D.C. doubles down

LITTLE ROCK — The sequester, those $85 billion in across the-board spending cuts scheduled to hit the federal government on March 1, was designed to be stupid.

In 2011, when President Barack Obama proposed the scheme and both parties in Congress embraced it, their thinking was: With a whole year to work on a deal, surely we can figure out a way to avoid a catastrophe.

What Washington did they think they were living in?

With no negotiations under way, it’s virtually certain that on Friday, a long list of federal programs will get slashed. But at this point, the only thing Democrats and Republicans agree on is that the mandatory cuts will hurt the economy, the nation’s security and the well-being of the American people.

So why has there been no serious negotiation to avoid the train wreck we all see coming? One reason is that both sides think the public will side with them and blame the other party.

Obama and the Democrats think they can win the public-relations battle because Americans are already on their side.

Still, Republicans hope that by challenging Democrats to come up with spending cuts to match those mandated by the sequester, they can portray their opponents as big spenders unwilling to attack the federal deficit. “Most people agree [with Republicans] that the deficit is one of the reasons the economy can’t get back on track,” said David Winston, a GOP pollster who advises House Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio. “So let’s get to work cutting the deficit.And then we can ask a second question: Do you really want your taxes to go up?”

In short, Republicans think they can turn the sequester into a teachable moment that will draw public opinion to their side. But they face some obvious problems. Most of the public doesn’t agree with them yet.

The White House has been energetic in pressing its case, using a week when Congress was out of town to stage events, including one that surrounded the president with law enforcement officers. And while Obama is talking to the country, the GOP has so far been talking mostly to the party faithful, making small-bore arguments about who proposed the sequester.

In the end, there will be some kind of compromise, probably around March 27th, when Congress has to pass a law to keep the government operating for the rest of the year. It will probably include spending cuts that approach what the sequester demands, but with more flexibility-and, if Democrats have their way, a longer delay before the cuts kick in.

But even if we already know roughly how the standoff will end, it’s hard to see how we’ll get there from here. Neither side knows how to defuse the crisis before it happens; neither wants to be the first to offer concessions. “Every time I’ve gotten into one of these high-profile negotiations, you know, it’s my rear end that got burnt,” Boehner told the Associated Press this month. That’s about as perfect a description of political dysfunction as you could want.

———◊———

Doyle McManus is a columnist for The Los Angeles Times.