almost liked the poison. it was clearly a blunder by the president. it was just a complete misreading of the opposition. it will eviscerate job-creating investments and education and energy and medical research. reporter: the president tried to convince the public that the sequester cuts would be too painful to bear. 3w0rder patrol agents will see their hours reduced. fbi agents will be furloughed. federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go. the president went into full chicken little mode. the sky is falling, he said. in fact, he said planes are going to fall out of the sky. air traffic controllers and airport security will see cut bakd backs, which means more delays at airports across the country. thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off. reporter: the problem is only a minority of americans fear the cuts. more think they ll have a positive effect, or make no difference at all. more ominous perhaps for the
president, nearly half the country thought he deliberately exaggerated the effects of those cuts to try to scare people. and so on march 1st a unified republican caucus lets the sequester cuts go into effect. were democrats surprised that they actually did? i think each side was surprised. the democrats thought the republicans would be so upabout the defense cut they d never let it happen and the republicans thought democrats would be so concerned about cuts to education and things like that that they d never let it happen. and here it did. and here it did. reporter: the sequester only cuts a small percentage of increases in federal spending. but that was still a huge accomplishment for small government conservatives. then december 10th. democrat and republican negotiators agreed to set aside the sequester and increase spending, though they say their deal reduces the deficit. tea party groups howled. speaker john boehner fights back. frankly, i just think they ve
the auto pilot part of the government. we are permanently asking the federal workers to contribute more to their pensions so the hard-working taxpayers who pay for the pensions don t have to pay as much. that s not a permanent law change. that s not something that is a promise and might happen later. it is happening now. the savings accumulate. if god forbid we have a hillary clinton second term, we would have to change a new law. we are doing permanent law. that s the point i am trying to make. look at the details of those who are criticizing it. it is keeping our principal in tact. no tax increases, net deficit and spending approach. you bust the sequester cuts, you said we don t bust them. but you let them leak. you spend $60 billion more than you would have under the sequester. that s right. and a sequester, a lot of people feel, has imposed real budget discipline. the critics say you are going back to the days of spending
taking place. turns out the republicans almost liked it it was clearly a blunder by the president it was a complete misreading in the opposition. at this rate job creating investments in energy and medical research. the president tried to corn vince the public the sequester cuts would be too painful to bare. border patrol agents will see hours reduced. fbi agents will be furloughed. federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let president go. he went into full chicken little the sky is falling. the planes are going to fall out of the sky. air traffic controllers and security will see cut backs which means more delays in air course. thousands of teachers and educators will be heylaid off. only a minority fear the cuts more think they will have a positive effect or make no difference at all more ominous perhaps for the president nearly half of the country thought he
the auto pilot part of the government. we are permanently asking the federal workers to contribute more to their pensions so the hard-working taxpayers who pay for the pensions don t have to pay as much. that s not a permanent law change. that s not something that is a promise and might happen later. it is happening now. the savings accumulate. if god forbid we have a hillary clinton second term, we would have to change a new law. we are doing permanent law. that s the point i am trying to make. look at the details of those who are criticizing it. it is keeping our principal in tact. no tax increases, net deficit and spending approach. you bust the sequester cuts, you said we don t bust them. but you let them leak. you spend $60 billion more than you would have under the sequester. that s right. and a sequester, a lot of people feel, has imposed real budget discipline. the critics say you are going