So here we go again. House Dem Van Hollen says possible cuts to entitlements on the table.

[Recursion]

47. Any grand bargain attempt is doomed to failure because of the sequester

It doesn't really matter what position this or that politician takes anymore, because there's no logic behind a grand bargain now at all; the "problem" it "solved" was eliminated by the sequester. Any grand bargain at this point will end up increasing deficits, and neither party needs to make painful concessions for that to happen.

That said, if this kabuki absurdity does become reality, we'll be trading some future mandatory spending for future discretionary spending, which is the part of this that worries me (I don't think the current way inflation is calculated needs to be set in stone, particularly since a chained CPI also increases revenues, I just don't think the Republicans will stick to the bargain when it comes time to increase discretionary spending later). Slowing the CPI both cuts entitlement spending and raises taxes, which is why it's kind of a bilateral concession.

But, anyways, there's no longer any impetus to do it, which is why this will get no farther than any of the previous attempts.