The debate over the sequester, or across-the-board reductions in planned federal spending, continues. But despite last week’s warnings of dire consequences from President Barack Obama, there is growing awareness that the short-term impact should be minimal, even if longer-term, the cuts could damage the economy and hurt some Americans.

Most people can see that Obama overplayed his hand with scare tactics of dire consequences.

Several commentators noted that politics might distort the view from the White House as to how to manage reduced spending.

For the White House, trying to beat back Republicans’ efforts to slow the rate of federal spending, the best political outcome of the sequester would be the high-profile damage threatened by Obama -- criminals being let out of prisons, airline flights being cancelled because of furloughed air traffic controllers, and teachers losing their jobs. But those things are not happening.

If a company decides that expenses must be trimmed, the plan would result in eliminating inefficiencies or closing marginal operations. The objective would be to cut costs without hurting the product or impacting customers.

That’s nearly the opposite of how the White House or defenders of continued deficit spending would see things.

It would help the White House politically if air travelers face long delays or FBI agents are furloughed. But most Americans believe that a $3 trillion federal spending plan can survive some spending restraint.

Few would argue that the sequester’s mostly across-the-board cuts are the best way to trim spending. Clearly, there are smarter ways to cut the budget deficit.

The sequester, despite being yet another Washington-created crisis, has triggered some worthwhile discussion.

One positive is being reminded that when most people in Washington talk about spending cuts, they are really talking about reducing the rate of spending growth. Desite all the talk of budget cuts, most so-called cuts tied to the sequester are reductions in the rate of spending increases.

Another benefit of the sequester debate being reminded that budgets are about setting prioritie and making choices. In other words, leadership. And there is little leadership coming from Congress or the White House.

Obama and others have complained that the sequester requires “indiscriminate” budget cuts that don’t provide flexibility about what to cut and what not to cut. But when Republicans in Congress proposed giving the White House the ability to discriminate – or target the cuts to some areas while protecting others — the White House was not interested.

In Washington, nobody wants to be blamed for reduced, or restrained, spending because that means some constituency will be unhappy.

On top of that, taxpayers know to be skeptical of Washington. This is especially true after the 2011 budget cuts called “historic” by Obama turned out to include billions of dollars in accounting gimmicks, according to a Washington Post investigation.

The sequester debate brings to mind a quote linked to Winston Churchill, “Gentlemen, we have run out of money, now we have to think.”

The message from many Americans to Washington politicians is: “You’ve got enough money to spend, it’s time to set priorities and make some tough decision.”

Trimming the budget deficit with the sequester is not a good idea because across-the-board cuts are not smart cuts. Still, the sequester debate has been revealing — and helpful.

It’s past time for some leadership in Washington. Already there is hopeful speculation that Obama and Republicans can find a solution with targeted spending cuts, slowing the growth of entitlement spending and the elimination of some tax loopholes, with that increased revenue dedicated to reduction of the national debt.