You must be listening to Rush too much.
The cuts when compared as a percentage to the entire budget may look small, but 2/3rd of the budget (entitlements) are EXEMPT from sequestration. Of the remaining 1/3rd, Defense takes the biggest hit. On top of that, the total DoD bill for just this year is now projected to be over 13%, and since they can only touch a portion of the budget (military pay for instance is exempt), and they are halfway through the fiscal year, the cuts to the military are huge.
If you had 12 employees, and said you had to make cuts, but you were going to "exempt" 8 of them, and of the 4 remaining only 1 had to take the majority of the paycut, then the one employee takes it the most.
Same principle here, however, the "takers" of society are doing just fine, thank you. Obama and the Democrats fooled the Republicans into signing off on the sequester, and now the military will suffer great harm.
The GOP spin on this is all over the map. Last May, Paul Ryan said these cuts to the military had to be reversed.
Now he is cheerleading them.
Even Byron York is saying Boehner and the Republicans have lost their minds.
The GOP’s astonishingly bad message on sequester cuts
"In a Wall Street Journal op-ed Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner describes the upcoming sequester as a policy “that threatens U.S. national security, thousands of jobs and more.” Which leads to the question: Why would Republicans support a measure that threatens national security and thousands of jobs? Boehner and the GOP are determined to allow the $1.2 trillion sequester go into effect unless President Obama and Democrats agree to replacement cuts, of an equal amount, that target entitlement spending. If that doesn’t happen — and it seems entirely unlikely — the sequester goes into effect, with the GOP’s blessing. In addition, Boehner calls the cuts “deep,” when most conservatives emphasize that for the next year they amount to about $85 billion out of a $3,600 billion budget. Which leads to another question: Why would Boehner adopt the Democratic description of the cuts as “deep” when they would touch such a relatively small part of federal spending? The effect of Boehner’s argument is to make Obama seem reasonable in comparison.