Skip to footer

After the 'sequester,' now what?

$85 billion in across-the-board cuts to defense and social programs took effect March 1. The cuts must occur this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. Here's how things look.

2. Q: So the sequester is here. What does the White House do now?

  • By Peter Grier, Mark Trumbull and Owen Thomas Staff writers

First, tone down the rhetoric. Mr. Obama's predictions of lost jobs and a slowing economy did not push Republicans into agreeing to a deal containing increased tax revenues. Given that the effects of the budget cuts will take some time to get rolling, the White House is moving away a bit from dire talk. Democrats don't want to be portrayed as the budg-eteers who cried wolf once too often.

The effects of the sequester will be felt slowly. Still, said White House economic adviser Gene Sperling on ABC's "This Week," "Every independent economist agrees it is going to cost our economy 750,000 jobs just as our economy has a chance to take off." (That is, unless a deal is struck.)

Second, the administration wants to give the appearance of a sadder but wiser group that's pivoting to other business – cabinet appointments, immigration reform, early childhood education, gun control.

Third, the White House will continue lower-level efforts at negotiating an end to the sequester. Obama talked with a number of lawmakers in early March to see if any movement on the issue was possible. Top leaders, including House Speaker John Boehner and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, must buy into any compromise.

But the president's overtures are seen as a promising step by some observers (Speaker Boehner described himself as "hopeful" on March 7, adding that moving toward a deal is an "organic process.")

2 of 6
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.