context: It also agreed to take an additional two months to decide what spending cuts should be made.
answer_0: Next, the threat of sequestration (automatic cuts) was not enough to prevent congress from doing what it does best: postpone tough decisions on spending.
answer_1: Currently, the threat of sequestration (automatic cuts) was not enough to prevent congress from doing what it does best: postpone tough decisions on spending.
answer_2: Evidently, the threat of sequestration (automatic cuts) was not enough to prevent congress from doing what it does best: postpone tough decisions on spending.
answer_3: Because of that the threat of sequestration (automatic cuts) was not enough to prevent congress from doing what it does best: postpone tough decisions on spending.
answer_4: Firstly, the threat of sequestration (automatic cuts) was not enough to prevent congress from doing what it does best: postpone tough decisions on spending.
answer_5: Presently, the threat of sequestration (automatic cuts) was not enough to prevent congress from doing what it does best: postpone tough decisions on spending.
answer_6: By doing this, the threat of sequestration (automatic cuts) was not enough to prevent congress from doing what it does best: postpone tough decisions on spending.
answer_7: Originally, the threat of sequestration (automatic cuts) was not enough to prevent congress from doing what it does best: postpone tough decisions on spending.
answer_8: And the threat of sequestration (automatic cuts) was not enough to prevent congress from doing what it does best: postpone tough decisions on spending.
answer_9: Locally, the threat of sequestration (automatic cuts) was not enough to prevent congress from doing what it does best: postpone tough decisions on spending.