Recall the Democrats’ original theory of the case: 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. [Emphasis supplied.]
See, the Democrats lost when they caved on the fiscal cliff without a spending agreement. The decoupling of revenues and spending is when "Democrats failed on sequestration" in the larger sense. When I first heard about the fiscal cliff deal, I reacted hyperbolically but my essential point was true:
[T]he one strong chip the President had - tax policy, is traded for unemployment insurance extensions for a year. And nothing else. Everything else Democrats hold dear is now in play. Everything. [...]
The problem with this negotiation is instead of applying a "there is no agreement on taxes until there is agreement on everything" strategy, the President and his men have handed Republicans the one issue they care about and resolved nothing that Dems care about except unemployment insurance extensions.
Ironically, given the terms of the negotiations to come, I think, in context, Democrats have not yet completely lost on the sequestration. Ezra says:
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.
But is that necessarily true? The big money in the sequester, at least from the GOP view, remains defense spending. They do not value it like they value tax cuts for the rich, but in the sequestration world, that remains the Dems' big chip. And what is most worrying is the president;s penchant for pre-concession, in this case regarding defense spending:
Guess what? The White House still doesn’t like [defense spending] cuts. And Obama’s new budget, released [April 10], makes this clear. Although the White House doesn’t advertise this fact in the six-page budget overview it put out this morning, the new budget eliminates nearly all of the cuts that sequestration imposes on the Pentagon. Instead of $500 billion in cuts, Obama proposes only $100 billion, and you have to look closely to spot it (“$200 billion in additional discretionary savings, with equal amounts from defense and nondefense programs”).
Like Chained CPI, the president's penchant for pre-concessions remains a huge problem. If this is not stopped, this is where the smaller battle on sequestration will be lost, and it is likely to be lost by the president himself. If he can stop doing this, the sequestration battle can at least be fought to a draw.
