It's come up in discussions a couple of times here in NoVA, but not a lot in the news. Is it going to be skirted? Are the elections just too important before it can possibly be assessed?

Personally, I'm all for it.

It will be skirted. No way either side lets those cuts go in.

(09-07-2012 09:01 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  It will be skirted. No way either side lets those cuts go in.

I attended a State Bar tax seminar a few weeks back, at which the pre-luncheon speaker was a DC tax lobbyist who comes down every couple of years to give us his perspective, and I ended up talking through lunch with him.

He is optimistic that after the election is over, the political posturing will stop long enough to get something done. He says that privately everyone on both sides of the aisle is absolutely scared spitless about the possibility of sequestration, but nobody on either side is willing to go on the record at this point. He sees Baucus and Coburn as probably the keys to getting a deal done. He sees no leadership at the top of either party--not Reid, not Boehner, not Pelosi, not Obama, not McConnell. He thinks Durbin is a more reasonable player than I do. So if a solution comes, it will have to come up from the rank and file instead of being led by the top.

What he expects to happen is some sort of interim measure in the lame duck session, maybe a few tweaks and pushing midnight back 90 days or so on the sequestration thing. One casualty that he expects to go is the interest deduction for the second home; both sides see that as something without a lot of political baggage, but there's not a lot of money there. If Baucus and Coburn can run the show, he thinks we could get pretty close to Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin. There are enough rank-and-file on both sides of the aisle to do a deal based on one or the other, or some amalgam of both, but only if Reid and Pelosi and Obama and Boehner and McConnell stay out of the fray until it's a done deal.

Bottom line--There are reasonable, sensible people in DC, it's just that none of them are in positions of leadership. There is a very real fear that the leaders will sabotage anything useful for political gain; at some point, the followers may bolt on the leaders. I thought it was a very interesting insight into how things do or do not get done in Washington.

They'll just vote to delay it and nothing will get done.

(09-07-2012 09:01 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  It will be skirted. No way either side lets those cuts go in.

(09-07-2012 09:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  after the election is over, the political posturing will stop long enough to get something done.

I am much less optimistic than Ninerfan or the tax-lobbyist guy that Owl spoke with. I think the losers in November will be in a foul, vindictive mood, and unwilling to "help" fix anything.

The 2004 elections resulted in a second term for Bush/Cheney, plus a 55-45 GOP Senate majority and a 234-201 GOP House majority. Senator McConnell has told of how after that election, he privately approached a few "serious" Democrats to gauge their support for addressing entitlement reform and the larger issue of national debt. The overall Democrat reaction, in so many words: "You've got the Congress, the Senate, and the White House. You solve this problem."

I think you could very well see a similar dynamic among the losing party (whether it's R or D) after November 6.

Quote:He thinks Durbin is a more reasonable player than I do.

Durbin is the absolute epitome of a man who puts partisan loyalty ahead of national loyalty. With the possible exception of Harry Reid, I don't think there is anyone within the Democrat leadership -- not Schumer, not Obama, not Pelosi, etc. -- I would trust less in a negotiation like this. If he is at the table, that is a sign the Democrats are not really interested in getting a deal.

Quote:some sort of interim measure in the lame duck session, maybe a few tweaks and pushing midnight back 90 days or so on the sequestration thing.

I admit that's possible.

Quote:If Baucus and Coburn can run the show, he thinks we could get pretty close to Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin.

That would mark a sea-change in attitudes among Democrats, especially liberal Democrats. Not saying it will never, ever, ever happen. But up until now there's been nothing beyond lip-service that they are willing to go along with that.

Quote:There is a very real fear that the leaders will sabotage anything useful for political gain; at some point, the followers may bolt on the leaders.

When has the Democrat caucus (House or Senate) ever undermined its own leadership? The only example I can think of is the 2002 debate on the resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. Gephardt and Daschle (then-Democrat Leader in the House and Senate) were in favor, but Democrats voted 126-81 against in the House and 29-22 in favor in the Senate (House Dems more likely to represent left-wing constituencies). But even that example is flawed for the Sequestration issue, because the "bolt" on use-of-force was not towards bipartisanship but away from it.

My posts were deleted. :(

I don't see anything getting done in a lame duck session. So some things might have to go into effect. I don't see anyone cooperating any better after the election. Logjam till Romney takes over.