Cohn expects it to do real harm:
[T]he sequestration cuts are likely to damage the economy even if Congress ends up repealing them outright. In fact, they are probably damaging the economy already. Furlough notices started going out to some federal workers on Friday, according to news accounts. People who get them are going to react. Some will take the threat more seriously than others, obviously, but given the uncertainty—not to mention the real possibility that some cuts stay in place—some people are likely to change their financial behavior. Maybe they’ll rethink a major purchase or delay maintenance that can wait a few more weeks. And what’s true of individuals is even truer of large organizations, including those in government and those outside.
Cassidy doesn’t foresee a deal any time soon:
How likely do you think it is that, between now and March 31st, the Republicans will soften their stance on raising taxes by eliminating some loopholes and deductions? And if they stick to their hardline position, how likely do you think President Obama is to drop his calls for a “balanced” approach to replacing the sequester, and to agree to a package of spending cuts without any revenue increases? In my view, the only plausible answers to these questions range from “not very likely” to “not a snowball’s chance in hell.”
How Stan Collender understands the sequester fight:
It was never about cutting spending or reducing the deficit; the fight always was about keeping or winning control of the House of Representatives in the next election. It wasn’t about dueling economic philosophies and it definitely wasn’t about the deficit.