It will increase spending, and it should and must. The debate is over decreasing the rate, as it should and must be.
The country adds population. The country grows GDP. There is inflation. You relentlessly must have more spending each year because of simply that. If the US government spent what it spent in say, 1800, there would be no FAA and plane crashes every day. You would get sick every day from bad food because of no FDA. There would be no FBI and the mafia would rule your life. There would be no Air Force. No aircraft carriers. No missiles. None of those existed or were funded in 1800.
What Sequester does is reduce spending as a % of GDP, and while I think that should be quoted as % of population, it nonetheless is a better measure than raw dollars. When you cut spending from the baseline curve, it is indeed a real and proper cut. It just requires us to work to understand it.
Adding working population doesn't necessarily cost much. If the private sector part of the GDP increases, it doesn't cost the government anything. And inflation is caused by the government.
We really do not need to spend 100s of billions on wasteful green energy, nor on medicare for illegal immigrants, nor on any of 10,000 other large and small boondoggles.
Yes, the government needs to spend more on 100,000 miles of highway than it did on 10,000. But that begs the question of how much is currently wasted and can be cut.
In 2009 Obama blew $1Trillion on stimulus. That $1T was supposed to be a one time thing, but has been in the baseline budget figures ever since. Surely we can cut this $1T now.
Every private enterprise has been doing more with less every year for the last 50. Only government gets away with things like spending far more money for far worse results in education.
The debate over reducing the rate of increase is just an exercise in futility. We reduce the spending or we fail, because there's no way the government can tax enough to spend the way they want.