Whether or not Congress can be cajoled/threatened by voters to make other cuts, possibly through sequestration is unlikely.

Here’s a synopsis from Grok about the reconciliation process:

Budget reconciliation in the U.S. Congress is a legislative process that allows expedited passage of certain fiscal legislation with a simple majority vote, bypassing the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster threshold. It is governed by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and is primarily used to address measures that impact the federal budget, such as revenues, mandatory spending, and the debt limit. Regarding your question—whether reconciliation allows cuts to discretionary spending or only mandatory spending—the answer requires understanding reconciliation’s rules and limitations, particularly the Byrd Rule, and its application to federal spending categories. Given your prior questions about the U.S. budget ($37 trillion debt, $1.6 trillion deficit in 2025), Social Security, sequestration, and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), I’ll provide a clear, concise explanation tailored to these contexts.Key DefinitionsDiscretionary Spending: Funding allocated annually through appropriations bills, covering programs like defense, education, and infrastructure. In 2025, discretionary spending is ~$1.8 trillion (25% of $7.1 trillion total outlays, per CBO).
Mandatory Spending: Spending mandated by existing laws, not requiring annual appropriations, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and SNAP. In 2025, mandatory spending is ~$4.5 trillion (63% of outlays, per CBO).
Reconciliation: A process to fast-track budget-related legislation, limited to measures that directly affect revenues, outlays, or the debt limit. It requires a budget resolution with “reconciliation instructions” specifying fiscal targets.

Does Reconciliation Allow Cuts to Discretionary Spending?Short Answer: Reconciliation cannot directly cut discretionary spending because it is limited to mandatory spending, revenues, and the debt limit under the Byrd Rule. However, it can indirectly influence discretionary spending by setting budget caps or triggering mechanisms like sequestration, which enforce discretionary cuts. Below, I explain the rules and nuances.Reconciliation Rules and the Byrd RuleReconciliation Scope: The Congressional Budget Act allows reconciliation bills to address:Revenues: Tax increases or cuts (e.g., 2017 TCJA tax cuts via reconciliation).
Mandatory Spending: Changes to programs like Medicare, Medicaid, or SNAP (e.g., OBBBA’s $1.6–$1.7 trillion in mandatory cuts, per your prior question).
Debt Limit: Adjustments to federal borrowing authority.

Byrd Rule: Enacted in 1985 and strengthened in 1990, this Senate rule limits reconciliation to provisions with a direct and primary fiscal impact on the budget. Provisions are deemed “extraneous” (and subject to removal) if they:Do not change outlays or revenues.
Are merely incidental to non-budgetary goals.
Violate other criteria (e.g., increasing deficits beyond the budget window).

Discretionary Spending Exclusion: Discretionary spending is funded through annual appropriations bills, not permanent law, and is outside reconciliation’s scope. The Byrd Rule prohibits provisions that alter discretionary appropriations directly, as these are handled by the Appropriations Committees, not reconciliation bills.

Why Discretionary Spending Cannot Be Directly CutAppropriations Process: Discretionary spending (e.g., $886 billion for defense, $910 billion for non-defense in 2025, per CBO) is set by 12 annual appropriations bills, subject to regular Senate rules (including filibusters). Reconciliation cannot override this process or mandate specific cuts to discretionary programs (e.g., defense contracts, NIH funding).
Byrd Rule Enforcement: Any reconciliation provision attempting to cut discretionary spending (e.g., reducing education grants) would be struck as extraneous unless it indirectly affects mandatory spending or revenues. For example, a provision setting discretionary spending caps might survive if it reduces overall outlays, but specific program cuts would not.

-Grok

My point is not what will happen some day in the future – although that certainly is a relevant point. My point is that, if voters won’t vote for politicians who will do what is necessary to prevent the problem, the point about the future is moot – for now. And the problem cannot be resolved in time to matter.

It need not come to that. Some countries lower down on that list already did. They got lower the hard way. We COULD learn from their example, or we could try to beat math with narrative. I have an inkling how it will go, and I imagine you are much of the same mind.

Argentina: 73% debt-to-GDP
Zimbabwe: 59% debt-to-GDP

US: 123% debt-to-GDP

Experience keeps a dear school,
yet Fools will learn in no other.

The math doesn’t care how the voters see it. They’re going to like fiscal collapse a lot less, but the math doesn’t care about that either.

The American people have demanded an end to the status quo, and a return to fiscal sanity. That’s why the citizens of our great country gave President Trump the White House and Republican control of both chambers of Congress. If we don’t follow through on our campaign promise for fiscal responsibility, we don’t deserve to hold power. The national debt is a grave threat to America’s economic and national security – and no issue exemplifies the Congress’ failures more.

One may see that glass as half-full. I know I do. 🙂

In this epic race to the bottom we will see at least nine other countries go splat before we do.

Maybe we’ll learn something from it.

Do you really think most voters would support any politician who actually did what you say they should do?

It can’t go on forever, so it won’t. It’s quite likely that most of us here will live to see it break.

All of this leads to one conclusion, inflate the debt away, which will destroy everything. There has been discussions of whether the new Fed inflation target should be 3%, but why not 4% or 5%? What is magic about 2%?

Inflation crushes those on fixed incomes, but hey, they need to take one for the team.

Where’s Ross Perot when you need him?

Senator Ron Johnson had a good idea to make a dent in the deficit spending.

We could start with zero base budgeting.

Sequestration would also be a good start.