Why If You’re Debating Sequestration, You’re Doing It Wrong

Who's winning, who's losing, and why.
Feb. 24 2013 4:23 PM

The Simple Sequestration Rule

If you’re debating sequestration, you’re doing it wrong.

(Continued from Page 1)

Finally, the hunt to pin down whether Obama is shrinking from responsibility or whether John Boehner once boasted about it doesn't tell us anything about either the president or the House speaker. Normally if politicians tried to duck blame for a policy they once advocated, we would be very interested in their duplicity. They thought something was good, but now they think it's bad. Don't trust them. They're slippery. But in this case sequestration was never designed to be good. It was not designed to be a piece of policy. Everyone agreed that sequestration cuts were supposed to be so bad that prudent lawmakers on both sides would seek to avoid them by coming up with an alternative. So the fact that either side is trying to avoid sequestration—by denying provenance, pointing fingers, or raiding the minibar—is not a bug, it's a feature.

If we're going to focus on expected things when they come to pass, I suggest focusing on the sunrise because a nice sunrise is really pretty. Also, the laughter of children trying to avoid bedtime is neat. There are many more things in this category. 

The real point of sequestration was to keep everyone focused on the Big Thing: how to get growth, deficit reduction, and fairness from a divided government in a time of scarcity. That's still the point, which means if we want to make progress, we shouldn't talk about sequestration—we should talk about the solutions for slaying the monster.

Advertisement

We know that averting sequestration was always the important point because it was built into sequestration agreement itself. When the monster was taken off the chain, lawmakers formed a Committee To Stay Focused and called it the “supercommittee.” It was supposed to come up with something—anything—that would keep the monster at bay. The committee was made up of stout fellows who had demonstrated in tests of strength and cable-show appearances that they could stay focused. 

Alas, the Committee To Stay Focused did not stay focused. It failed to come up with an alternative to sequestration, but that didn't change the task: how to avoid the monster through an agreement. Given that this remains the task at this hour, it is dire indeed that a new debate has erupted over the makeup of the monster. That's what this recent fight about whether taxes were ever a part of sequestration is about. Over the weekend, Republicans, citing legendary reporter Bob Woodward's reporting, argued that taxes were never supposed to be a part of sequestration. The president is "moving the goal posts" by talking about taxes. 

Democrats are trying very hard to prove that Republicans and Bob Woodward are wrong. It’s an argument they don’t need to win, and if we want to stay focused, we don't need to engage in the argument either. The fight is irrelevant: Determining whether taxes were a part of sequestration is like arguing how many arms the monster has—and it has nothing to do with the Big Thing.

Were tax increases among the things that were considered as a part of the plan to avoid the monster? Yes. The sequestration replacement could be about taxes, spending, or magic beans. Various Republicans and Democrats suggested various alternatives that included taxes. Most Republicans objected to including taxes as a part of the sequestration replacement, which is exactly what they were supposed to do. They were supposed to have a philosophical disagreement focused on the Big Thing. We should get back to that quickly—before the monster arrives.

TODAY IN SLATE

War Stories

The Right Target

Why Obama’s airstrikes against ISIS may be more effective than people expect.

The NFL Has No Business Punishing Players for Off-Field Conduct. Leave That to the Teams.

Meet the Allies the U.S. Won’t Admit It Needs in Its Fight Against ISIS

I Stand With Emma Watson on Women’s Rights

Even though I know I’m going to get flak for it.

Should You Recline Your Seat? Two Economists Weigh In.

Medical Examiner

How to Stop Ebola

Survivors might be immune. Let’s recruit them to care for the infected.

History

America in Africa

The tragic, misunderstood history of Liberia—and why the United States has a special obligation to help it fight the Ebola epidemic.

New GOP Claim: Hillary Clinton’s Wealth and Celebrity Are Tricks to Disguise Her Socialism

Why the Byzantine Hiring Process at Universities Drives Academics Batty

Moneybox
Sept. 23 2014 3:29 PM The Fascinating Origins of Savannah, Georgia’s Distinctive Typeface
  News & Politics
History
Sept. 23 2014 11:45 PM America in Africa The tragic, misunderstood history of Liberia—and why the United States has a special obligation to help it fight the Ebola epidemic.
  Business
Moneybox
Sept. 23 2014 2:08 PM Home Depot’s Former Lead Security Engineer Had a Legacy of Sabotage
  Life
Education
Sept. 23 2014 11:45 PM Why Your Cousin With a Ph.D. Is a Basket Case  Understanding the Byzantine hiring process that drives academics up the wall.
  Double X
The XX Factor
Sept. 23 2014 2:32 PM Politico Asks: Why Is Gabby Giffords So “Ruthless” on Gun Control?
  Slate Plus
Political Gabfest
Sept. 23 2014 3:04 PM Chicago Gabfest How to get your tickets before anyone else.
  Arts
Brow Beat
Sept. 23 2014 8:38 PM “No One in This World” Is One of Kutiman’s Best, Most Impressive Songs
  Technology
Future Tense
Sept. 23 2014 5:36 PM This Climate Change Poem Moved World Leaders to Tears Today
  Health & Science
Medical Examiner
Sept. 23 2014 11:37 PM How to Stop Ebola Could survivors safely care for the infected?
  Sports
Sports Nut
Sept. 23 2014 7:27 PM You’re Fired, Roger Goodell If the commissioner gets the ax, the NFL would still need a better justice system. What would that look like?