The sequestration soap opera is much ado about relatively little. The blog Laissez-Faire points out the smallness of the budget cuts, relative to the size of the federal budget, that would result if sequestration goes forward. In fact, they're not "cuts" at all, just a slower rise in spending.
That said, consider the kinds of "cuts" in government spending that would take place come March 1: "Nutrition" for women, children, and seniors; housing vouchers; meat and poultry inspections; air traffic control; HIV tests; weather satellites; pre-school services--and these are just some of the worst of the worst areas to be affected by the budget cuts, according to "Business Insider."
The question that should be posed is: How did so many of us become so dependent on government for our material needs in the first place? These are all things that can and should be funded by private individuals, businesses, or charities. So many people wouldn't be in the position of having their needs so dependent on politicians if the government were restricted to its proper role of protecting individuals' rights, rather than seizing and forcibly redistributing their wealth.
This is the lesson to be drawn from the current sequestration controversy. This is truly a "teachable moment" for opponents of "Big Government." As of now, I have no knowledge of any Republican raising these points. They seem content to just let themselves be branded the uncompassionate bad guys--again.
"Government Help" Lead to Totalitarian Socialism