Congress has got very good at eliminating options and generating demands so the bureaucracy has only one way to satisfy the requirements of the law. It's the same strategy that drafts the requirements of a job so narrowly, specifying prior education and employment history, that only one applicant will be qualified to get hired. It's how sole source contractors are defined. It's why the Pentagon has to use drones to hunt terrorists from the air. Since there are no other options when Congress has decreed no live personnel should be at risk, assassination by remote control is all that's left.
There is nothing unusual about the sequester. It's a new word to define an old habit. Congress has been rationing and restricting the distribution of dollars to advantage supporters and pet projects for decades. The sequester is supposed to be across the board (every agency gets hit equally), but of course, it's not. Priorities persist and some functions can't be cut, but the choices are shoved off to the Administration so Congress can wash its hands of the results. ("It's not my fault your children have no food at school. Blame the President") If there is not enough money to carry a particular function out, then a private contractor's promise to do the same work for less not only looks attractive, but presents an argument that can't be refuted. If it costs more later, it doesn't really matter because the original intent, to direct an income stream to a favorite supporter has been achieved. Just as there are more ways than one to skin a cat, there is more than one way to privatize.
It is really amazing in how many ways the Party of No is an accurate moniker for the thieves in Congress. It's not just that they do no work for the country and do not provide for welfare (general or particular) and do not carry out their obligation under the Constitution, it's that by ruling out (saying "no") they manage to arrogate absolute rule unto themselves. By ruling out alternatives, they leave no choice and relieve themselves of all responsibility for what does or does not get done. The dictatorship of no. Obstruction works because change is a constant and something will get done. But, the obstructionists won't be responsible and can't be charged with any crime. Never mind that continuing to hold a public office, which is what they are ultimately about, can't be held against them.
Wanting to be a public servant is an honorable ambition, after all! If "public service" is a euphemism for dominion, whose fault is that? If the public is deceived, then that's their own fault, isn't it, as it has been since Eve believed?
Satan's genius is putting the blame on the victim. Does that make liars Satan's minions? You be the judge. But, it does seem that ruling all but one thing out is similar to "the thing left out" in being, like a half truth, intentionally deceptive. That obstructionism is intentionally deceptive, meant to distract from a singular objective, is not immediately obvious. Or, perhaps I am just really slow.