5 reasons why the GOP might risk the sequester


I was wrong. I thought that the GOP's financial mandarins would put enough pressure on the leadership to force another compromise with the White House to avoid the dreaded financial sequester, the series of automatic defense and non-defense cuts that kick in on March 1. But there is no one Republican Party today, and no one seems to speak for the majority of the party. Speaker of the House John Boehner wants a deal and knows he can't get one and is frustrated that the White House won't negotiate with him like it used to. Eric Cantor, his deputy, seems to be waiting to figure out what everyone else thinks.
The real influential voices in the party — those who speak for the base — want the sequester to kick in. And there are five reasons, generally, why the GOP might be willing to risk the 2014 midterm elections and their majority on simply giving up and refusing to concede.
1. The White House may have oversold its victory in convincing Republicans to jettison Grover Norquist's tax pledge and for winning tax hikes with a correspondingly miniscule amount of spending cuts when the issue first came to the foreground at the end of the year. Democratic triumphalism made Republicans feel like they had lost big-time, when in fact, there really was no alternative, and the tax rates Obama agreed to were lower than those he had campaigned on. The GOP wonders: If politics is give and take, and if Democrats admit they've taken a lot, then they really have to give.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
2. The sequester, many GOPers have come to believe, was Barack Obama's idea. Therefore, since it was his idea, if it happens, Republicans will be able to blame him for its consequences. First, it appears that the GOP leadership jointly developed the idea in negotiation with the White House in order to force its own conference to accept a deal on the debt ceiling in the summer of 2011. (The PowerPoint presentation you've seen is a product of those negotiations, not an original idea of Speaker Boehner's). Nevertheless, Congress approved it. The president signed it. And it's a mess, really, that the public is not going to go back and investigate for themselves. The perception is that the GOP is to blame for it — and that's kind of true. They played footsie with hot coals in the first place. But maybe, just maybe, public opinion will swing.
3. The sequester does not directly hit GOP constituencies at first. It hits government workers, primarily, in terms of layoffs and furloughs. Actual pain will first be felt by people who rely on government services that aren't entitlements. So maybe, (maybe?) soft Republicans won't be disgusted. And maybe, enough people will blame the president for the resulting economic chaos because, even if the Republicans are proximately to blame for the drop in GDP, the president is still the person most associated with the government.
4. Maybe: The best way to force the White House to make a deal is to let the sequester happen, and then let its effects swirl around a bit, and let panic set in.
5. Spending has to be cut. The sequester does it summarily, but it does indeed accomplish a core goal of the revanchist wing of the GOP.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Marc Ambinder is TheWeek.com's editor-at-large. He is the author, with D.B. Grady, of The Command and Deep State: Inside the Government Secrecy Industry. Marc is also a contributing editor for The Atlantic and GQ. Formerly, he served as White House correspondent for National Journal, chief political consultant for CBS News, and politics editor at The Atlantic. Marc is a 2001 graduate of Harvard. He is married to Michael Park, a corporate strategy consultant, and lives in Los Angeles.
-
What are the different types of nuclear weapons?
The Explainer Speculation mounts that post-war taboo on nuclear weapons could soon be shattered by use of 'battlefield' missiles
-
Floral afternoon teas to enjoy during the Chelsea Flower Show
The Week Recommends These are the prettiest spots in the city to savour a traditional treat
-
How to plan a trip along the Mississippi River
The Week Recommends See this vital waterway from the Great River Road
-
The JFK files: the truth at last?
In The Spotlight More than 64,000 previously classified documents relating the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy have been released by the Trump administration
-
'Seriously, not literally': how should the world take Donald Trump?
Today's big question White House rhetoric and reality look likely to become increasingly blurred
-
Will Trump's 'madman' strategy pay off?
Today's Big Question Incoming US president likes to seem unpredictable but, this time round, world leaders could be wise to his playbook
-
Democrats vs. Republicans: who are the billionaires backing?
The Explainer Younger tech titans join 'boys' club throwing money and support' behind President Trump, while older plutocrats quietly rebuke new administration
-
US election: where things stand with one week to go
The Explainer Harris' lead in the polls has been narrowing in Trump's favour, but her campaign remains 'cautiously optimistic'
-
Is Trump okay?
Today's Big Question Former president's mental fitness and alleged cognitive decline firmly back in the spotlight after 'bizarre' town hall event
-
The life and times of Kamala Harris
The Explainer The vice-president is narrowly leading the race to become the next US president. How did she get to where she is now?
-
Will 'weirdly civil' VP debate move dial in US election?
Today's Big Question 'Diametrically opposed' candidates showed 'a lot of commonality' on some issues, but offered competing visions for America's future and democracy