re: #210 klys

I’m not sure if I’ve been communicating clearly, so I will try again. (I don’t dispute what you’re saying about compromise being necessary, but it wasn’t really what I was asking.)

Bob Woodward’s point is that the administration is “moving the goalposts” by seeking a compromise that features a mixture of spending cuts and revenue increases to replace the sequester. My understanding is: that was the purpose of the sequester, to drive the necessity of compromise which, at the time, was believed to be a mixture of spending cuts and revenue increases.

I totally get all of the Republican bullshit which is why no compromise has happened, but that doesn’t change the purpose of the sequester, which is to drive both parties back to the negotiating table with that in mind.

His claiming that the administration is moving the goalposts seems to be saying that the sequester cuts can only be replaced by equivalent targeted cuts instead of broad, across the board cuts like will happen. I don’t understand how a logical interpretation of events leads to this position and claims to be backed by facts. That’s what I’m trying to understand. That’s my question.

It’s a matter of perspective and Woodward’s claim of moving the goalposts is dubious. From the Dem perspective the sequester should have made the the Republicans more willing to comprimise on raising revenue. Republicans are going to get most of the public blame if things go tits up. From the Republican perspective the Dems should be more willing to comprimise because Republicans have shown their willingness to kill the proverbial hostage. When either side’s expectations aren’t met they’re going to claim moved goalposts.
From my perspective I don’t think Beohner is capable of striking a deal. He doesn’t have enough control over his own caucus. We’re at the exact same point we were with the last budget debate.They’ll find a way to kick the can down the road again. We’ll run out of time eventually.