Krugman has entered the acceptance stage of our grief:
[G]iven that the proposed Republican cuts would be even worse than those set to happen under the sequester, it’s hard to see why Democrats should negotiate at all, as opposed to just letting the sequester happen.
That is indeed the sorryass truth of our parliamentary kakistocracy--a nightmarish collection of quasidemocratic dreck that is relatively harmless if idled, but downright lethal when active. As Krugman notes, the sequester "will probably cost 'only' around 700,000 jobs," as opposed to the incommensurate nihilism of debt-ceiling collapses and fiscal-cliff swan dives.
And yet I endorsed both of the latter, because then, as now, it was "hard to see why Democrats should negotiate" with a fanatical, duplicitous mob.
Which is to say, I'm skeptical that the extortionist wreckage will end at sequestration, as promised:
"Republicans are not going to take a stand on a government shutdown. We’re not going to take a stand on the debt ceiling. We’re going to take a stand on the sequester," said a Republican senator, who requested anonymity to discuss his party’s strategy.
Do you trust them? Assuming sequestration manifests in the kind of relative harmlessness that Krugman and some other mainstream economists anticipate, do you trust that the GOP will survey the unrubbled remains, cease its threats, and likewise choose no further harm?
I enjoy no such trust. A final showdown is inevitable, and when dealing with predatory hooligans, sooner showdowns are preferable to later ones.