One casualty of the sequester? Obama's entire legislative agenda.

The across-the-board cuts scheduled to take place at the end of next week would make most of President Obama's second-term priorities even harder, if not impossible, to achieve.

Susan Walsh/AP
President Obama speaks about the sequester with emergency responders at the Eisenhower Executive Office building in the White House complex Tuesday. This is a group of workers that the White House says could be affected if state and local governments lose federal money as a result of budget cuts.

President Obama has been highlighting, with increasing urgency, all the ways in which the "sequester" – the across-the-board cuts to defense and nondefense discretionary spending scheduled to hit at the end of next week – would be bad for average Americans and could do serious damage to the economy.

What he hasn't said, but what's abundantly clear from looking at where the cuts would hit, is that the sequester also would make virtually all of Mr. Obama's second-term legislative agenda, including a few items that have Republican support, essentially dead on arrival. 

At an event Tuesday with first responders whose jobs could be eliminated by the sequester, Obama spelled out the consequences of allowing the cuts to take effect: "This is not an abstraction," he said. "People will lose their jobs." 

That's true. And many of those job reductions are poised to hit in areas where Obama would actually need an increase in federal spending and activity in order to enact the legislative agenda outlined in his inaugural and State of the Union addresses.

Consider immigration reform, one of Obama's top legislative priorities. With a bipartisan group of senators currently working on a bill – and with the Republican Party looking for new ways to reach out to Hispanic voters – it appears to have a decent chance of passing. But many conservatives have made clear that they will only support a comprehensive reform bill if it makes securing the border a precondition of giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. 

And beefing up border security could become all but impossible if the sequester takes effect – since it will force big cuts in the number of border patrol agents. Last week, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told the Senate Appropriations Committee that the sequester will lead to the elimination of 5,000 agents over the next year (out of a total of 17,500). Noting that she'd just spent the previous day testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on immigration reform – where she was repeatedly urged by Republicans to do more on border security – Secretary Napolitano joked that she felt las if she was having "a little bit of an out-of-body experience."

Then there's gun control, another top issue for Obama. The gun-control measure that appears to have the most bipartisan support right now is to make background checks mandatory for all gun purchases, including at gun shows. That proposal wins near-universal support from the public, according to polling.

But the sequester could make any proposed expansion of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which conducts criminal background checks on prospective gun buyers, extremely difficult. Why? The NICS is operated by the FBI, and sequestration would hit the FBI directly, reducing the number of agents – as well as the number of agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and US attorneys – by an estimated 3,700. According to one report, the cuts could cripple even the current, nonuniversal background-check system by making the checks take longer, making them unavailable on weekends (when most gun shows take place), and allowing more people to slip through the cracks. Likewise, the reduction in US attorneys and ATF agents could make any proposal to crack down harder on gun crime – another measure often put forward by Republicans as a way to combat gun violence – a moot point.

Needless to say, other items on the president's agenda that face even stiffer political head winds, looked at in the context of the sequester, seem even more improbable. Universal preschool? Probably a pipe dream, given that 15,000 teachers and aides would lose their jobs as a result of the sequester – which, incidentally, would also cut funding for Head Start, the nation's current and popular public preschool program. Climate change? It's hard to see how that goes anywhere, given that the sequester would slash funding to the Environmental Protection Agency, and would also cut funding to that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administraion – which could affect the nation's ability to accurately predict major weather events like hurricanes.

Of course, there's always the chance that Congress could find a way to restore funding to some of these areas after the sequester hits. But given their current track record, we wouldn't count on it. Which means that the sequester could wind up dictating – in a major way – how much, or more accurately how little, of Obama's top priorities ever become law. 

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

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.