The "S" word?

Does anyone remember the "sequester" of 2013? 

The sequester created an automatic reduction of discretionary spending in both military and non-military spending. Back in 2013 the sequester laws led to a mandatory reduction of spending by over $80 billion dollars between the two.

Well unless Congress does something (and the President agrees to sign whatever they come up with) we are heading for another "sequester" standoff at the end of this fiscal year. That could reduce domestic discretionary spending by approximately $55 billion dollars, and military spending by even more.

Now the difference here is that there is no immediate "shutdown" to worry about. Pretty much all essential and most non-essential Government spending would be covered. But a ton of discretionary programs would have to be cut, and there would be exactly zero chance of the Democrats being able to include any of their new spending ideas coming into the 2020 election.

Of course the GOP (being an advocate for a strong military) would strongly object to any cuts in our military budget, so both sides have something to lose. Ultimately this is what led to the agreements (that have been updated as we go along) to suspend this automatic action of reducing spending limits.

So the possibility of the President leveraging additional spending on the border wall for his support of another suspension of the sequester is being tossed around. It's not a "today" solution, but it's something that might start to "loom" as we get closer. In this case the President doesn't even have to need the full support of the GOP either. Just enough in either the House or the Senate to prevent an override of any appropriation vetoes.

While Pelosi and some of the crazies in the House might be willing to go toe to toe again with the President on this one, one has to assume that hamstringing the Democrat's ability to spend money and provide the incentive of more free stuff to garner votes in 2020 might be something many other Democrats would want to avoid.