They were always going to keep sequester levels of spending - which is kind of lousy. I believe what this report is referring to is that some progressive democrats might vote against the CR because they want to not see the sequester cuts permenant - so for those members of the progressive caucus it is a bit of a compromise for them to say that they will support this plan in hopes of getting a further discussion in six weeks.

But Harry Reid and Obama didn't compromise - they always supported keeping the sequester levels.

Bryant

They were on board for a 6-week CR but not a longer one because they'd have another "bite at the apple" to get their priorities put in place.

It might be argued that this is trivial, but without that concession to those wanting "another bite at the apple" the resolution might well have failed to pass the Senate, which would have failed to put the (R) House in a sufficiently hot seat.

In other words, those (D) demanded a concession for their support for the budget resolution, and that condition was not making the sequester budget levels not only not year long, but not even 2 1/2 months long.

A six-week CR seems both pathetic and rather too cleverly timed to coincide with the budget ceiling deadline. Because the way that the budget SOP works in this era of ambush politics is that you leverage a government shutdown for some political gain that you don't think you can get otherwise. You just can't put it that bluntly unless you're talking about the "enemy" that you seek to ambush.

I worry about what compromise will be made to end THIS crisis.