There are a lot of things that bother me about the “sequester”, not the least of which is the fact that it is completed unnecessary and could be fixed with a quick repeal of the law. But another thing I hate, which I hated just as much when it was used at the state level, is the across-the-board cut. It’s akin to cutting out ten percent every organ in your body when you have a diagnosis of lung cancer to see if that works.
Why treat all programs the same? If a program is good, it should not be cut. If a program provides limited benefits, then it should be eliminated altogether, not given a haircut. The best course of action would be to take a look at the ROI on government spending and start eliminating from the bottom. What prevents this is twofold: first, there is the money that would need to be spent to determine efficacy, as well as decisions around what methodology to use, which are fair points. The other, of course, is that plenty of programs that have a lot of backers would end up on that to-be-cut list; I’m sure ethanol subsidies would look pretty poor from a ROI standpoint, but you can’t be a politician in the Midwest and oppose them.
Across-the-board military cuts? No, let’s eliminate weapons systems and programs that are unnecessary. Across-the-board social spending cuts? No, let’s eliminate duplicative and low-return programs, and may increase spending on the ones with a high return.
Fat chance of that happening, however. It’s politically easier to use a blunt hatchet.