Skip to footer

Four reasons Republicans are embracing the 'sequester'

Republicans, it is clear, are conflicted on the "sequester." How did they come to embrace it? Here are four reasons.

2. Bullying the bully pulpit

J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Sen. John Cornyn (R) of Texas (l.) finishes remarks to reporters Tuesday on Capitol Hill about the looming automatic spending cuts.

  • By David Grant Staff writer

After President Obama whipped their presidential nominee, gained seats in both chambers of Congress, and stuffed a tax hike down their throats during the fiscal cliff, congressional Republicans see the sequester as a way to take some wind out of a confident president’s sails.

Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R) of California encapsulated the GOP’s critique of the president succinctly on Tuesday, arguing that it's the president whose done nothing about the sequester for more than a year and then suggesting that Mr. Obama's current series of speeches on the sequester are all about partisanship.

“Now as the time looms the President does exactly what he continues to do – a road show,” Congressman McCarthy as the president flew to Newport News, Va., to make his case for plugging the sequester with a mix of cuts and higher taxes. 

In short, the sequester is a tool to bedevil the president in many ways, but perhaps the most importantly, to even the score.

“The president got his pound of flesh in the fiscal cliff negotiation, $600 billion in additional taxes over 10 years,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R) of Texas on Tuesday. “Now it's time for the balance part of that equation, which means we need to rein in federal spending.”

2 of 4
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.