Opinion
Reading Los Angeles: Join The Times' new book club
Opinion Opinion L.A.

McManus: D.C. doubles down on the sequester

The sequester, those $85 billion in across-the-board spending cuts scheduled to hit the federal government on March 1, was designed to be stupid.

In 2011, when President Obama proposed the scheme and both parties in Congress embraced it, their thinking was: With a whole year to work on a deal, surely we can figure out a way to avoid a catastrophe.

What Washington did they think they were living in?

With no negotiations under way, it's virtually certain that on March 1, a long list of federal programs will get slashed. But at this point, the only thing Democrats and Republicans agree on is that the mandatory cuts will hurt the economy, the nation's security and the well-being of the American people.

So why has there been no serious negotiation to avoid the train wreck we all see coming? One reason is that both sides think the public will side with them and blame the other party.

Obama and the Democrats think they can win the public relations battle because Americans are already on their side. A Pew Research Center poll released last week, for example, found that a big majority of Americans, 76%, agree with Obama's approach of combining spending cuts with tax increases; only 19% agree with the Republican position that tax increases should be off the table.

But Republicans think it won't be hard to turn the public against Obama, since he was the one who proposed the sequester in the first place (never mind that they approved the plan). They'll also insist that the administration is deliberately making the cuts more painful than they need to be. Some in the GOP have even proposed giving Obama more discretion over where to slash, so he can't complain that his hands are tied.

Both sides have a point. Most Americans do want to cut federal spending in general. But when it comes to individual programs, they want to protect them. The Pew poll found that a majority favored cuts in only one area: foreign aid. Most respondents didn't want cuts in education, healthcare, unemployment benefits or defense.

That's why the administration has offered deliberately dramatic forecasts of what spending cuts could mean, from canceled military operations and reduced Border Patrol surveillance to fewer AIDS tests, fewer children in Head Start and even potential meat shortages (because of reduced meat inspections).

And seemingly minor cutbacks can have outsized political impact. When Republicans in Congress shut down the federal government in 1995, the public reacted harshly once vacationers discovered that Yosemite and other national parks were closed. This time, the most painful cut for many people may be at the nation's airports: If the sequester continues past April 1, the Transportation Security Administration says it will have to cut the number of screeners on duty — meaning waits of an hour or more for passengers. That won't be pretty.

Still, Republicans hope that by challenging Democrats to come up with spending cuts to match those mandated by the sequester, they can portray their opponents as big spenders unwilling to attack the federal deficit. "Most people agree [with Republicans] that the deficit is one of the reasons the economy can't get back on track," said David Winston, a GOP pollster who advises House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). "So let's get to work cutting the deficit. And then we can ask a second question: Do you really want your taxes to go up?"

In short, Republicans think they can turn the sequester into a teachable moment that will draw public opinion to their side. But they face some obvious problems. Most of the public doesn't agree with them yet.

The White House has been energetic in pressing its case, using a week when Congress was out of town to stage events, including one that surrounded the president with photogenic law enforcement officers. And while Obama is talking to the country, the GOP has so far been talking mostly to the party faithful, making small-bore arguments about who proposed the sequester in the first place.

In the end, there will be some kind of compromise, probably around March 27, when Congress has to pass a law to keep the government operating for the rest of the year. It will probably include spending cuts that approach what the sequester demands, but with more flexibility— and, if Democrats have their way, a longer delay before the cuts kick in.

Tax increases will be a sticking point, of course. Democrats want them; Republicans reject them. But the recent history of budget showdowns suggests the GOP will compromise at the last minute.

But even if we already know roughly how the standoff will end, it's hard to see how we'll get there from here. Neither side knows how to defuse the crisis before it happens; neither wants to be the first to offer concessions. "Every time I've gotten into one of these high-profile negotiations, you know, it's my rear end that got burnt," Boehner told the Associated Press this month. That's about as perfect a description of political dysfunction as you could want.

doyle.mcmanus@latimes.com

Follow Doyle McManus on Twitter @DoyleMcManus

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • The real reason for Washington's derivatives gift to banks
    The real reason for Washington's derivatives gift to banks

    As we embark on the seventh year since the historic collapse of the Lehman Bros. investment bank, it's clear we haven't fixed what broke the economy in 2008. Big banks still control Congress. Workers remain acutely vulnerable to another financial crisis. But we can't blame only Wall Street...

  • A tax system tilted toward the rich
    A tax system tilted toward the rich

    Congress managed to pass a tax bill in December — a great relief to tax professionals like myself. But what our legislators didn't do was address the fundamentally unfair way the United States taxes people who work for a living compared with people who live off of the earnings of their...

  • A new shroud on spending in Afghanistan
    A new shroud on spending in Afghanistan

    For six years, the office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, which audits U.S. spending in the war-ravaged country, has submitted quarterly public reports to Congress drawn from records provided by the U.S.-led coalition supporting the still-shaky Afghan...

  • Bias against the disabled is as American as apple pie
    Bias against the disabled is as American as apple pie

    On the first day of the 114th Congress, Republican lawmakers quickly lighted the fuse for a major battle over entitlements using an unlikely piece of leverage: the Social Security Disability Insurance program, which is expected to run out of money in late 2016.

  • Obama takes on income inequality with his tax proposal
    Obama takes on income inequality with his tax proposal

    President Obama's first big tax proposal to the new Republican-controlled Congress would sharply increase the amounts paid by the heirs of wealthy Americans in order to fund more tax breaks and education programs for those with low and moderate incomes. It has about as much chance of becoming...

  • The government shutdown du jour
    The government shutdown du jour

    Reprising a scene that lawmakers have acted out too often in the last four years, Congress is heading for a partial government shutdown this week because of a Republican attempt to repeal one of President Obama's high-profile initiatives.

  • With one small tax, America could insure the next generation a brighter future
    With one small tax, America could insure the next generation a brighter future

    Nothing is more central to the American dream than equality of opportunity. In today's world, that usually means a college education — and, for most families, the challenge of paying for it. Congress could help meet that challenge. It could pass a financial transaction tax and dedicate...

  • Continue -- but gradually reduce -- federal risk in terrorism insurance
    Continue -- but gradually reduce -- federal risk in terrorism insurance

    The terrorists who turned the World Trade Center into rubble struck a devastating blow to the U.S. economy too, and few sectors felt it as acutely as the insurance industry. Afterward, insurers balked at providing any coverage for damage caused by further acts of terrorism, making it harder...

Comments
Loading