In theory, the 2013 sequestration "decision" was designed to be so devastating that it would force upon congress a deficit reduction agreement. So why didn't it work? If you can follow the logic of the theory, the answer is clear: the requirements of the plan were not equally debilitating to both parties. Nearly all of the Democrat-advocated spending would be crippled, while the only republican-endorsed spending was military. Although the defense budget would face a larger percentage of cuts, according to NPR's Pentagon correspondent, Tom Bowman, the US military would remain the strongest military in the world--even if its budget was cut by $500 billion over the next 10 years. So essentially, the sequestration was the ultimate boon to the Republican agenda. Indeed, allowing the sequestration measures to take effect imposes no costs on Republicans and therefore provides no impetus for them to work with Democrats to create a balanced plan. However, their hard and uncompromising stance on an issue with such devastating consequences for so many Americans may not come without political costs.
But Republicans deny the duplicity of their (in)actions against ninety-eight percent of US citizens, claiming that they met their obligations to increase revenue back in January. They assert that the revenue discussion is over and that the bulk of deficit reduction must consist of spending cuts. In fact their obligations are not met--even according to their own standards, namely closing tax loopholes. But even if those loopholes were closed, this hardly makes up for the trillion dollars in tax revenue that the proposed tax increases would generate. Conservatives argue that any increases on taxes forces disproportionate financial burden onto the wealthy--or as they refer to them, the "job creators". This financial notion of burden is a farce. When we discuss dignity or unity or respect, we are not talking about a dollar balance in the bank. We're talking about the quality of life people can enjoy or not enjoy. And by these standards, the poor already shoulder a tremendous amount of the burden for deficit reduction, and republican propositions will only add to it. Meanwhile, their claims that reducing taxes on the wealthy will boost the economy by creating jobs has been empirically shown to be false. The real results of these cuts are a manufactured liquidity trap that not only allows the wealthy to keep wealth they don't need, but profit off the poverty of those in the labor market, who are forced to work at whatever wage with no leverage to improve it.
So what can be learned about the Republican agenda from their stance on the sequester? If they believe that military spending is essential to protecting national security--and with a budget as bloated as it is, this is nothing if not illogical--they are willing to sacrifice that security to protect the economic interests of the wealthiest among us--those needing protection the least. Republicans pride themselves on their "hawkish" approach to national security, but their hawkishness is really devoted to protection of their own wealth and the wealth of those willing to bankroll their campaigns. In effect, in their ambivalence towards sequestration , Republicans expose themselves not as national security "hawks" but as economic vultures.
