Yesterday, Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) Co-Chairs Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) released an amendment to the rules committee to “repeal the sequester.” While the real-world chances of this particular amendment are anyone’s guess, it’s obvious the sequester faces a dubious future.
As you know, the Budget Control Act and sequestration were among the most controversial measures in recent history — and also perhaps the most effective method we’ve seen for reducing discretionary spending in quite some time.
As you know, when the supercommittee failed to find spending cuts, sequester hit — a series of across-the-board cuts and slightly lower spending caps for future years. And if Congress doesn’t stay below the BCA spending levels in future years, sequester will be imposed again.
The Ryan-Murray agreement provided temporary “relief” for those caps, suspending them in favor of some reforms on the mandatory side. But what happens after Ryan-Murray? While no one would argue sequestration is a perfect mechanism, and very few politicians like the caps, getting rid of them just might prove more politically complicated than keeping them.
Many US defense insiders are hoping for another federal budget deal that again eases military spending limits, but crafting a deal will resemble a political Rubik’s Cube.
And, in a potential blow to the Defense Department’s constant quest for more dollars, a key player is signalling support for leaving all spending caps as-is.
Read the rest here.
Whether the caps and enforcement arm of the Budget Control Act stay in place, are ignored, or are repealed entirely, depends on whether you and I keep pressure on Congress and remind them that we need accountability now more than ever. Politicians hate accountability for a reason. Let’s make sure they don’t quietly get rid of it.