Getty Images
There are no meaningful talks underway, at least not yet, to avoid the deep sequestration cuts that are poised to begin tomorrow, so those hoping for an 11th-hour deal are likely to be disappointed. The parties aren't close and they're not even trying to get closer.
So, what should Americans expect in the hours and days ahead? For one thing, we should pause to note just how much time remains on the sequester clock. I've reported more than once that the deadline is midnight tonight, and I've since learned that this is mistaken.
By the way, when do the sequester cuts go into effect? As NBC's Peter Alexander notes, we all know it happens this Friday, March 1. But when exactly does it take place? In simple terms, per Alexander, it doesn't take place until the president signs the sequester order, which must happen any time before 11:59 pm ET on Friday, March 1.
This is important to the extent that President Obama will hold talks with congressional leaders at the White House tomorrow morning, and their discussion will likely precede the literal deadline by a few hours. But since no one seriously believes the six participants -- Obama, Vice President Biden, House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell -- will magically find a solution tomorrow, the question isn't whether the president will sign the sequester order, but rather, what time.
As for why the White House meeting isn't being held today, the president reportedly wants to wait until after the Senate considers its sequester alternatives, and votes are expected in the upper chamber today.
Do these alternatives have a credible shot? I'm glad you asked.
As of last night, there is, for the first time in this Congress, a Republican alternative to the sequester. It's just not very good and it has roughly a 0% chance of becoming law.
Senate Republicans have offered legislation crafted by Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.) as their alternative to the sequester due to take effect Friday.
Some Republicans initially balked at the plan because they thought it gave too much power to President Obama and did not do enough to protect defense programs.
The bill grants the Office of Management and Budget flexibility to implement $85 billion worth of spending cuts scheduled for fiscal year 2013.
This is, of course, the plan we discussed yesterday. It only changes the sequester insofar as it takes away the automatic, across-the-board nature of the cuts -- there would still be $85 billion in cuts, but under the GOP proposal, it would be dependent on the Obama administration to figure out where to make them. Congressional Democrats, not surprisingly, fail to see this as a credible compromise; the White House doesn't want these politically perilous obligations; and many on the right don't like the idea of the legislative branch turning over "power of the purse" to the executive branch for the sake of convenience.
In other words, this will fail. But Senate Democrats have a sequester alternative, too, and it will also reach the floor today.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., proposes to replace the percentage cuts imposed by a provision of the 2011 debt limit agreement with a package of revenue increases and alternative savings. [...]
Reid would replace automatic cuts with a tax increase on people with incomes of more than $1 million, elimination of some direct farm payments and some defense cuts.
Republicans will filibuster the policy, Democrats will not get 60 votes, and by the end of the day, we'll be right where we are now: looking at brutal cuts that are likely to undermine the economy, the military, and public needs.
And what of the House? Speaker Boehner has already said he has no intention of doing any work on this issue, at least not before the deadline.
So, this ridiculous self-inflicted wound is actually going to happen? Almost certainly, yes. So long as Democrats are willing to compromise and Republicans aren't, a bipartisan solution is effectively impossible. If policymakers wanted to give themselves more time by delaying the sequester -- or better yet, just turning the darn thing off -- they could certainly do so, but Republicans have ruled out these options, too.
As for when we might see some kind of remedy emerge, Dylan Matthews argues persuasively that we should watch the government-shutdown deadline on March 27.
On that day, the "continuing resolution" funding the federal government expires. Continuing resolutions, or CRs, are how the federal government funds itself in the absence of a formal budget. They've become the de facto budget for most of Obama's presidency because Congress and the White House haven't been able to agree on an actual budget for years. If the current CR isn't extended before March 27, or replaced with another one, the government will shut down.
So Congress has to pass a new spending bill within a month. But within that crisis lies an opportunity, or a crisitunity if you prefer.
The threat of a shutdown actually forces Congress to act. That means that even if, as appears likely, the sequester is allowed to go into effect, Congress will have to pass a spending bill that either keeps the sequester or does away with it in favor of alternate cuts and revenue increases. The same pressures that have prevented a deal this time around will be present, especially with the White House wanting to increase spending in the CR. But because a shutdown is a much more visible and politically potent crisis than the slow-moving damage of the sequester's cuts, the pressure for a deal will increase considerably.
In the meantime, of course, the damage to the country may be severe.
Leave a Comment:
Who here is old enough to recall Saturday mornings at the Bijoux, where for a quarter you could watch Tom Mix, Pathe News, a cartoon- and this week's segment of Buck Rogers serial?
The serial always ended with the hero in dire straits, his end near. And next week a missing ten seconds was shown- he's not dead, after all! (Until ten minutes later, and his rocket ship explodes. . .) Tune in next week!
TRMS could do a playful rendition of this idea using visuals from the TV Batman series.
The heavily saturated colors and the garish plots paint a much more compelling commentary on the irony you identify.
Flash Gordon comes to mind.
Most people associate that name with Queen. But you mean the B&W cliffhangers with the goofy sparklers in the back of the ships. I remember those too but we old guys have got to come to grips with the fact that most people can't relate to Tom Mix, Flash Gordon or Sgt. Prescott.
So I guess Commando Cody and Jim Hudson are out too?
I suppose Flesh Gordon is also out.
And Polly Purebred is tied to the railroad tracks and the train is coming........
Don't worry, Commando Cody will swoop down with his rocket pack and rescue her, (I hear Underdog is a bit under the weather right now, so he put in a call to his buddy to do the job for him).
Flesh Gordon was a classic, and I saw Commander Cody at the Hollywood Bowl in 1974, he and Maria Muldar opened for the Grateful Dead. We are getting old...
Commando Cody came long before Commander Cody and the Lost Planet Airmen. I think Commando Cody was the inspiration for "The Rocketeer", which was actually a fun movie.
Wow- I thought fossils like me were rarer than apparently is the case.
Ok old guys- any of you notice the similarity of the bounty hunter in the star wars movies to Commander Cody? Same kind of helmet/ rocketpack mysterious guy routine.
Hey Jane, the GOTP plan to save Polly is in! We'll kill Amtrak and Public Trans so the trains don't run over her ! What's that ? She's still tied up ? Lazy welfare momma can't get up off her back, the heck with HER ! (sarcasam)
We didn't write it, but we'll force you to live with it, because it's a bad thing, and we agree with it."
I would say that anything Pat Toomey (R- PA) comes up with in concert with James Inhofe (R-OK) would be something to avoid at all costs.
When is congress going to stop "governing" our country by plunging us from crisis to crisis which they themselves have created? This is madness!
If the GOP's point is to starve the beast and gain inroads on destroying our government, then I would say they are on the right track.
My question is, Why can't anyone stop them?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: “Already, some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one. We need to keep the pressure up to compromise -- not turn off the pressure.” (President Obama, Remarks, 11/21/11)
Um, looks like you are buying the normal pro-Obama spin, Obama created this mess.
Eric: Take a peek at those 2011 bills to replace the sequestor. Those proposals were from the Lindsay Graham/John McCain wing of your party, and they replaced the defense cuts with Medicare/Medicade cuts. If you folks lose old people, nobody will vote for you all...
So I guess the sky isn't going to fall.
Now why is the taxpayer expected to pay millions for the President to travel the country and tell us this story? Gee, doesn't seem very difficult to me to identify where to cut government spending.
Lebowsky dude,
I wouldn't vote for them in any case. They lie constantly. It is so easy to pull up the president's budget for 2013. I linked it up yesterday after a few Republicans insisted he had no budget plan.
Also, let's not forget that Obama has cut the debt nearly in half in his first four years, and has greatly cut spending.
They are masters of deception. No one will vote for them except their rabid T-Party base.
I guess the same folks complaining about Obama's travel costs had no such qualms with Bush and his record-setting vacations, not to mention his two unpaid-for wars, his unpaid-for tax cuts and his unpaid-for Medicare drug benefit. It's all OK...until a democrat, especially a black man, is in office. Then the whining, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments must commence!
I'm so sick of any criticism of this Administration twisted into a racist remark. It's really quite disgusting.
Bush pioneered big buying of a second term with government spending and Obama greatly expanded a few pages from his playbook. White Bush and African American Obama = no difference.
The total disregard and lack of responsibility towards government spending has produced one major loser ..... the American Taxpayer.
If Republican leadership would stop hearing only those voices in their echo chamber, they might realize that not only is this bad for the country (which most of them grudgingly admit), but this is not good for them politically. And let's face it, that's all they really care about anyway.
Weird times, indeed.
If we go into another recession, Republicans will blame the president. I don't think they see this as a loss at all, particularly since they drive up the deficit while in office, then blame the Democrats after they get out of office. Sort of a win win. And if the middle class and minorities have less power by the end of the term, then even better.
I don't see any evidence that Republicans care about the economy at all, which means they care even less about the average taxpayer.
Faux,
Are you saying that the deficits stopped after when the Republicans did not control the Oval office? President Obama has had deficits over $1 Trillion every year he has been in office. I did not like it when Bush did it and I do not like it now. We are still adding $ 1 Trillion to our national debt every year.
Skip: Sounds like you are suggesting Obama has responsibility for the wars he inherited and the structural deficit that came with them. If you were a fair person you would cite Obamas agreement to extend the Bush/Obama Tax Cuts as his deficit contribution. Other than that and the wars, the real driver is Medicare, which nobody but Republican politicians want to get rid of...
So to show you care about taxpayers you want to take more of their money? That's liberal logic for ya.
Hmm... maybe we're talking about different things, but I was under the impression that Obama has reduced the deficit by over a trillion since he's been in office.
My point was that Republicans have grown the deficit significantly when in office - Reagan, both Bush's, while Clinton balanced the budget. Bush 2 add a ton to the deficit, so much so that we should replace the phrase "tax cuts" with "tax cuts that grow the deficit." They have no right to criticize Obama on the deficit.
Talk is cheap, but Republicans have proven that they really don't care about the deficit. All the whining about cuts is designed to do two things: strangle the economy so they will have a better chance in future elections, and strangle the middle class with income redistribution so that we have much less power.
Lebowsky.
Yes I have pointed out that Obama made the "Bush" tax cuts permanent in the past - which is/was the biggest contributor to the deficits.
And Faux,
Not so sure about the amount of deficit reduction by Obama. All I know is the deficits his first 4 years were over $1 Trillion....that's 1000 Billion. I do not care who is/was in office when you run up that amount. It is obscene. Back when he was campaigning for his first term Senator Obama called that kind of deficit spending unpatriotic.
I do agree with you that the Republicans don't care about the deficit. Neither do the Democrats. Many times they (Congress and the POTUS du jour) use the purse strings to get money to their district/state to ensure their jobs (votes).
What the hell does "income redistribution" mean? You make it sound like all of our earnings should be put in a big pot and everyone gets an even share regardless of what each individuals contribution was. Or are you implying that somehow Republicans literally take money from the middle class and give it to the wealthy?
This whole thing reminds me of novel written so badly that the author can not end the story. So it just goes on and on.
Ben Shapiro on the radio this morning declared McConnell called him and promised there would be no deal tomorrow, and that the meeting will last around seven minutes.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/13/politics/obama-congress-budget/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Stop lying, Boehner, that there is no plan from the administration!
What happens if the president doesn't sign the order?
He would then be in violation of the law. What the penalties are and how the law would then be enforced, I have no idea.
All we have to do is ask Bob Woodward. He's the expert on suggesting the President can simply ignore any law he wants in order to demonstrate "leadership".
No, the damage to the rest of us who aren't Repubs in Congress will be severe.
The one problem I have with this post is the position that somehow the government shutdown will provide the necessary catastrophe to get something done. Wasn't the sequester supposed to be just that, wasn't that its entire point. For weeks the media and the GOP and D's have been screaming about how terrible this will be. Now that its hours away it's suddenly "well the reason it's not fixed is because it's a slow moving not so bad issue, but fear not the next catastrophe will be so terrible that the GOP will have to do something about it."
I for one am absolutely sick of this. We shouldn't need economic catastrophe's to govern our country. I'm sure when the shutdown gets hours away and the GOP still refuses to budge on revenue we'll be saying "well this really isn't that bad, government shutdowns have happened before, but fear not the debt ceiling that is coming up will provide the necessary catastrophe and we'll finally get something done." Then when that doesn't work we'll yet again wait for the next catastrophe that will force our policymakers to govern, of course by that point the election will be around the corner so we'll have to wait till 2015.
GOP still refuses to budge on revenue
2 months ago they compromised and let taxes go up on the wealthy, generating $600 Billion in new revenue. This was done to basically delay the sequester from hitting at the end of 2012 with the promise from the Democrats and the President that cuts would come later (which is now). They gave in (compromised) after they stated for months not to raise taxes on anyone. So how is this NOT a compromise by the Republicans?
It's time to start arresting you Confederate traitors, Skippy, and take you in the black helicopters to the concentration camps where you can live out your self-created "martrydom" to your heart's content while the rest of us get along with our lives.
Too bad we can't cut off all the welfare payments to you southern scum.
Again, no real response, just name calling.....expected, and not surprised.
Skip: Was the sequestor part of the fiscal cliff negotiations? You might have a scoop here... The rest of us were under the impression that the end of the Bush/Obama Tax Cuts was that manmade scandal...
@Skip
To reiterate the other posters, you are wrong on this. The "Fiscal Cliff" deal has zero bearing on the 2011 Budget Control Act.
The fiscal cliff deal prevented the automatic, across the board tax hikes signed into law by Bush II and the Republican House and Senate. Some were allowed to go up as planned back in 2002/3, others were kept down.
None of this increase in revenue was allowed to count toward the deficit reduction required by the 2011 Budget Control Act. The act still requires $100+ billion per year in indiscriminate, across the board cuts unless a deficit deal is reached that raises revenue / cuts spending by approximately 900 billion dollars over 9 years.
melopsittacus,
you are correct, it was for the debt ceiling talks. But, my main point still stands (in response to tigerarmy) about the Republicans never compromising on new revenue. Whether it was for the debt ceiling or the sequester, the Republicans DID compromise and let taxes increase on the wealthy (revenue).
And Lebowsy,
The Bush/Obama tax cuts are now permanent for almost all taxpayers. I guess you could call it a manmade scandal. I mean these cuts (now permanent) are still not paid for...yet during Bush's time people wailed about them. What a difference when a different political party endorses them.
Why was Eric's comment above (#8.2) "collapsed by the community"? He is right - TC's comment (to me BTW) was no real response - just name calling. If anything TC's comment should be collapsed. I see a lot of comments here calling people names that never get collapsed, yet Eric just calls out someone for that and HE gets collapsed.
As Eric stated - expected and no surprise here.
Somebody call the waaahmbulance for skippywippy!
Part of the Fiscal Cliff deal was pushing the Sequester back to 1 March to allow the 113rd a shot at a deal to replace it. The Teabaggers still want us to jump off like a herd of lemmings, just to see if it really will hurt. Dang Masochists
Wow, collapsed by the community, I will wear that as a badge of honor. When presented with facts they electronically put their fingers in their ears and scream "not listening". Sad, but again...expected. No wonder with The White House bullying the press, it was only a matter of time before the lemmings follow suit.
We had a election. The people spoke but one side does not listen. Since this self created mess will not stop how about term limits. The failure of long term representation and their efforts to assure they will never leave office , gerrymandering can only be countered by one six year term for senators and two two year terms for congress. Like the President they were not meant to be permanent but we have seen how this has not worked. Is 200 years of history not enough??
Let those who oppose the current occupant of the White house vote for his policies. The risk is they might work. A paradigm shift , changing who has the power would be healthy for the country. Congress is beholden to its corporate masters and donors. Here is a novel idea lets try democracy for a change!!
If you look at California, term limits makes things worse, since it gives the power to the permanent apparatchiks who know where the bathrooms are - the lobbyists.
If you want to exercise real term limits, go vote.
As I said yesterday, nothing's automatic. Higher-ups in each government agency will still have to decide where and how to apply their cuts, and implement them. If Federal employees are to be furloughed, notices must be sent them 30 days ahead of time.
Which Federal employees have already received furlough notices? Are any of those furloughs scheduled to take effect before the end of March? (The only furlough notices I've heard about don't take effect until April.) What is the state of planning for the sequester in the various government agencies? What cuts have been planned in sufficient detail that they can be implemented during March? (If there's been any planning at all in the agency where I work, they've been completely silent about it.)
If the sequester deadline comes and goes, next Monday will look pretty much the same across the government as this past Monday did.
Will it?
Not according to our bosses in the DoD. They're gonna start with people, furloughing people, not halting training, or put off buying equipment, or say no more trips for the big wigs to fly around and pep-talk the troops...but the people, those who are doing the work, and relying on paychecks for child care, gas, food, mortgages, and getting that elevator installed in house number 7.
Snark on the elevator.
Because hurting the people keeps them fearful and unsettled and looking for someone to blame, which the conscienceless Republicans will happily provide. We are being punished for daring to reelect Obama against the wishes of those who wanted one of their own guys in the Oval office so the 1% can make more money on top of what they already have.
The Republicans are engaging in "disaster Capitalism" with this sequester. They use crises to further their agenda.
Bush used this after 9/11 to get us into the Iraq war. They used it after Katrina to put in voucher schools and get rid of the public school system in New Orleans. They've been doing this a long time and are getting away with it.
It needs to end.
Forget the Sequester; It's the Infrastructure, Stupid!
John Maynard Keynes encouraged deficit spending during bad
economic times but people and their governments tend to forget that he also
advised governments to build up surpluses during the good times. There is
plenty of evidence that holding back government spending during a depression
only prolongs it. Franklin Roosevelt tried it in 1937 and his recovery sagged
until World War II took the matter out of his hands. Bill Clinton, whether
under pressure from Keynesian theory or the Republicans, did move toward
balancing the budget during his second term but, based on the perceived wisdom
of Bush, the younger, that wars were good and deficits didn't matter, the
country never got around to building up a surplus for the next recession.
Keynes has probably got tired of rolling over in his grave but he would wonder
why we didn't fix our infrastructure when things are cheap and put some money
away for the future when times were good.
Obama say--Bill Clinton wanted to build a new bridge to the 21st century. I just wantto fix the bridges we got. (obamasay.com)
The "sequester alternative" will be dead before it hits the floor.
Republicans will filibuster the policy, Democrats will not get 60 votes...
Reid sat around playing with dates as to the first day of the new congress and wilted before his party trying to get filibuster reform passed. He has condemned the nation to months of governance by crisis. Stand up and take a bow Harry!
lay down Sally,#12
I'm trying to think up an appropriate reward for Harry Reid's cowardice on the filibuster, but I can't get passed a few days tied down over an anthill. LOL
You know... frankly, I'm just fed up with all of this brinksmanship. I'm tired of even having to think about each new manufactured financial crisis. I go to work every day, do my job, contribute to the well-being of my family, put something away for the future... why can't the pol-heads in Washington do the same thing? Just do your job damnit! and let me worry about making my mortgage payment and putting food on the table. Why do I even have to worry about what you as an elected representative should be dealing with.
For an administration that constantly says to the effect...this is what the people want...they seem to ignore things like 3 out of 4 believe half of the stimulus money was wasted and most think 50 cents out of every dollar the federal government spends is wasted as well....more cuts is what the people want.
Rob: Stimulus spending is bad when a Democrat holds the White House, but great enough for Paul Ryan to unambiguously tout when Bush was in office. Thats why you folks have no credibility with people interested in facts. You tout a 2010 poll which is another irony. You people completely owned the narrative and momentum then, and your actions completely squandered that good will...
Let's just use drones for everything and retire the rest of the military. Ol' Leon Pancetta would eat a whole cobb salad for that.
So because of the sequester, and a multitude of other idiotic political posturing I came up with this: it's mostly a symbolic gesture, true, but I think it's something people can get behind regardless of political ideology-
If you hired some guy to come mow your lawn, and all he did was weed eat a little around the edges,
take a dump in your flower bed, and leave beer cans crushed in your lengthening grass,
all while offering idiotic excuses as to why he couldn't show up again today-
would you Pay him?
Hell no.
So Why are we paying Congress?
I say we all petition the treasury department to withhold payment to all senators and congressmen until they start doing their job- in the name of We The Fed Up People. who's with me?
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-people-demand-congress-not-get-paid-until-they-do-their-job/QWP8Y9nk
Ryan: I'm out. Your analogy is laughable and contrived, and your idea that this is somehow bipartisan is specious.
considering that analogy actually happened to a lady I know, it's not so contrived (though I will admit a certain level of tongue in cheek humor at using it so), and though usually not so extreme, getting screwed over by a shady lawnmower man is something many people understand. It's the same way I feel about the dealings of Congress since the Clinton era.
The whole of Congress seems more concerned with making each other look bad than actually getting down to the business of running the country. That's what Really drives me nuts- they won't even vote for ideas they Support if it happened to be put forth from the "other side", and they spin every little thing that happens into mudballs to hurl at their opponents- even when there's nothing to them.
This pointless junior high BS needs to stop.
I understand if they have a Valid opposing point of view- yes of course, they must represent their constituency, and stand for what they believe is right- We all should- but there are too many Real and Serious issues not being dealt with while they (both sides) play at pointless political wrangling, and that is a detriment to us all.
Not paying them was the only thing I could come up with that might work.
And btw, what's not bipartisan about trying to get these people to do their job?... Oh, Wait... I may have spotted it.
Ryan: Your anecdotal analogy might have meaning if the guy mowing the lawn was two guys, and one of the two guys refused to accept known fact as fact. To pretend there is gridlock because of both sides behavior and actions is absurd. One side wants to try and make things better, and the other side is a coilition of rich people and their minions who want to obstruct...
true, and I do agree- but what else are we to do? The obstructionist side won't listen to reason, and their publicly stated political strategy is an affront and, frankly, a danger to the base functioning of our government and in my opinion, bordering on tyranny.
I can't exactly bust up into congress with a big stick and teach them through 1800's style Arkansan politics about the error of their ways. Poking them in the pocketbook, symbolically and across the board via petition, and writing letters to my representatives (which I do) is the only legal recourse I can think of.
And the analogy, though silly, I feel from a psychological perspective is more likely to garner widespread support from the Culture of Ignorance than dry rhetoric and reasoned argument. -perhaps it's not the right way to go, but I'm just some guy, trying to do Something to fix this...Idiocy.
Oh yeah, Reid has a great plan. Not. Let's jeopardize our food supply by stopping ag payments. Do you want to pay more for food? Check out the Ag budget and you will find it is made mostly of food stamps, and so called "rich" farmers are already excluded from any type of payments. Hit the farmers with lack of payments on top of the several year drought and see what happens to food prices. A better option would be to rid the entitlement programs of waste and fraud and save billions. How about that for an idea? And the taxes have already gone up on the "rich". Are they supposed to take it in the shorts again? A couple of months after 1 tax hike is already in place? What a plan!
You will find more waste, fraud and corruption in any decent-sized defense program than in all entitlement programs combined. I'm sure there is none of that in the F-35 program, where $369 billion spent so far has yet to yield a single operational aircraft, and where every one of the few existing ones is grounded due to engine cracks that could cause the plane to explode in mid-air, right?
OK Jes, I'll bite. Name one single "entitlement" form of "fraud" that the Republicans will honestly identify and take action on. My historical perspective tell me that every legit attempt at tweaking Medicare has been met with fearmongering and lies. The Medicare savings in the ACA were demmagogued and lied about even though Ryan included them in his Budget, and the IMPB gets the same dishonest treatment. You folks have no ideas, you just try to play out the clock while the rich get richer...
I still don't see where the dems are the ones compromising. They got their tax hikes and continue to want more. They insist on revenue only. Where are the cuts to spending? They only want more taxes and work under the guise of a "balanced approach" So far the balance is tilted only their way. All tax hikes, No cuts and no intentions of cuts. Balanced? I think not.
I'll ask again, as I ask of all repubs: what cuts do you want to make? That seems to be a question that John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, Mitt Romney and every other repub seems totally unable or unwilling to answer. The concept is exceedingly simple, and as old as time: if you want something, you have to ask for it, not just whine and hope you get it. By the way, dems are NOT insisting on revenue only, and that has been the case all along for the sequester. Dems have said what revenues they want and where to get them. It is time for repubs to do the same, and say how much in cuts they want, and where to get them.
And the "sequesterbation" continues.
it doesn't take place until the president signs the sequester order, which must happen any time before 11:59 pm ET on Friday, March 1.
So what happens if he does not sign?
Impeachment?
How long would those hearings take? (How much time could this buy us until Congress is forced to do something?)
What are the chances of 2/3 of the Senate voting for impeachment?
What if he still does not sign?
Re-impeachment?
there is one aspect of the seq that i adore. it reduces military spending!! this result has been politically impossible for decades. let's stop the insane continuation of the Afgan war, reduce our men/women in arms and redirect the spending to infastructure. put more people to work building rather than continuing failed destruction.
to refuse to redirect some (25%) military spending to infastructure is like traveling in a car going the wrong direction and refusing to turn around because you're making such good time!!
when pres Reagan ramped up martial spending and watched the USSR crumble trying to keep up that was just part 1 of the plan; part two was to lower our continuing martial spending to a better, more affordable level. greedy hawks and companies like haliburton have trumped up threats and started wars to justify and maintain these absurly high levels of martial spending