The Catch 22 of the Sequester

         It seems now that the consensus is that the sequester will hit this week. While both the Democrats and Republicans have plans neither is believed to have the votes to pass. I admit that I was more optimistic about a deal a few weeks ago.

        If it is going to kick in, the real due date still isn't until March 27 when the government is set to shut down. At that point it can either be reversed or it would become law of the land at least for this year.. Yet, the paradox is that there is a narrative that if the pain of the sequester isn't felt so much over the next month the Democrats will be forced to accept the sequester cuts. Essentially the GOP plan which allows the $85 billion in cuts scheduled for this year to go into effect but while giving the President  and his cabinet departments more discretion on how the cuts are executed.

    "If there’s a public outcry, Democrats would renew their push to replace the across-the-board cuts and pass a different government funding bill than the one passed by the House. Such a move would dare Boehner to accept the new bill or risk shutting down the government."

    "But Democratic allies realize there’s a chance the sequester’s effects will not be felt by March 27 and the public response could be muted. If that happens, the Democrats might agree to a proposal similar to the Republican plan — keeping the sequester in place but giving the administration more flexibility to manage the cuts."

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/white-house-releases-state-by-state-breakdown-of-sequesters-effects/2013/02/24/caeb71a0-7ec0-11e2-a350-49866afab584_story_2.html

     So the only way to avoid the pain of the sequester is to suffer a lot of pain quickly from the sequester? In other words we should want real pain now to avoid pain later? This is a rather awkward position to say the least. 

    Chris Cillizza argues that the pain of the sequester may be a good thing as it might finally wake people up and force them to force their politicians to get something done. I don't love this theory. He is right though that the public as a whole has a totally blinkered understanding of the whole subject of budgets, deficits, taxes, and spending. 

     It supports cutting spending in the abstract but can never say what spending cuts it would like. .When the Republicans demand as they did during the fiscal cliff, debt ceiling debate, and now during the sequester standoff, deep spending cuts but refuse to name them they are actually perfectly aping the public attitude. It's a kind of pandering as people like to cut spending that doesn't effect them. As Cillizza notes you can't find anything specific people want to cut. 

    "A Pew Research Center poll conducted earlier this month makes clear the country’s “both/and” nature and why it is so hard for politicians to thread that needle."

    "While there is widespread support for trimming federal spending, when it comes to the specifics of what should be cut, clarity disappears. In not one of the 19 (!) specific areas did a majority of the sample express support for a diminishing of federal spending. (The closest was the 48 percent who favored cutting “aid to the world’s needy.” So, that happened.) Somewhat amazingly, of the 19 areas Pew asked people about cutting, Americans favored increasing spending over decreasing spending in 16 of them."

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/02/25/what-if-the-sequester-is-exactly-what-the-country-needs/

      Note that even the desire of almost-though still less than-half of Americans to cut aid to the world's needy is based in ignorance: Americans want to cut our international aid from 25% of the budget to 10%; in fact, it's under 2% and we are on a percentage basis pretty miserly compared with other rich first world countries. 

      All of this should be good news for the Democrats: there is no desire for cuts in anything and Americans actually want to raise spending. The trouble is this blinkered desire to  cut spending in the abstract vs. a desire to actually raise it for specific spending programs. 

      As Greg Sargent says, spending cuts are very unpopular. 

       "When it comes to the fight over budgeting in general and sequestration in particular, there’s probably nothing more important to know about public opinion than the fact that most people like spending cuts in the abstract, but oppose them for virtually all specific programs. Republicans believe they will be able to shift the blame for unpopular sequester cuts to Obama. But Obama will be repeating that he wants cuts balanced by tax increases on the wealthy and corporations, while the consensus Republican position will remain that we should only have deep cuts — indeed, that we should go farther than the sequester.

       "So when voters start complaining about specific cuts, Obama can offer to replace them with specific tax increases voters favor. But all Republicans have to offer to replace specific unpopular sequester cuts is … other specific unpopular cuts. This is not a playing field that sets up well for Republicans."

       http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/02/22/nope-people-really-really-dont-like-spending-cuts/

       It seems the danger is now that the GOP strategy of talking about cutting spending generally while offering up no specific cuts could be enough to get these sequester cuts to stick at least for 2013. The challenge is to not let them get away with it. Especially if we don't feel pain right away in March-which you don't really want to do anyway.