Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) confirmed to ABC News that Republicans would not agree to any new revenues in order to avert the automatic, across-the-board budget cuts which will hit on March 1.

Greg Sargent: “What keeps getting lost here is that if Republicans did agree to new revenues, they’d likely get more in new spending cuts than they’d have to concede in new loophole closings.”

Jonathan Chait: “Obama has been offering to reduce spending on Social Security and Medicare for two years now, in return for Republican agreement to spread the burden of the fiscal adjustment. They won’t take the deal… if Republicans want to reform their party’s identity and make it into something other than absolutist advocacy of low taxes for the rich, they need to come up with some negotiating position on fiscal issues other than ‘no tax hikes for the rich of any kind no matter what we get in return.'”

Andrew Sullivan says Republicans will suffer politically if the sequestration cuts go into effect on March 1.

“I believe that is indeed Obama’s long game here. The precedent is the Gingrich government shutdown, which stopped his revolution in its tracks and gave Bill Clinton new political life. When cops are furloughed, when scientists complain about research cuts, when the military-industrial complex revs up its lobbying engines, I just don’t see how the sequester works politically for the GOP. It exists entirely because of their fixation on immediate austerity – despite the awful consequences that policy option has spawned in Europe.”

The Fix: “When people start paying attention to the sequester, President Obama
wants to make sure that he has the political high ground in the blame
game.”

“The idea of a grand bargain is at best on life support. It seems like both sides are beginning to retreat to their own talking points. This may be good politics, but it doesn’t put us any closer to having our fiscal house in order.”

— Erskine Bowles, quoted by Politico, while unveiling a new plan to cut the federal debt.