KUSA-With a week left before the "sequester" deadline you're probably feeling like you've heard this storyline before: If Congress doesn't act by deadline X, then Y awful consequence will occur.
We had this narrative in the debt ceiling debate, the "fiscal cliff" crisis, and now the sequestered spending cuts to a broad swath of government programs.
This leaves many average Americans to wonder why Congress keeps running into these man-made emergencies?
"It's almost like you're working against us on purpose," wrote Douglas Evans on the 9NEWS Facebook page.
Some members of Colorado's delegation to Congress agree with that sentiment.
"My 9-year-old daughter will wait until the last minute to do things, and she does it every time," Rep. Cory Gardner, (R-Colo.), said. "The government ought to be better behaved than a 9-year-old child."
"It's a bad way to run a business. It's a bad way to run a country," Rep. Ed Perlmutter, (D-Colo.), said. "That's sort of the nature of the Congress that we dealt with for the last two years."
But not everybody shows such disdain for the drama.
"Unfortunately, my experience is Congress has to have deadlines," Rep. Mike Coffman, (R-Colo.), said. "Yes it's a messy process. Yes, it's an ugly process, but I think it's essential."
Coffman stressed that he's not in favor of the broad spending cuts that would be triggered by missing the March 1 deadline, but he thinks the federal debt is a serious enough problem that Congress needs an immediate threat like the sequester in order to act.
He doesn't predict Congress will act before the deadline, but points out that Congress can easily modify the cuts after March 1 if it chooses.
Gardner also predicts there won't be a deal, though he says House members are working on "reprogramming authority," which would allow the White House the ability to modify the cuts.
Perlmutter said Thursday he was still optimistic that a deal might be reached.
Several people suggested that 9NEWS ask members of Congress if they should take a pay cut if no deal is reached.
Gardner and Coffman expressed support for this idea, while Perlmutter did not.
Perlmutter pointed out that funding for congressional staff has been cut and that Congressional salaries have not risen since 2009.