It's hard to see how it's coherent for Republicans to claim the sequester as a big victory even as they decry its impact and acknowledge it needs to be replaced.
Not even the ardently anti-government-spending Congresswoman likes the sequester.
Headlines from around the country show that the sequester is genuinely beginning to take a toll.
Which is worse -- extended sequestration, or a grand bargain that cuts entitlement benefits? Progressives may soon have to answer that question.
Top Republican leaders admit that there is no ratio of entitlement cuts of their own choosing to new revenues they are willing to accept. Clear now?
When Republicans say they're "skeptical" that Obama's outreach to them is "genuine," what they really mean is that they want the President to be the one who proposes deep entitlement cuts, so that he owns them.
A new poll finds that solid majorities reject every main conservative argument about the sequester -- which casts doubt on the notion that Republicans are "winning" the argument over it.
Liberal Democrats are insisting that a grand bargain is a nonstarter. But what if the choices are narrowed down to just a deal or indefinite sequestration? How should liberals proceed?
A new poll shows yet again that Americans say they love cutting government spending in the abstract, but oppose it for programs they like. That's the context in which the sequester fight is unfolding.
Real people around the country are beginning to tune into the possibility that these spending cuts could do real damage to their communities and to the country's economic recovery.