http://tinyurl.com/c9ocqnhI think it may be you that doesn’t understand. the president can choose to make the cuts as painful as possible…or not. This quote from the second article brings up some thoughtful ideas. Perhaps you can explain why the president isn’t considering them.“While history shows that a divided government can enact significant spending cuts as an alternative to sequesters, that doesn’t appear to be the path Mr. Obama intends to follow. Instead of protecting civilian defense workers, the president will continue to force the Pentagon to buy biofuels at $27 per gallon to promote his green agenda. Instead of protecting children from cuts in nutrition programs, the president will continue to allow $2.7 billion of fraud and mismanagement he has identified in the food-stamp program. Instead of protecting Medicare from a 2% cut, the president will ignore $62 billion in annual waste that his administration has identified in Medicare and Medicaid.”Pardon my ignorance, but isn’t the last item enough to meet the sequester requirement for the non defense side of the deal?85 billion/2 = 42.5 billionwaste in medicare/medicaid 62 billionThat is 19.5 billion extra.