Dueling editorials show difficulties with sequestration fix
Published: June 25, 2012
WASHINGTON — The two top lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee this weekend offered their takes on how to avoid the looming defense budget cuts in a pair of editorials in Politico.
Both agree the cuts must be avoided. Beyond that, there doesn’t appear to be much compromise.
In his piece, committee chairman Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., wrote that his party’s leaders have offered “multiple solutions” to avoid sequestration cuts, only to be rebuffed by Democratic leaders.
“It’s deeply discouraging that the president’s senior officials are unwilling to discuss process and consequences,” he wrote. “What does their reluctance portend for the prospect of a deal? Now is the time to stop posturing and start working.”
But the committee’s ranking member, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., wrote that Republicans aren’t negotiating in good faith, and that no serious negotiations can start until they are willing to offer real compromise.
“With our national security and economic well-being at stake, it’s my hope the Republican Party will begin to understand the solution to this problem is simple: Put revenue options on the table and find the $1.2 trillion in savings mandated by the BCA, rather than standing by and allowing the devastating cuts to take place,” he wrote.
It’s the same basic fight that derailed the supercommittee’s deficit reduction negotiations last fall, which lead to the sequestration cuts being triggered. Seven months later, leaders from both parties say the situation is dire but haven’t moved past that first hurdle.
Last week, McKeon said there is one other possible solution to the impasse: Amend the law to delay the cuts, then take up the issue again next year. Then, if the balance of power has shifted in Congress, maybe a solution can be reached more easily.
