If Dems won the election, why is ANYONE talking about a 3:1 ratio of spending cuts/tax increases???

[maui902]

59. I respect that you might not be scared personally

but let me pose this question/hypothetical to you. Imagine for a moment that you are Kyrsten Sinema, the new Representative from the Arizona Congressional District 9 (a newly configured district that had a more even balance between Republicans and Democrats). You won this district by a relatively small margin (with less than 50% of the vote due to the number of votes for a Libertarian candidate). You face re-election in 2014. You can either back and vote for the best deal the Democrats and the President can negotiate with the Republicans or back a more progressive/liberal approach that ignores Republican input and suffer the consequences of sequestration. I gather you would choose the latter; I would not and I don't think Kyrsten, whom I believe you'll find an outstanding liberal member of the House, would either. I fear sequestration for three reasons: first, it raises taxes, significantly, on everyone, including those who are decidedly middle class or even lower in terms of income (which I believe will damage the economy and lead to an increase in joblessness): second, there will be significant cuts not just in defense spending but in discretionary spending on a whole host of social programs, right when they're needed the most; and third, if Democrats in Congress and the President push for a deal significantly different than what the President campaigned on (expiration of the Bush tax cuts on income of more than $250,000 but an extension of the Bush tax cuts on income less than $250,000 combined with spending cuts equal to some multiple of the additional tax revenue-ranging from 2.5:1 up to 4:1), the Republicans will be able to block any legislation and argue that they were willing to accept the deal outlined during the election campaign but that the Democrats changed the deal after the election, giving them justification for blocking the deal.