GOP Far From Scared of Sequester
House GOP refuses to budge on taxes, feels politically impervious
By Kevin Spak, Newser User
Posted Feb 21, 2013 10:16 AM CST
House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, walks to meet with reporters on Capitol Hill, Feb. 14, 2013.   (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

(Newser) – If President Obama's attempts to pressure Republicans into a sequester deal are having any effect, the GOP is doing a good job of hiding it. The battle lines remain exactly where they started—President Obama won't accept a plan without revenue hikes, and Republicans won't accept revenue hikes—and Republicans tell the New York Times they feel politically impervious in the showdown and have no intention of caving. They'll pass a stopgap spending bill to avoid a government shutdown, but it won't touch the sequester.

The GOP's confidence comes in part because they think they've covered their bases with a bill that would shift cuts from the military to social programs like food stamps, and in part because gerrymandering has left few Republican reps vulnerable to Democrat challengers. Besides, Obama "already got his tax increase” in the fiscal cliff deal, says one GOP rep. Some top Dem aides in the Senate tell the paper they fear they've got a weak hand, lamenting that Obama didn't strike a better deal on New Year's.

View 1 more image
More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
GOP Far From Scared of Sequester is...
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Showing 3 of 142 comments
Feb 23, 2013 7:17 AM CST
The 'sequester' was part of the deal that the President made with the GOP to get the tax increase he wanted. His team of 'experts' informed him that the sequester would never happen, so this part of the deal doesn't matter. Well. you reap what you sew. As for the statements that the sequester will cause hundreds of police, firemen, teachers and whatever to lose their jobs is incorrect. Almost all of these jobs are funded by locale taxes and the sequester plays no part. As for airport security and air traffice controlers, this only effects airports with 150 flights per year. Let's not forget those on SSI, Medicare, Medicade, no effect. As for those on welfare, food stamps and extended unemployment, it cuts payments by about 3%. I know that's a big deal when you count on those programs.but that was part of the sequester that the Presidents team came up with. Remember, this wasn't suppose to happen. So, to say that this isn't the fault of the President and all the fault of the GOP, is a mis-statement or perhaps not taking the time to read the sequester.
Feb 22, 2013 12:37 AM CST
The President did not cause this crisis. Check the facts. 1. John Boehner said that he got 98% of what he wanted. If that's true then we don't need across-the-board cuts. The GOP has made no honest attempt to discuss the 2% or what it is. They want severe cuts. 2. The President wants to look at cuts, & tax loopholes. 3. Last year GOP said that would look at tax loopholes. Now they say "no." 4. Republicans in The House vote on all $$$$ in govt. - not The President. 5. GOP won't compromise and won't negotiate. 6. MOST Republican voters side with The President.
Feb 21, 2013 10:27 PM CST
All this worry about the Sequester is ridiculous. When 0bama proposed it in July, 2011, everyone went along with it. When the House GOP tried to reverse it, even passing 2 bills to correct it, 0bama, in November, 2011, vowed to veto any such attempts. Now, 0bama says the world will end if the House doesn't do something (more tax increases) to prevent it from taking effect. The Senate already has 2 bills from the House that Harry Reid refuses to consider. Is 0bama just a joke, or is he truly insane? Sequester holds back only $85 billion in spending. That is less than 2% of expected FY 2013 spending. It does not even represent true budget cuts, but only cuts in the increase of the GROWTH of spending. That is to say instead of $1.3 trillion added to our debt, only $1.2 trillion will be added this year! This is much ado about nothing.