The country got forced into sequestration, because the White House / Democrats thought that Republicans would balk when they had to make big cuts to the defense budget.
But because the budget savings looked so good, the Republicans actually accepted the sequestration consequence.
But it turns out (with the help of Middle Eastern unrest) that cuts to defense are not as wise as the budget hawks thought. So Congress hatched a deal to override them somewhat in 2013.
Now they're talking about doing it again. So this shows that despite their rhetoric about the budget, the Republicans realize that crude sequestration cuts are not a good idea for the Defense Department.
Again. And the Democrats are trying to reduce the impact of the cuts to everything else, because those cuts have hit a lot of sectors with some hardship, too. So Paul Ryan, the man who writes completely unrealistic budgets, is acting like a real statesman and suggesting he could get behind a budget that reduces the impact of sequestration.
Sequestration wasn't a good idea when it first took effect, and it isn't a good idea anymore. I like what Patty Murray, one of the partners in the 2013 deal, said about it.
“The fact of the matter is that we simply can’t make the investments we need, on both defense and non-defense, if these caps remain in place. We should be able to give our Appropriations committees the guidance they need to write responsible bills at bipartisan levels,” Murray said.
Hopefully both sides will see reason of some kind on this issue.