re: #44 Bulworth

That’s not exactly the case.

Sequester was the worst case outcome when a bipartisan committee from the House and Senate couldn’t agree on plan. It was supposed to be the nuclear option to get both sides to agree to a deal in which there would be tax hikes and spending reductions.

Thus, the sequester was meant to hit with across the board cuts to all but a handful of government spending.

Congress can come back with a bill to extend the sequester (like they did in January when Congress eventually passed the tax reform package) or they can repeal it fully, or they can come up with an alternative.

The GOP is thus far refusing to back off the no-tax pledge, and wants nothing but cuts (essentially a targeted sequester plan), while the Democrats have insisted on a balanced approach that would lessen the impact of the budget cuts because there are real jobs at stake there - and real harm to the economy as a result of the government spending slowdown.

Even the GOP recognizes this, but they want to pin the blame on Democrats for not coming and agreeing to their sequester lite version in which they don’t accept tax hikes or closing loopholes.