The sequester and our opposition government
We live in a leaderless country governed, in effect, by two opposition parties: the anti-war movement in the Senate and the Tea Party movement in the House.
With a normal government--with a president actually interested in performing his duties rather than destroying his opponents, for instance--we would have avoided the sequester.
After all, it makes no sense to cut discretionary spending when entitlement spending is the problem. It makes even less sense to cut defense in a time of rising global threats.
But the sensible plans put forth by Paul Ryan and Simpson-Bowles were demonized and ignored, respectively, by the nation's chief executive, who has other priorities.
So we may be left with the least common denominator in American politics: fiscal and foreign policy restraint. Which is fine--until there is a military or economic crisis. Then what?