The only argument against a sequester, at least among conservatives, is that a sequester would impose too much of a burden on the defense budget.
FORBES: Sequestration Is a Small Step in Right Direction, not Something to Be Feared
The Senate bill makes the tax code more complex, provides for no spending cuts and creates four deadlines for the debt-limit increase within weeks, the March 1 automatic spending cuts known as the sequester, a second sequester on March 27 (to make up for overspending since the first sequester) and the March 27 expiration of government spending authority.
WSJ: David Malpass: Nothing Is Certain Except More Debt and Taxes
They can pass an extension of the sequester, a delay of the sequester, just like they did at the end of last year so that Congress can get the work that it wants to get done, done.
This time, Congress should pass a similar set of balanced cuts and close more tax loopholes until they can find a way to replace the sequester with a smarter, longer-term solution.
Commenting on Supercommittee deliberations last month, I asked whether Republicans will choose the real budgetary savings of a sequester or surrender to a tax hike.
Republicans should have, in our view, done what they had done just a few months before, which is pass a short-term measure to delay implementation of the sequester, a measure that would have represented the balance that the public supports, asking the well-off and well-to-do to pay a little bit, not just seniors and middle-class families, and that then regular order could have continued as it is now, but without the sequester.
And the Senate put forward a bill that Republicans filibustered that would have brought down the sequester and postponed the implementation of the sequester in a way that would have allowed Congress to pursue the broader deficit reduction package through regular order.
Democrats would, unsurprisingly, prefer a plan that had fewer cuts and a majority of Republicans and Independents show support for the cuts even if they do think the sequester is a bad idea (which they do).
FORBES: When It Comes To Obama And The Sequester, The Public Has Got It Wrong
No doubt, the sequester is a blunt, inefficient, arbitrary, even stupid way to cut outlays.
FORBES: Republicans Mislead Their Base With Handwringing Over Sequester Defense Cuts
The sequester is a distant second choice, but, clearly, it is better than nothing.
FORBES: A Bad Sequester Is Worlds Better Than No Budget Deal At All
"Unfortunately, that sequester takes a very blunt instrument and says across-the-board cuts to all of government, " he said.
The Speaker claims the sequester was a last minute agreement to resolve the debt limit increase the President wanted.
They would then probably extend some or all of the Bush tax cuts and delay the sequester for a year.
The deal pays for delaying the sequester with a mix of new taxes and spending cuts, according to several congressional aides.
The sequester is a series of automatic across the board spending cuts slated to begin on March 1 unless Congress acts.
FORBES: As Sequester Looms, Clergy Stages "Pray-In" At Boehner's Office
Especially since the Senate has ignored its budget-law duties for three years, the sequester is a breath of fresh, chilling air.
FORBES: On Government Spending, It's Time For Short-Term Thinking
Republican leaders have made clear they're not revisiting, at least not anytime soon, the idea of postponing the sequester in a balanced way.
It creates all the harm that Republican leaders said it would create when they were decrying the sequester just a few months ago.
"Tea party people are saying the sequester is a pittance, " Sen.
First of all, the Senate will vote on the proposal put forward by Democrats that would deal with the sequester, postpone the sequester in a balanced, responsible way.
President Obama in August 2011 asked for the sequester as a way to avoid another fight over an increase in the federal debt limit before his re-election campaign.
FORBES: Boehner And Obama's Economic Confusion Breeds Bipartisan Disarray
Congress can and should pass legislation that will replace the entire sequester with a balanced approach to deficit reduction that includes spending cuts, reduction in future spending growth, and new revenues.
To achieve that goal, the President willfully sought to mislead the American people by claiming, falsely, the sequester was a Republican idea when, as we now know thanks to the reporting of Bob Woodward, it originated inside his senior staff.
FORBES: The Audacity Of Power: President Obama Plays The Bully
So, while the Congressional Republicans are correct in their expectation that the party ultimately blamed for what is to befall the nation as a result of the sequester will pay a very serious price indeed, they badly misjudge the situation by imagining that they can pin this on the President.
Because we have relatively little time between now and March 1st, the President believes that we ought to -- Congress ought to take action to buy down the sequester in a balanced way -- which we actually just did in December so we know what the model looks like to achieve it.
This White House has never been fussy when a statutory text or even the Constitution interferes with its political ambitions. (See ObamaCare, immigration executive orders, recess appointments and much else.) Could it be that Mr. Obama is exaggerating the legal stringency of the sequester in a gambit to force Congress to shut it off?
This will give Congress time to work on a balanced plan to end the sequester permanently through a combination of additional revenue and spending cuts in a balanced manner.
But you just talked about sequester, and there is a tour going around -- John McCain is leading a tour on sequester.
With the debt limit set to be hit in a matter of hours, Republicans and Democrats in Congress reluctantly accepted the president's demand for the sequester, and a revised version of the Budget Control Act was passed on a bipartisan basis.
WSJ: John Boehner: The President Is Raging Against a Budget Crisis He Created
应用推荐