Government and those entities that manage it always want more money and will always find ways to spend it. Most bureaucrats work for the government because they believe in its programs and feel that more of the same is better. When they fail to get the money they desire or anticipate, their response is always negative. The justification of their livelihoods is diminished. They will inform the politicians and their constituencies that bad things will result.
Put any politician in front of a camera and ask them about the ramifications of less money (more than the previous year but less than what was anticipated), and you will get a diatribe of fear, uncertainly and doubt.
We had Bush's Troubled Asset Relief Program, later perfected by Obama. Then Obama's fiscal cliff and sequester deal designed to raise the taxes in 2012 and then cut spending in 2013. Except Obama and few politicians can pull the plug on reducing spending. Their counter was more taxes.
The $44 billion in sequester cuts for this fiscal year amount to what the government borrows every two weeks. (The sequester actually requires about $85 billion in cuts this year, but about half can be rolled into subsequent years.) This is chump change that any fiscally responsible president could shake out of his back pocket.When a politician stands up and delves into climactic lies, distortions, misinformation, and overheated rhetoric, the casual Americas (that'd be most) will react with empathy when they "hear children will not be able to go to school, seniors will go hungry, cancer screenings and immunizations will cease, criminals will be released from prison, fires will not be put out, and airport lines will be longer.
Every time a politician uses fear, uncertainly and doubt as his motivation behind his proposed action, we will always be better off long-term by doing the opposite.