Après le "sequester", le "government shutdown": une histoire sans fin...

 Les ramifications des conflits entre la Maison blanche et le Congrès semblent être sans fin... Les deux parties doivent s'entendre avant demain pour éviter le "sequester" (série de coupures dans tous les programmes sans égard aux priorités), mais tous savent que qu'on pourrait paralyser le gouvernement américain à la fin mars si certains budgets sont affectés. Les deux dossiers, financer correctement le gouvernement et gérer les coupures du "sequester" sont donc intimement liés. C'est peut-être la menace d'une éventuelle paralysie du gouvernement qui pourrait accentuer la pression de s'entendre d'abord sur les coupures. Complexe tout ça? Oui, et le climat de négociations actuelles rend les choses encore plus difficiles.

 "These issues might seem wholly distinct. After all, sequestration emerged as a tool to force Congress into an agreement on taxes and entitlement spending, whereas a government shutdown would be the consequence of Congress failing to pass federal appropriations — a different category of spending altogether.

But because sequestration largely targets the same category of spending, it stands to reason that Democrats and Republicans will use the imperative of funding the government to press their distinct visions of how to replace sequestration.

 Thus events of the next several days — particularly the public’s early reaction to sequestration — will determine whether the two issues blend into one, and whether the synthesis redounds to the benefit of one party or the other.

 At a glance, everything is lined up for Democrats to capitalize if and when the fight over funding the government subsumes sequestration. They’ve already won the public opinion battle over how to replace sequestration before it hits. And if voters respond angrily once sequestration comes into effect at the end of the week, their call for action to replace it with a balanced mix of tax increases and spending cuts will intensify.

 The logical vehicle for addressing the public outcry would be legislation to fund the government. Congress could effectively override sequestration in a government funding bill and pair it with legislation to replace its automatic spending cuts either temporarily or permanently.

 For that reason, some Democrats want the White House and Democratic congressional leaders to drive a hard line in the appropriations fight. But they’re not convinced an aggressive fight will pay off just yet.

“Anything the Speaker has regarding a CR [continuing resolution] or an omnibus I’m anxious to see it,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in response to a question from TPM at his weekly Capitol briefing on Tuesday. “I met with him a day or two before we had our break, we had a nice conversation, he hadn’t made up his mind yet what he was going to do. I told him whatever you do give me a little advanced notice I’ll see if I can work with our — we can see what they come up with.”

 Reid’s congeniality is rooted in a belief, shared by the White House, that the consequences of sequestration will snowball gradually, and might not be severe enough by mid-March to justify a fight that could trigger a government shutdown.

 So they’re eying a softer approach.

 http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/sequestration-government-shutdown.php?ref=fpb