Sandi wrote:Now he wants to move the goal posts on HIS idea, by offsetting the sequester cuts with taxes in the form of tax reform. I am all for tax reform, but that is for another bill, this one has already been signed and gone into effect.
No, he wants to replace
the sequester with something better. That was the whole point
- the sequester should be so godawfulstupid that both sides would be forced to come up with something better.
But that hasn't happened.
And its worth noting that in the year and a half since the both sides agreed to the sequester deal, there was a prolonged debate that I would frame as the benefits of maintaining gross income inequality. One side decisively won that debate. So it shouldn't be too surprising that the winning side wants to set the terms of the deal to replace the sequester.