Everything from air safety marshals to food safety inspectors, border patrol agents and other government employees could get the ax in a few weeks.

Although most of the attention surrounding the fiscal cliff has centered on expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts, many commenters have missed the giant impact of sequester, the cutting of $100 billion from domestic government spending set for Jan. 1 that Congress created as part of the 2011 budget agreement.

If the sequester goes ahead, the country could find itself without many vital services, argues a New York Times editorial. Countless government workers who play a crucial — if hidden — role in our lives could get pink slips.

Editor's Note: The Final Turning Predicted for America. See Proof.

Republicans seem intent on going ahead with those budget cuts and adding more, arguing that the government's problem is too much spending. While they speak in abstract generalities about government spending, they don't give details about cutting the FBI, Border Patrol or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, according to The Times.

Instead, they want President Barack Obama to do the dirty work of picking what popular programs to cut, The Times alleges, saying Obama has already agreed to $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over a decade.

Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin says Obama is the one being unreasonable. In a major concession, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, offered to increase his opening bit of $800 billion in tax revenue over 10 years,

While the president offered to reduce spending on healthcare programs by $400 billion over 10 years, he is unwilling to make substantial changes to entitlements or the tax code.

To control government spending we must address entitlements, and Obama has previously said he would reform entitlements. Yet Republicans have found that Obama "has no interest in or insufficient nerve to tackle spending," Rubin writes.

Editor's Note: The Final Turning Predicted for America. See Proof.