Sunday, May 19, 2013, was one of the saddest and most notorious moments in the sordid history of the federal budget.

Let’s start from the beginning.

It’s December 2012 and House Republicans are facing a number of politically very difficult and unpalatable choices because taxes will go up automatically on January 1, the sequester will go into effect on January 2 and the by-now- commonplace-but-still-called “extraordinary” measures the Treasury has been using for several months to deal with the problems caused by not raising the debt ceiling are about to be exhausted.

The tax problem was dealt with by agreeing to a smaller increase than was set to happen under current law and then blaming the White House for it. The sequester was postponed until March 1 when both the GOP and the administration thought that the threat of cuts to domestic and military programs, respectively, would cause the other to back down.

But it was the unique and disgraceful way the debt ceiling was handled that deserves the scorn.

In theory, with more exotic options like the trillion dollar coin and 14th amendment rejected by the White House, the only two choices facing Congress at that moment were to vote to increase the debt ceiling so the federal government could borrow the cash it needed to keep operating, or not to raise the borrowing limit and force Washington to default on some of its obligations. It was a very clear pass/fail, true/false, black/white choice.

This presented the House GOP with two very difficult choices. Voting against the debt ceiling hike was becoming increasing untenable as Wall Street and corporate America made it clear that was not an appropriate alternative from a financial perspective. But voting for the debt ceiling increase was a total nonstarter for the tea party wing of the GOP, which since it first came to prominence in 2010 had made debt ceiling votes one of its biggest political litmus tests.

The GOP’s solution to this dilemma was disgraceful. Instead of taking a political bullet and voting either for or against the debt ceiling, it came up with a scheme that allowed them to do neither. Rather than actually increase the debt ceiling and incur the wrath of their base, House Republicans brought a bill to the floor that required the federal debt ceiling to be iGNORED, that is, the Treasury could borrow whatever amounts it needed to cover its cash needs without any restrictions.

Then on May 19, without an additional vote and, therefore, with no member of the House or Senate having to go on record, the official federal debt ceiling would be raised to the amount the government had actually borrowed over the previous four-plus months. At that point, with the debt ceiling reached, the Treasury again would start to impose the so-called extraordinary measures and the countdown to the next debt ceiling crisis would begin.

At best, the federal debt ceiling is an anachronism, a vestigial organ of the federal budget process that should be eliminated. The actual borrowing needs are determined when legislation is enacted that changes either the amount the government spends or raises in revenues. Increases in the debt ceiling should be part of those bills rather than separate decisions and no member of Congress should be able to vote for a tax cut or spending increase unless he or she agrees at the same time to raise the debt ceiling to accommodate that choice.

But unless and until members of Congress and the White House have to face their constituents for agreeing to eliminate the debt ceiling, they should not be able to allow it to be ignored without taking responsibility for their actions.

The ultimate irony here is that congressional Republicans have been complaining about Senate Democrats not producing a budget between 2009 and 2012. That’s certainly true; Senate Democrats found the votes in favor of a congressional budget resolution with high deficits very politically difficult and decided that the better course of action was to ignore the requirement.

But now the same people on Capital Hill who relentlessly have castigated Democrats for ignoring their budget resolution responsibilities are the ones that authored the completely analogous procedure for the federal debt ceiling.

That makes May 19, 2013, one of the most egregious abrogations of legislative responsibility in U.S. history.

Originally posted at Capital Gains and Games.

There was a time when a $200+ billion reduction in the federal budget deficit would have been big news and hailed as a singular achievement worthy of either fiscal sainthood or a dance-on-the-table party…or both.

Yet yesterday’s Congressional Budget Office report showing that the fiscal 2013 federal deficit will be $642 billion, $203 billion less than CBO’s previous estimate of $845 billion, did not create any spontaneous cannonizations or celebrations. It also didn’t change the still-stalemated and crisis-oriented federal budget debate by even a small amount.

The bottomline: It’s in almost no one’s interest to be happy about the budget news that should have made everyone happier.

Here’s why.

1. The $642 billion estimate is indeed an overwhelming reduction from the 2009 $1.4 deficit and a substantial change from CBO’s February projection. But it is also $642 billion more than no deficit at all. That means that all sides in the budget debate will still be able to use even this much lower number to “prove” whatever point they were making before the new estimate was released.

2. The White House couldn’t take a victory lap because anything it said would have been mischaracterized by congressional Republicans as the president supporting a $600+ billion deficit.

3. Even though they could take some credit for keeping the sequester in place and, therefore, lowering spending, the congressional Republican leadership couldn’t take a victory lap because that would have been taken by some tea partiers as an indication that the speaker and majority leader were not going to demand additional reductions.

4. There’s anything but universal agreement among economists that reducing the deficit in the current economic environment is the right fiscal policy and, therefore, that the reduction in the deficit is good news. Given the still-slow corporate and consumer spending, the continuing cutbacks by state and local governments and the continuing economic problems around the word that are limiting trade with the U.S., Americas austerity-like fiscal policy that has been in place for several years may well be the exact wrong plan at this time.

5. The year-by-year deficit is quickly being replaced by the national debt as the number one fiscal issue. This isn’t surprising: the deficit is falling while the debt is rising and the deficit is in billions while the debt is in trillions. The fact that CBO projects the debt will soon be in a range that most economists would call insignificant makes no difference when the multi-trillion dollar debt sounds so scary.

6. In the wake of the report, the deficit hawk groups are still saying that the deficit is as much of a problem as it was before and pushing for a grand bargain. This too isn’t a surprise. After all, these groups would have less reason for being and far less ability to raise funds if the deficit didn’t exist as an issue.

7. Although the CBO forecasts show the deficit falling from 2013 to 2015, it also shows it rising in nominal terms each year thereafter. Even though that is far less meaningful than the deficit as a percent of GDP, which stays in the low 3.5 percent range, it still allows everyone to cherry-pick the results that best “prove” what they want to say.

So…Do the new CBO numbers mean that there won’t be a fight this fall over the debt ceiling and a continuing resolution? Absolutely not.

Originally published at Capital Gains and Games.

Earlier this week, I noted that the Republican plan to take the debt limit hostage to demand unspecified tax reform at a future date was too ridiculous to be believed.

But that battle plan looks like the Invasion of Normandy compared to the latest Keystone Kops scheme the Republicans floated to Politico today: hold the debt limit hostage for the “kitchen sink” full of “conservative goodies.”

The plan is simple: craft a debt ceiling hike onto a bill loaded with tons of conservative goodies to put lots of options on the table to garner 218 GOP votes.

Options being floated internally include language approving the Keystone XL pipeline, slashing regulations with the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act and additional spending cuts — perhaps even a framework for tax reform.

To make it even more attractive to voters back home, they’d frame it as a so-called job-creation bill. Basically, anything they could say creates jobs has a chance of landing in this legislative package.

There’s also real effort from the right — supported by leadership — to forestall Obama’s health care law in the fight to lift the debt ceiling.

To call this absurd would be an insult to Absurdists.

For Republicans to actually hold the debit limit hostage, threatening the stability of the entire global economy, for a slapdash wingnut wish list that has nothing to do with debt is the political equivalent of suicide by cop — an entire party running out of the house, waving weapons frantically in the air, racing into throng of armed voters in hopes of being blissfully annihilated, ending the pain and misery of actually having to govern, then buried in an unmarked grave next to the Whigs.

To repeat myself from Monday, this is so unbelievable, I don’t believe it.

Once again, we have a party leadership that deep down understands that more debt limit chicken is no path to regaining majority status (remember the Republicans temporarily suspended the debt limit in February, for fear of taking the blame for economic disaster). Yet the leadership is still stuck with a rank-and-file detached from political and policy reality, and needs to posture for as long as possible to avoid primary challenges.

Republicans are too afraid to force a real showdown over what they were claiming threatens American’s fiscal stability — Social Security and Medicare. And Republicans are too afraid to tell their right-wing base voters that we have to increase the debt limit to pay the bills Congress has already spent the money on. So they are scurrying around to come up with something, anything, to serve as a ransom.

But the public lurching from one proposed ransom to the next exposes the pathetic state of the Republican Party, incapable of unifying around a reasonable position. Politico describes the division:

The approach of slapping a number of conservative ideas together represents one pole — the other approach is embodied in what Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) is pushing toward. Camp, with the tacit support of Ryan, has been advocating tying tax reform to the debt ceiling — an approach that has drawn skeptics and supporters in GOP leadership. Conservatives are skeptical of that as well.

The last time Republicans were this divided, it was during the fiscal cliff talks. They caved then, too.

According to the Washington Post and Politico, GOP leaders are laying the groundwork to refuse any debt limit increase this year, reneging on debt payments mandated by Congress, shredding the full faith and credit of the American government, thereby plunging the global economy into the abyss, unless Washington … does some sort of unspecified revenue-neutral corporate tax reform at a future date.

Go ahead. Read that again if you wish. Try to make sense of it. You can’t.

There was at least superficial, if deeply flawed, logic regarading past Republican threats to take the debt limit hostage. If you think America is on the verge of becoming Greece, then it makes some sense for Republicans to say: we’re already on the verge of a debt crisis, so there’s no risk in threatening to expedite that crisis by pressuring Congress and the President to support budget cuts that would avert the crisis.

But to take the debt limit hostage and risk the stability of the global economy to demand something that wouldn’t cut the debt, isn’t otherwise urgently needed and isn’t being pushed by the public … is ludicrous.

New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait mocked Republicans for giving up their prior demand to cut Social Security and Medicare and replacing it with something revenue-neutral: “If obtaining retirement cuts went from so urgent it was worth threatening to nuke the world economy over to ‘meh,’ the next step is to figure out the next thing to nuke the world economy over … So House Republicans are prepared to refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless Democrats agree to let them cut tax rates without increasing revenue. Their extraordinary threat, first presented as a way to force a reduction in the deficit, is now being wielded to prevent a reduction in the deficit.”

Chait deems this strategy the “gotta nuke something” philosophy of Nelson from “The Simpsons.” The Washington Post’s Jonathan Bernstein characterizes it as “extortion for extortion’s sake” because they don’t have any actual fleshed out policy ideas to pursue.

It’s unbelievable. By which I mean, I don’t believe it.

As the Washington Post originally noted, Republicans don’t want to go to mat over Social Security and Medicare because “some Republicans fear that embracing them would be political suicide.”

Chastened Republicans have been afraid of political suicide all year, prompting them to repeatedly back down from their knee-jerk threats.

In January, they flinched at the edge of the “fiscal cliff,” accepting tax increases on the top 2% for the first time since 1990. Why? Because gridlock would mean taking the blame for automatic tax increases on every taxpayer, including middle-class voters.

In February, they flinched at attaching any conditions to increasing the debt limit. Why? Because gridlock would mean taking the blame for a global economic meltdown that would condemn the party to the historical dust bin alongside the Whigs.

Granted, Republicans held the line on sequester. But as bad as the sequester is, its impact is far more diffuse and uneven than what the cliff and the debt limit would have unleashed. Sequester was the low-hanging fruit of obstruction.

But there is no reason to think Republicans are suddenly more eager to play debt limit chicken than they were three months ago. The fact that they have buried their Social Security and Medicare threat is further proof.

The switch to tax reform is most likely a desperate attempt to save face with the Tea Party right while tacitly admitting there is no alternative to raising the debt limit.

Politico reports that the not-yet-final Republican debt limit proposal would work as follows: “Legislation would authorize something like a three-month bump in the debt limit while simultaneously giving the same amount of time for the House to act on its tax-reform plan. When the House passes something, the debt limit would bet increased again, and when the Senate moves its own tax-reform product, Congress would authorize another bump in the debt ceiling. A larger increase in the borrowing limit could come if President Barack Obama signs the legislation…”

In other words, there would be three increases to the debt limit without the two parties having to agree on anything!

As the current debt limit is not expected to be reached until this fall, that timeline could well get them past the midterm elections.

This is a clear ratcheting down of the debt limit threat. Yet Republicans want to sell this to their detached-from-reality base as playing hardball.

But Politico suggests this won’t fly: “…Chris Chocola, the president of Club for Growth, said he’s concerned that the GOP has given up leverage by publicly saying that they won’t let the nation plunge into default. ‘That’s Obama and Democrats’ expectation: that they aren’t willing to breach it, so they don’t have to worry about it,’ he said.”

Republican leaders have not only previously said as much, they showed their cards in February.

You can take your yellow ribbons off the oak tree. There will be no hostages.

MORNING MESSAGE: Sequester Cuts Are Dumb, Education Cuts Are Dumber

OurFuture.org’s Jeff Bryant: “Unfortunately, cuts to essential funds for educating our children aren’t limited to the dreaded sequester. The assault on spending is pervasive in all aspects of education budgeting at every level of government. Even worse, spending cuts are aimed at the very areas where we should be investing the most. If you’re of the opinion that ‘money doesn’t matter’ in relation to the quality of education, then you’re horribly misinformed. Indeed, anyone advocating for better education in America should put the funding cuts at the top of their list of policy mandates to protest against.”

Rubio Pushes Immigration Reform To The Right

Sen. Marco Rubio suggests immigration bill must be more conservative to clear House. CNN: “‘The bill that’s in place right now probably can’t pass the House,’ the junior senator from Florida said on Mike Gallagher’s conservative radio show. ‘It will have to be adjusted, because people are very suspicious about the willingness of the government to enforce the laws now.’”

House bill may include “self-deport” provision. Roll Call: “…illegal immigrants who wanted to forgo the payment of back taxes and fines would first have to identify as undocumented with federal authorities, probably within six months of the new immigration law going into effect. They would have another six months to leave the country, after which they could get in line…”

Gay married couples not covered in Senate bill. NYT: “‘There’s a reason this language wasn’t included in the Gang of Eight’s bill: It’s a deal-breaker for most Republicans,’ Senator [Jeff] Flake said … [GOP Sen. Susan Collins] and Senate Democrats are looking to [Senate Judiciary Cmte Chair Pat] Leahy to decide whether to attach that measure as an amendment to the larger bill. He has not yet tipped his hand.”

Immigration advocates prepare to beat back conservative changes to Senate bill. The Hill: “The changes that Rubio’s conservative allies want — including tighter border security triggers and more restrictions on a path to citizenship — are opposed by liberal immigration advocates who say the hurdles for illegal immigrants in the Senate bill are already too onerous.”

Obama Moves To Replace DeMarco

Obama to nominate Rep. Mel Watt to replace FHFA’s Ed DeMarco. HuffPost: “[Watt] perhaps is best known for trying to stamp out predatory lending. He’s also championed access to home loans for low-income borrowers and those with spotty credit … DeMarco has been vilified by some members of Congress, liberal groups and state attorneys general for a variety of alleged sins, most notably his continued refusal to allow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to forgive distressed borrowers’ housing debts … Watt may face an uphill climb to confirmation due to potential Republican opposition.”

Wall Street fighting regulators over international reach of new rules. NYT: “Banks and overseas regulators are resisting an agency proposal, intended to go into full effect as early as mid-July, that would require overseas offices of American-based banks, foreign institutions and hedge funds to turn over information on foreign trades if they involve United States customers, or are guaranteed by a financial institution with American ties … [CFTC Chair Gary]Gensler defends his proposals, arguing that too many bad bets in the global derivatives market can be traced to overseas locations …”

Bank lobby split on Brown-Vitter “too-big-to-fail” bill. Politico: “The Independent Community Bankers of America has come out swinging against Wall Street giants and last week endorsed a bill by Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and David Vitter (R-La.) that many in the industry say would force the biggest banks to shrink or break up. Meanwhile, the American Bankers Association — which counts banks of all sizes among its members — has urged caution, arguing that efforts to crack down on the largest banks could hurt the entire industry.”

Conservative Crack-Up

The House is in “chaos” reports Politico: “Speaker John Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy are plagued by a conference split into two groups. In one camp are stiff ideologues who didn’t extract any lesson from Mitt Romney’s loss and are only looking to slash spending and defund President Barack Obama’s health care law at every turn. In the other are lawmakers who are aligned with Cantor, who is almost singularly driving an agenda which is zeroed in on family issues. Boehner seems more focused on passing big pieces of legislation like hiking the debt ceiling and extending government funding, sometimes drawing flak for having to rely on Democrats to move these bills over the finish line.”

Koch Brothers coming back for more. NYT: “…the brothers want their network to play a bigger role in cultivating and promoting Republican candidates who hew to their vision of conservatism, emphasizing smaller government and deregulation more than immigration and social issues … Donors and others involved with the Koch-backed groups believe that the libertarian conservatism espoused by the brothers could help reinvigorate Republican fortunes, particularly among the young. They are also seeking to match the data and vote-targeting machinery built by Mr. Obama…”

Breakfast Sides

Fight brewing over rewrite of No Child Left Behind. The Hill: “President Obama’s ‘Race to the Top’ school reform initiative and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act … favor urban and suburban schools, say rural advocates. But to change the funding formulas, Democrats from rural states will have to overcome opposition from lawmakers representing major cities and affluent suburbs.”

Sequester hitting harder than expected, says White House chief economist Alan Krueger reports WH.

Progressive Caucus graphic slams selective sequester fix: “4 million meals for seniors eliminated. 70,000 children kicked out of Head Start … but your next flight will be on time.”

Republicans are already plotting their next opportunity to take our nation hostage.  At his weekly press conference, John Boehner said the GOP will refuse to raise the debt ceiling in May, if the president doesn’t agree to more spending cuts.  President Obama already agreed to cuts in the fiscal cliff deal totaling $1.5 trillion over the next decade.  And the sequester will cut an additional $1.2 trillion over that same period.  But, that’s not enough for Republicans.

The last time the GOP played political games with the debt limit, economic growth slowed in our nation, and citizens and businesses alike faced increased borrowing costs, but that doesn’t concern the Speaker of the House.  According to Boehner, Republicans plan to wage economic terrorism again, unless the President agrees to cut spending dollar-for-dollar with the debt ceiling increase.

So, unless Obama is willing to further devastate our economy with Republican austerity, John Boehner and House Republicans won’t let him pay the bills that they racked up.  The debt ceiling does not authorize more spending.  It only allows the President to pay for spending that the House has already approved.

This is simply economic terrorism… and it’s no way to run a government.  Call John Boehner’s office and tell him to stop playing political games with our economy.

MORNING MESSAGE: 2014 – The Democrats’ Dilemma

OurFuture.org’s Robert Borosage: “Voters tend to blame the party in power – the president’s party – for the economy. And the 2014 economy is likely to be lousy. Americans are struggling with falling wages and growing insecurity. More than 20 million people are still in need of full-time work … The political debate still focuses on fixing the debt, not the economy. Voters are offered a choice between Republicans who want to slash spending and Democrats who want a ‘balanced’ plan of spending cuts and tax hikes. Neither party champions a strategy to make this economy work for working people again … relying on Republican extremism is a hope and a prayer. If Democrats have a shot in 2014, they need a plan.”

House Poised To Pass Radical Austerity Budget

House GOP expected to pass Ryan budget today. The Hill: “…only three Republicans had publicly said they intend to vote against the Ryan plan … House Republicans can only afford about 15 defections … In the lead-up to the vote on Ryan’s budget, the House defeated several alternative budget proposals, including from the Congressional Black Caucus, the Progressive Caucus and the Senate Democratic Caucus.”

Ryan’s obsession with austerity causing rifts within GOP, reports W. Post: “[Gov. Bobby] Jindal, his advisers argue, is not saying that Ryan’s plan to limit federal spending is a bad thing — rather that the focus needs to be first and foremost on how Republicans can grow the economy rather than shrink the government. Jindal isn’t the only conservative voice raising questions about the philosophical underpinnings of the Ryan budget…”

Despite GOP claims, government spending is not crowding out private investment. McClatchy: “‘You would expect that if there were “crowding out,” that the government borrowing is somehow competing with private-sector borrowing, you’d expect that to show up in interest rates, and it is not. They’re at rock bottom,’ said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist for forecaster IHS Global Insight.”

Senate passes bill to keep government open, with sequester cuts. CNN: “The measure, which passed the chamber in a 73-26 vote, now advances to the House of Representatives … Lawmakers want to get the bill, known as a continuing resolution, to President Barack Obama’s desk before leaving Washington for a two-week holiday break starting on Friday.”

Senate “vote-a-rama” on budget amendments may begin tomorrow. Roll Call: “The first vote-a-rama on a Senate budget resolution in four years offers each party a chance to force the other to cast politically treacherous votes … Depending on the number of amendments offered, it could linger into Saturday. Reid has threatened to keep the Senate in session until the budget is finished, a gambit intended to spur senators to limit their amendments so they can more quickly begin a two-week recess scheduled to start next week.”

“GOP Conservatives Crave Debt Ceiling Standoff With Obama” reports TPM: “During a discussion with reporters Wednesday, a panel of 10 House conservatives openly craved another debt ceiling standoff with President Obama … Among the potential demands they mentioned were dollar for dollar cuts, rolling back Obamacare and major entitlement reforms.”

House Conservatives Join Thaw On Immigration

House conservatives warming to citizenship path for undocumented. CNN: “Idaho Rep Raul Labrador told reporters ‘What I think should happen is anyone who is here illegally can come out of the shadows, become legalized in some way, have some legal status, and that status could lead to legal permanent residency and citizenship eventually’ … Labrador’s remarks are a shift from comments he made in early February … he’s urging GOP colleagues to shift the emphasis to other major components of immigration reform.”

Sen. Pat Leahy criticizes pace of negotiations. NYT: “‘For months I have urged the president to send his proposal for comprehensive immigration reform to the Senate,’ Mr. Leahy said. ‘I understand he has delayed releasing it at the request of a few senators who are engaged in secret, closed-door discussions on their own proposal and who committed to completing it by the beginning of March. That deadline and others have come and gone.’ Mr. Leahy went on to express disappointment that his committee will have no immigration overhaul to consider this month.”

Conservatives are using the sequester as leverage in their latest attempt to hold our economy and government hostage. All in all, nine percent of non-defense programs and 13 percent of defense programs will be cut in a seven-month time span. Aside from the million jobs lost, threat of a double-dip recession, and risk to our national security, the automatic cuts are simply egregious to human needs.

But what Congress created, it can end. On March 20, join CAF, more than 60 national organizations, and the AFL-CIO for a national day of actions at congressional offices and communities to ask Congress to cancel the sequester.  Here at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF), we have one simple message for Congress: “Cancel the Sequester!”

There are negotiations underway to replace the sequester, for everyone knows it only benefits a select few, but the solution is far more simple: repeal the sequester. It is time to put this manufactured crises behind us and start focusing on the urgent problems facing our country: putting America back to work, raising wages, and reducing economic inequality.

“We are proud to join with 60 national groups and 300,000 individuals to send a clear message to Congress:  End the Sequester,” said Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future. “The Members of Congress at the event today understand the sequester was created by legislative action when conservatives threatened to destroy our economy by failing to raise the debt ceiling.  What Congress created, Congress can end.  And Rep. John Conyers’ proposed law does it in one sentence.  The American people do not want to paralyze important public services or choke of a very weak economy, and that’s why the movement is growing to repeal the sequester,” said Hickey.

Make sure that your voice, along with the majority of Americans, is heard by attending the national day of action and signing our petition.

More than 20 members of Congress responded to over 300,000 American voices calling for passage of legislation that would repeal of the federal budget sequester.

The bill, H.R. 900, is direct and can be summed up in one sentence: Cancel the sequester. Passing the bill will be “a simple solution to a knotty problem” said Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla.

Representatives reiterated that the sequester is reckless, irresponsible, was never meant to go into effect, and not supported by the majority of Americans. Grayson called the it a “combination of someone’s idiotology, not mine or yours.”

The 300,000 figure is the number of people who have responded to petitions against eliminating title 1 education for more than 2,700 schools, cutting support for almost 1.2 million disadvantaged students. This will put thousands of teachers and aides at risk of unemployment. And, in the coming months, cuts to Head Start services would also be eliminated for approximately 70,000 children and lead to further layoffs. Grayson equated the sequester to that of theft, saying “the sequester will rob us” of almost a million jobs and our chance at winning the race to the top.

Although the sequester went into effect on March 1, many Americans have yet to experience the pain and suffering it will cause for millions of households and the economy as a whole. But Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, likened its impact to that of a tsunami, “for it does not give notice.”

“All of a sudden a great deal of Americans will be walking around without benefits and wondering what happened,” she said.

Lee urged members of Congress to “do what is right for the American people,” and that vital cuts to programs will “literally cost lives.”

Grayson added that our wounded economy is still recovering and that “a cut cannot be a healing.”

Although the future of our country is uncertain, Rep. John Conyers said: “One thing is certain, there will be widespread misery and suffering because of the erosion of government services.”

CAF  joined with more than 60 national organizations, including the AFL-CIO, to ask Congress to cancel the sequester. Click here to see CAF’s action to repeal the sequester.

“We are proud to join with 60 national groups and 300,000 individuals to send a clear message to Congress: End the Sequester,” said Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future. “The members of Congress at the event today understand the sequester was created by legislative action when conservatives threatened to destroy our economy by failing to raise the debt ceiling. What Congress created, Congress can end. And Rep. John Conyers’ proposed law does it in one sentence. The American people do not want to paralyze important public services or choke of a very weak economy, and that’s why the movement is growing to repeal the sequester.”

Gimme an “S”! Gimme an “E”! Gimme a “Q”! Gimme a “U”!  Gimme an “E,S, T, E, R”! What’s that spell? That depends. If you’re almost everyone else, the sequester spells an onslaught of unnecessary, painful, and “just plain dumb” spending cuts. If you’re one of the GOP’s “Sequester Cheerleaders,” it spells sweet, sweet, victory.

The GOP’s pro-sequester cheering section is considerable and growing. One of the latest Republicans publicly declare his membership is tea partier Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R, Kan.).

Tea Party Republicans are crowing about the harsh and indiscriminate “sequestration” cuts beginning Friday. “This will be the first significant tea party victory in that we got what we set out to do in changing Washington,” says Rep. Tim Huelskamp (Kan.), a Tea Partier who was first elected in 2010.

Now we know, Huelskamp is far from the only one. A disturbing number of GOP representatives have publicly cheered for the sequester’s spending cuts. Here’s just a few:

[T]here are way more Republicans than just Paul Ryan cheering it on. They can’t wait for sequester! They want it so badly they can taste it. They don’t care that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office warn it could push our economy back into recession.

Here’s a round up of quotes from the DCCC, which will give you a good sense of the real reason Speaker John Boehner is not proposing a sequester replacement bill (hint: he doesn’t have the votes):

Republican Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA). “I want to see it go into place.” [Cherokee Tribune, 2/9]

Republican Congressman Mike Coffman (R-CO). “I don’t think going over the fiscal cliff would have been a huge deal” [kdvr.com, 1/02/13]

… Republican Congressman Scott DesJarlais (R-TN). “Sequestration needs to happen…Bottom line, it needs to happen and that’s the deal we struck to raise the debt limit.” [Cleveland Daily Banner, 2/1]

Republican Congressman John Fleming (R-LA). “The sequester is law. Those cuts happen no matter what. We’re willing to hang in there and insist that those cuts go into place…” [NHPR, 1/30/13]

Republican Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis (R-WY. “Sequestration will take place…I am excited. It will be the first time since I’ve been in Congress that we really have significant cuts.” [Billings Gazette, 2/11]

… Republican Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-SC). “We want to keep the sequester in place and take the cuts we can get.” [Dow Jones Business News, 2/8]

Republican Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-KS). “It’s going to be a homerun…I am very optimistic that on March 2nd, we’ll all wake up and America will have tremendous respect for what its House of Representatives led and what it’s federal government was able to accomplish.” [Politico, 2/13]

Outside of Congress, conservative organizations like Americans For Prosperity have three words for the sequester’s deep cuts: “Bring it on.”

Mark Lucas wouldn’t mind seeing America’s defense budget cut by billions.

“There’s quite a bit of waste within the military,” Lucas, who serves as Iowa state director for the conservative group Americans for Prosperity (AFP), told ABC News. “Being in there for 10 years, I’ve seen quite a bit of it.”

… Lucas cited duplicative equipment purchases, military-run golf courses and lavish food on larger bases — unlike the chow he endured at a combat operations post in Afghanistan with about 120 other soldiers.

“These guys would have very good food, and I’m talking almost like a buffet style, shrimp and steak once a week, ice cream, all this stuff,” Lucas said. “They had Burger Kings and Pizza Huts and McDonald’s. And I said to myself, ‘Do we really need this?’”

As I pointed out in a post last week, the sequester’s brutal, automatic, across-the-board cuts were never supposed to take effect. No, they were designed to be so damaging and stupid that both parties would be forced to come up with a compromise on spending cuts and revenue. Letting such draconian, damaging cuts take effect was supposed to be the last thing any member of Congress wanted to happen.

It’ turns out that Republicans see the sequester as an opportunity to inflict painful cuts that Americans don’t want and didn’t vote for, and the GOP’s ultra-conservatives want it to happen because they believe it’s the right thing to do.

[P]ointing out Republican-caused harms to millions of people — many of them Republicans — does not sway the ultra-right. Why? Democratic pundits say that Republicans want to hurt the president, to show government doesn’t work by making it not work, and to protect “special interests” from higher taxes. All true. But there is an additional and deeper reason. Ultra-conservatives believe that the sequester is moral, that it is the right thing to do.

Progressives tend to believe that democracy is based on citizens caring for their fellow citizens through what the government provides for all citizens — public infrastructure, public safety, public education, public health, publicly-sponsored research, public forms of recreation and culture, publicly-guaranteed safety nets for those who need them, and so on. In short, progressives believe that the private depends on the public, that without those public provisions Americans cannot be free to live reasonable lives and to thrive in private business. They believe that those who make more from public provisions should pay more to maintain them.

Ultra-conservatives don’t believe this. They believe that Democracy gives them the liberty to seek their own self-interests by exercising personal responsibility, without having responsibility for anyone else or anyone else having responsibility for them. They take this as a matter of morality. They see the social responsibility to provide for the common good as an immoral imposition on their liberty.

Their moral sense requires that they do all they can to make the government fail in providing for the common good. Their idea of liberty is maximal personal responsibility, which they see as maximal privatization — and profitization — of all that we do for each other together, jointly as a unified nation.

They also believe that if people are hurt by government failure, it is their own fault for being “on the take” instead of providing for themselves. People who depend on public provisions should suffer. They should have rely on themselves alone — learn personal responsibility, just as Romney said in his 47 percent speech. In the long run, they believe, the country will be better off if everyone has to depend on personal responsibility alone. Sequestration offers Republicans to potentially irresistible opportunities: the chance to bring President Obama down a peg or two, as well as a shot at implementing spending cuts that the majority of Americans have repeatedly rejecting at the polls. The consequences of those spending cuts doesn’t bother tea party conservatives in the least.

They’ve a lot of spirit and some really big megaphones. So, the GOP’s “Sequester Cheerleaders” will probably rack of even more stunners as this manufactured crisis drags on. We might as well keep track of them, so as to remind Americans who wanted the sequester — and its attendant economic pain and suffering — to happen.