Easy Peasy sequester fix, ala Alan Grayson:

[JayhawkSD]

16. Let's make a deal. Not in favor of the sequester, but...

First of all, the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 doesn't actually exist in law, it was ruled unconstitutional and was replaced by the 1987 Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act. One would think that a couple of Congressmen would know that.

Second, I suppose that he believes that by suspending that clause of that act he will eliminate the debt ceiling. It won't because he has the wrong bill, one which was ruled unconstitutional and was voided. Not sure what he plans to eliminate, because the text of these bills is not readily available. Maybe he intends to eliminate the sequester in that bill, since it did contain one. That would be irrelevant, because today's sequester is not a product of that bill, ir was created by the Budget Control Act of 2011.

Now for the deal. I'll pay you $5000 for your car. After you deliver your car then I'll pass a resolution that says I'm repealing the part of the deal that requires me to pay you $5000, but not the part of the deal that requires you to give me your car. Sound good?

That's what Conyers/Grayson is suggesting in canceling the sequester. The Budget Control Act of 2011 contained two essential parts which are pertinent here. It contained an immediate increase in the debt ceiling, and it contained the sequester. Those two things were trade offs, just as my $5000 is a trade off for your car. Obama (and Conyers/Grayson) got the debt ceiling increase, and now with the debt ceiling increase in hand Conyers/Grayson want to cancel the payment which is the trade off.

If, Conyers/Grayson think that be eliminating the debt ceiling the sequester becomes moot, think again. There is a concept in law called "good faith." It's the law that if one party delivers in good faith then the other party is bound by his side of the bargain. Even if the debt ceiling were to be eliminated today, it was in effect at the time of the deal, and it was raised as agreed, so the benefiting party has to deliver on his part of the agreement and the sequester stands.

Grayson is, as usual, grandstanding with rhetoric that sounds good and is not based on fact.