There were many dire warnings about the sheer catastrophe that was sure to occur if the automatic budget cuts known as sequestration were allowed to proceed earlier this year. So far, they have largely turned out to be overhyped -- not only individually but in their impact on the broader economy.

Second-quarter GDP growth wasn't exactly stellar, at 1.7 percent (annualized and adjusted for inflation), but it was better than the rate recorded in the two previous quarters and three of the previous four (see pg. 20 of the PDF at the link). In any case, the Congressional Budget Office projects that this year's tax increases ($363 billion) will take a far larger chunk out of the economy than the spending cuts ($82 billion) will. So, it's hard to argue with a straight face that sequestration represents Washington's biggest policy drag on the economy this year.

With all that in mind, I have mixed feelings about the op-ed by Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Nebraska, in today's Wall Street Journal. Here's the gist of the piece (which is for subscribers only):

"Only a few short months have passed since administration officials canvassed the country lamenting how automatic, across-the-board spending cuts would constrict important government services. ... Unfortunately, Senate Democrats seem to have forgotten their warnings because they are now all but ensuring that there will be a second act to this drama later this year.

"The Democratic-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee is spending $91 billion above and beyond levels agreed to in the Budget Control Act of 2011. This irresponsible behavior sends us careening toward a new round of sequester cuts and fails to fulfill our obligation to responsibly allocate taxpayer dollars, opting instead to keep spending beyond our means."

Johanns goes on to point out that such spending would, under the Budget Control Act, trigger further sequestration cuts: "blindly trimming nearly every government account by the same margin, without regard for the services affected."

Most observers agree that so-called smart, targeted cuts are preferable to "blindly trimming" spending in this way. But the fact remains that sequestration represents the first time in many, many years Congress has made actual cuts to real spending (as opposed to the usual D.C. method of merely growing spending less quickly than previously planned). While everyone agrees targeted cuts are better, Congress has proved incapable of deciding which spending to target. And when particular cuts appeared to be unbearable, Congress has managed to make amends.

To the degree sequestration is unpopular, Johanns is probably being politically astute to start making it clear Senate Democrats would be responsible for another round of sequestration because they aren't willing to abide by the law (a familiar refrain from Democrats in Washington these days). But, given that even discretionary spending is slated to fall only one more year (fiscal 2014, which starts Oct. 1) before resuming an upward trend, I have to question the wisdom of making it sound like further cuts would be the most tragic fallout of Senate Democrats' insistence on overspending. It's the overspending that's truly regrettable.