Last Friday, a massive, across-the-board spending cut, known as the "Sequester," went into effect. The Sequester, a by-product of the ill fated debt ceiling compromise in 2011, will reduce the deficit by over $100 billion every year, by uncompromisingly cutting virtually all government spending programs with the exceptions of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The Sequester was created as a fail-safe in the budget negotiations of 2011, holding that, if Congress could not agree on specific cuts by the end of that year, across-the-board cuts would take effect concurrent with tax hikes in what was known as the fiscal cliff.

When Congress debated the fiscal cliff in early January, it kicked the Sequester down the road for two months, during which no actions were taken.

The Sequester, however, is universally panned by both Democratic and Republican politicians as 'dumb' spending cuts that may hurt more than they help. The sudden, drastic austerity has the chance, according to what Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said last week in Washington, to plunge the nation back into recession and threaten hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs. Instead, politicians should have sought compromise on deficit reduction through gradually implemented cuts that do not focus too much on eliminating the social safety net. Such cuts should focus on sparing popular institutions, put more emphasis on tax reform, and strive for the compromising "grand bargain" once sought after by the President and the Speaker.

Among the bitterer effects of the Sequester is security. The Washington Post reports that thousands in border control could be furloughed, and transportation, in which the Federal Aviation Administration reports that long delays could occur at major airports as funding for air traffic controllers is slashed indiscriminately. These side-effects of the Sequester are unpopular, as they should be, but they represent a troubling discrepancy in the attitudes of the American public.

In July 2012, The Economist stated that America "taxes itself like a small-government country, but spends like a big-government one." Simply put, Americans do not want to pay anymore taxes, but do not want to give up any benefits. However, some painful spending cuts will be ultimately necessary in an effort to balance the budget. Despite the painfulness of the Sequester, all of the proposed cuts barely amount to solving one ninth of this country's deficit problem.

Given the current House Republicans' absolute opposition to any tax hike, much of the closing of that deficit may very well have to come from spending cuts. However, the President and members of Congress should fight hard to make sure that any spending cuts that are enacted do not target bipartisan popular institutions such as National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Institutes of Health, and assure that all spending cuts are enacted gradually over a long period of time. Furthermore, spending cuts, which should not spare the defense department, need to be coupled with both further tax hikes, especially on the wealthy, and entitlement reforms, including an unpopular raise in the retirement age for Medicare. Only through such a balanced approach would the nation be able to calmly rein in deficit spending, without going through the pain of austerity being felt in parts of Europe. These cuts should include most government programs, but avoid those deemed absolutely essential to the nation's success, such as those mentioned above.

It is my hope that after the hurtful effects of the Sequester began to be felt, Congress can come together to mitigate the more deleterious effects of the cuts. Perhaps, as well, the American public may finally understand how spending cuts alone will not efficiently solve any of this country's problems. However, if House Republicans simply double-down on their hostility towards Government and taxation (the more likely option), we may be forced to live with a much leaner, less effective Federal Government.

President Obama would be wise to attempt, once again, to reach a comprehensive "Grand Bargain" on the deficit with Republicans. In exchange for letting some of the Sequester's cuts stand, loopholes in the tax code benefitting the rich could be axed, or other popular budget policies to Democrats could be enacted. Essentially, only through compromise could a balanced approach to reducing the deficit be found, which does not adversely affect any one group too severely.

Additionally, the spending cuts and other austerity that would remain must be implemented gradually, reducing the sharp pain that will be caused in the next few weeks by the Sequester.
*