The sequestration, which is a fancy name for an insignificant cut in federal spending, is set to hit on March 2. Liberals have been claiming that the sky will fall over this 3.6% reduction in federal agency spending for fiscal 2013.

But some sequestration-haters seem to be hedging their bets when it comes to making predictions. We speak particularly of Emily Holubowich. Here's what she said:

So let's see if we get this right: It's actually bad if the spending cuts happen and no one notices because the ramifications aren't that detrimental to national welfare?

Doesn't that kind of defeat the premise put forth by various elements of the howling class that these spending cuts will result in some type of holocaust?

And why is it bad if there are no discernable effects from the spending cuts? Doesn't that just make the case that, contrary to what President Obama is saying, we really do have a spending problem? And that a decent amount of that spending is arguably unnecessary?

Ms. Holubowich's statement gives us a candid look at the mindset of welfare state evangelists: They want the government to perpetuate senseless government programs at the cost of taxpayers.

(The Washington Post)