Greg Sargent on the Tough Choice the Sequester Gives Liberals

     Sargent talked today about something I have argued in the past when many liberals have insisted that the Dems take a hard line and rule out any entitlement cuts at all: ok, what should we do then? It seemed to me that if we insist on no entitlement "reforms" of any kind-not chained CPI or raising the Medicare age to 67-then we may be making a de facto choice for the sequester becoming permanent.

     "At the end of the day maybe as unpleasant as the sequester is it's preferable to entitlement cuts? Again, with the oversight the GOP itself has talked about giving the President this may be the best of all worlds. Certainly the Dems can't let the GOP get away with proposing a budget like Ryan proposed yesterday and yet the Dems getting the blame on cutting entitlements."

      http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-endgame-in-fiscal-fight-according.html

      Sargent is now thinking along the same lines:

       "Maybe I’m wrong about this. But it’s looking more and more like progressives and liberals are going to be facing a tough question: Which is worse, indefinite sequestration or a grand bargain that includes serious entitlement cuts? Seems to me that sooner or later, major players on the left are going to have to stake out a position on this question."

      "With Republicans seemingly refusing to yield on new revenues, it’s looking increasingly as if they are going to stick with sequestration and gamble that they can ride out the politics until sequestration-level spending becomes the “new normal.” Brian Beutler has a gloomy take on why this is looking likely. Obama, of course, will continue to push for a “grand bargain” that trades entitlement cuts for new revenues, on the theory that the bite of the sequester really is going to be felt over time — the Huffington Post details that job losses really are starting to happen — which could force at least some Republicans back to the table."

      "It’s unclear to me which of those two endgames is going to happen. But one thing that appears very unlikely is the preferred progressive endgame: As the sequester grows increasingly unpopular, Obama and Dems rally public opinion to force Republicans to replace it with a deal that combines new revenues with judicious spending cuts that don’t hit entitlement benefits. I’m just not seeing any way this happens."

      "That means that at some point, liberals may well be faced with a choice — should they accept the grand bargain that includes Chained CPI and Medicare cuts, and join the push for that, or essentially declare the sequester a less awful alternative, and instead insist that we live with that?"

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/03/20/on-sequester-liberals-face-a-dilemma/

     I think this may prove right. This is what the liberals who are categorically demanding that Obama Just Say No can't seem to answer. Sargent says that when he speaks to Democrats who take this line, they argue that we shouldn't even be thinking in these terms. Eventually the GOP will be forced to accept a deal with some discretionary cuts but not on entitlements. 

      "In an interview with me, Dem Rep. Jan Schakowsky, a leading opponent of entitlement benefits cuts, argued that it’s premature to make this choice, predicting that the sequester still could end up forcing Republicans to buckle."

     “This is not a static situation,” Schakowsky said. “Things will come home to roost at the end of April. Once they do, I think it can change the dynamic. Once the cuts really hit communities, that could really put pressure on getting rid of the sequester. At that point there may be some serious negotiations. That is when a lot of progressives will weigh in.”

     "Senator Bernie Sanders and Dem Rep. Keith Ellison, staunch foes of a grand bargain that cuts entitlement benefits, have also argued to me that it’s premature to get drawn into this choice. And I hope they’re right that it needn’t come down to that choice. It seems to me, though, that progressives who oppose such a grand bargain might at least start marshaling a policy argument for why the sequester is a preferable — or at least a less horrible — alternative."

       Congressman Schakowsky is right-this is not a static situation. However, I think that we should really quantify what our endgame is here, as Sargent suggests. It might be best to list the different outcomes and which one is most optimum down to the least. Sargent acknowledges that the GOP has something to lose as well. 

        "By the way, this isn’t to say that extended sequestration is necessarily a “victory” for Republicans. Even if they claim they’ve gotten the spending cuts they’ve wanted all along, it’s premature to rule out the possibility that they could still end up sustaining major political damage, in ways that exacerbate already abysmal public perceptions of the party as intransigent and committed to protecting the wealth of the rich, with untold ramifications for 2014. But still: progressives need to start gaming out the endgame here. And make no mistake — this may lead to a real dilemma."

       They certainly have a lot to lose-after all, it's them not the Democrats who are seen as group of stuffy old men who are also kind of scary and don't have the public's interests in order. It's important to note that the GOP doesn't get it's optimum solution either if they just pocket the cuts. They get the discretionary domestic cuts they want; however, they also are saddled with permanent military cuts they don't want. 

       In addition, this is basically the end of their push for entitlement cuts. This is why Ezra Klein makes a compelling case when he argues that the Dems get a lot of things they do want if we simply keep the status quo of the sequester. 

        1.) Deep permanent military cuts as part of the budget. 

        2). No entitlement cuts at all. 

        The only thing they lose is that deep cuts in discretionary spending become a permanent part of the budget. What this means is that the discretionary budget is permanently cut. 

        Klein further argues that they could also insist that in the CR the Republicans have proposed where the President would have more discretion in what gets cut he's also given discretion in when the cuts take place.

        So is this above outcome preferable or this one achieved by a Grand Bargain. The Dems get in this case:

        1.)  More tax hikes on the rich which will do a lot to reverse the regressivness imposed on the tax system with Bush's cuts. 

        2). Taking the edge off and reducing considerably the hit to discretionary spending. It's fair to ask that while we obviously don't want to see deep entitlement cuts are willing to say that even small cuts are less optimal than sharp permanent cuts to discretionary programs?

        However, in this case the Dems have to agree to things like chained CPI and a higher Medicare age. So which outcome on balance if preferable? Nanute?