If you were correct, the AF wouldn’t be pushing that dog the F-35, that is less capable than a 16 or 15. The 15SE makes it a total embarrassment.
You cant scream tight budgets as a justification to drop the most effective machine we have while pursuing the “F-35 replaces everything” idea.
Cut the number of F-35 by the number of A-100s we have and pocket the money.
Of course, contractors and congressfools really hate that.
However, since you brought up contracts and Congress, let's discuss that. Of course those jobs that production brings also comes with heavy, heavy political and lobbying pressure. The A-10 is complete, but it is also very old. So if the Air Force is looking to the future, it has to have a replacement. We have KC-135s in service that were produced in the 1950s! We have B-52s that have been flying since before JFK was shot.
Sequestration took so much money in FY13 that they had to dip into Operations and Maintenance because the procurement dollars were "fenced" by legality and could not be touched. So you are correct that they have had almost 2 years to correct that, and they haven't.
But still, that does not mean that Sequestration and the other cuts are not a reality. To argue against that is to simply pound the table and ignore the facts.
IF Congress wants the F-35 (which they enormously do), and IF they still want the military to pay this "bill" while not touching entitlements, then something has to give.
That "something" for the Air Force is the A-10 and KC-10.