Sequestration - the accepted and ridiculous way to cut

VERY interesting article about how Congress has accepted the detestable tactic of sequestration to accomplish something that they can't find the stomach to do any other way - cut the budget.

This is bad news, as the article notes.

How Congress Came to Love the Thing It Hated Most

A. "But after years of cutting spending in the wake of the tea-party wave of 2010, with no alterations to mandatory-spending morasses like Medicare or tax reform, Congress is running out of areas to cut back and find available funding for new programs. On the discretionary side of the budget, members are essentially left turning over seat cushions looking for change."

B. " In the interim, members are showing a penchant for returning to sequestration as the ultimate offset for new programs and changes to old ones. Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray and her House counterpart Paul Ryan added two years of mandatory sequestration cuts in order to cut spending in their budget agreement in December. And just this week, members added another year to reverse unpopular cuts to military pensions. The legislative cuts will now expire in 2024. "

[ Seriously ??? ]

C. " But with so few other options for spending cuts and offsets, Congress could easily add a few more years of sequestration in 2014. That's concerning for members, who worry about the potentially devastating effects of 10 years of hacksaw cuts to Medicare and Social Security in particular. But the concern is particularly acute among conservatives, who are anxious over adding new spending programs in exchange for offsets 10 years down the line, which could easily disappear by the time they're set to take effect."

So, they are sequestering many years into the future, expecting Congresses of the future to continue reversing them and passing cuts later into the future. 

This is ridiculous.  Truly ridiculous.