Abbreviated pundit roundup: Republicans to blame for sequester pain

The New York Times editorial board:

The White House strategy on the sequester was built around a familiar miscalculation about Republicans. It assumed that, in the end, they would be reasonable and negotiate a realistic alternative to indiscriminate cuts. Because the reductions hurt defense programs long held sacrosanct by Republicans, the White House thought it had leverage that would reduce the damage to the domestic programs favored by Democrats.

It turns out, though, that the defense hawks in the party are outnumbered. More Republicans seem to care about reducing spending at all costs, and the prospect of damaging vital government programs does not seem to bother them. 'Fiscal questions trump defense in a way they never would have after 9/11,' Representative Tom Cole, a Republican of Oklahoma, told The Times. 'But the war in Iraq is over. Troops are coming home from Afghanistan, and we want to secure the cuts.'

Cuts this draconian have no place in a tottering economy. But, realistically, the only way to break this standoff is for the cuts to exact their toll on daily life, causing Republicans to face pressure from the public to negotiate an alternative plan with higher revenues in March as part of talks to finance the government for the final six months of the fiscal year.

Jump below the fold for more analysis of the sequester deadline.