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 it’s being discussed."

      "This is, as Brian Beutler notes, a “clever” idea. It makes Republicans look more reasonable, because they’re 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 there’s 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."

      "I’m 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."

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/02/21/dont-bite-on-gops-clever-sequester-trick-dems/

     It's true that it's another GOP ruse. However, it's also an admission by Republicans that they don't have the political advantage-leverage-they claimed to have. Many are pessimistic that we can now avert the sequester now. I'm still not so sure we won't. 

     You could see this as the latest Republican Plan B. It's an admission they don't have the great hand they claim and it's the start of having to cave. I don't see any doubt that they'll lose-whether we have to go through a damaging sequester hit and then stop it after it the only question. As we already saw some points of concern in yesterday's job numbers it will only be more politically difficult to play with this. 

      It's often pointed out that as most House Republicans in particular are in very safe districts, this means that there is no blowback for  obstruction from House Republicans. This isn't entirely true. It's being from Red districts that  encourage outrageous positions. It's particularly bad in the districts but GOP Senators can feel the undertow too like McCain recently getting booed for immigration reform-he used to say "build the dang fence."

     http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/02/some-sympathy-for-mccain.html

      Still this is more on social issues. This is why it's so tricky for the GOP. Red districts and states may hate "government spending" but it's in the abstract. Essentially they hate spending that benefits someone else-particularly poor people with the wrong color or ethnicity. 

       They love their own government "welfare." With the recent migration of the elderly to the GOP there is great irony as they benefit from the government-SS and Medicare-disproportionately more than any other group. Many of these red districts and states are very dependent on military contracts. So simply letting the full brunt of the sequester take effect is not as easy as the GOP has often made it sound and they know this. 

      So their Plan B may be the start to a deal. Next the Senate should pass a sequester deal and force the House to vote on it. 

      P.S. In some ways the tensions of Republican voters-they hate government spending that's someone elses applies to the country as a whole. Majorities still think it's very important to cut the deficit and to cut government spending but like Republican voters or Republicans for that matter they can't tell you what. 

     The most common proposal from those polled is that the government-besides cutting "waste" which is imagined to be a great deal-is to cut foreign aid from 25% to 10%-it's actually less than 2%. 

     The real appeal of the GOP is still social issues for Republican voters. However, these issues are very dangerous now to use in national campaigns and as we saw with Akin and Mourdock can even backfire at the state level. 

      Krugman recently suggested that the austerity lovers are losing which is making them ore desperate. This is good news as there's some truth to it. Still while we have learned something since the 2011 debt ceiling fight and Obama has been the most combatively liberal that we've seen from a Democrat since LBJ, the country is still far from over all the fiscal illusions out there with these abstract calls for deficit reduction and spending cuts.