Lawmakers already taking aim at auto-cuts

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee,right, talks with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Capitol Hill in Washington, Nov. 15, 2011 prior to Panetta testifying before the committee. / AP

WASHINGTON - Failure by Congress' debt-cutting supercommittee to recommend $1.2 trillion in savings by Wednesday is supposed to automatically trigger spending cuts in the same amount to accomplish that job.

But the same legislators who concocted that budgetary booby trap just four months ago could end up spending the 2012 election year and beyond battling over defusing it.

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., say they are writing legislation to prevent what they say would be devastating cuts to the military. House Republicans are exploring a similar move. Democrats maintain they won't let domestic programs be the sole source of savings.

Mission unaccomplished: Supercommittee nears failure
Video: Supercommittee pessimistic as deadline nears
Complete coverage: America's debt battle

In the face of those efforts, President Obama has told the debt panel's co-chairmen that he "will not accept any measure that attempts to turn off the automatic cut trigger," White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters last week. The leaders of both parties in the House and Senate have expressed similar sentiments — seemingly making any attempt to restore the money futile.

"Yes, I would feel bound by it," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said recently of the automatic cuts. "It was part of the agreement."

But that doesn't mean rank-and-file lawmakers won't try to block the cuts, or that viewpoints might not change if the right deal is offered — especially in the hothouse atmosphere of next year's presidential and congressional campaign or its aftermath.

With nearly $500 billion in defense spending and an equal amount of domestic dollars at stake, plenty of lawmakers are ready to try blocking all or parts of those automatic cuts, if only to win favor from backers of programs whose funds are on the chopping block.

"I have no doubt that there will be efforts to turn it off," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "Never underestimate the willingness of politicians to try to avoid making some of the hard choices."

It's unclear how successful such an effort would be. Not only would an Obama veto be tough to overcome, but pressure from the financial markets on politicians to rein in the government's huge budget shortfalls could keep lawmakers from easing the automatic reductions.

The automatic cuts, enacted in this summer's debt-limit deal between Obama and congressional Republicans, were designed to be so distasteful that they would add pressure on the supercommittee to craft a compromise.

But as CBS News congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes reports, even the leaders of the supercommittee admit they are now close to failure.

"I would have hoped it would have been a deterrent to those who have taken an oath to Grover Norquist that defense of our country" is less important than tax cuts, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Friday, in a dig at Republicans who signed a pledge from the conservative activist to not raise taxes.

Norquist has transformed a single issue - preventing tax hikes - into one of the key platforms of the Republican Party. His biggest coup was getting more than 270 members of Congress, and nearly all of the 2012 Republican presidential primary candidates, to sign a pledge promising never to vote to raise taxes. But as "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft reports, some opponents say the pledge may be hindering a solution to America's debt crisis.

Video: Norquist's hold on the GOP
Video: Norquist defends his agenda
Video: Norquist's political hit list

But with prospects dimming for a bipartisan accord by the supercommittee on a deficit-reduction package by this week's deadline, it appears increasingly likely that members of Congress will have to live with the automatic cuts — or "sequestration" — that they built into the law. Little progress was made over the weekend as Democrats and Republicans traded barbs over which party was responsible for gridlock on the 12-member supercommittee.

And while lawmakers of all stripes agree that automatic, across-the-board cuts are no way to run the federal government, the threat hasn't outweighed the differences between the six Democrats and six Republicans on the deficit panel. Democrats are demanding significant tax increases in exchange for savings from expensive benefit programs, while Republicans are refusing to accept such revenue boosts.

The debt-limit agreement requires automatic cuts of $1.2 trillion if the supercommittee produces nothing or if Congress fails to approve a package of that size by Christmas.

If the debt panel produces less than $1.2 trillion in savings, automatic cuts are activated to make up the difference. So $800 billion in savings from the supercommittee would trigger $400 billion in automatic cuts.

By law, 18 percent of the automatic savings are assumed to come from interest costs the government would save from reducing the debt. If the supercommittee fails completely, out of the $1.2 trillion in automatic savings, $216 billion would be assumed interest savings.

That would leave $984 billion in automatic spending cuts. They are supposed to start in 2013 and be spread evenly over the next nine years, divided equally between defense and domestic programs. That works out to around $55 billion annually each from defense and domestic programs.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that for the Pentagon, that would mean a 10 percent cut in its $550 billion budget in 2013 — a huge hit.

"Unless we act today, the dismantling of the greatest armed forces in history could begin tomorrow," Rep. Howard P. McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, wrote supercommittee leaders on Friday in a letter warning them of the consequences of the automatic defense reductions.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has said he wants to stick with the automatic cuts but would like to reshape them so they rely less heavily on defense.

Several lawmakers talked of the possibility of easing the impact of the automatic cuts on defense in interviews on Sunday news programs.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, co-chairman of the supercommittee, said he hopes the current projected split of half defense, half domestic, for the automatic spending cuts will be changed in the event no deal emerges from his panel.

"But I am committed to insuring that the American people get that deficit reduction that they were promised," he said on Fox News Sunday. "But under the law, Congress will have 13 months to do that I n a smarter, more prudent fashion."

"Maybe sequestration is our only way we will get any kind of cuts," Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said on CNN's "State of the Union."

Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" he believes the Pentagon cuts would be devastating. "But we do have the opportunity, even if the committee fails, to work around the sequester so that we still have $1.2 trillion in savings over 10 years, but it's not done in the very Draconian way that Secretary Panetta is referring to."

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said, "If they're going to try to protect defense, there'll be pushback."

On the domestic side, the law exempts Social Security, Medicaid and many veterans' benefits and low-income programs. It also limits Medicare to a 2 percent reduction.

Still, that leaves education, agriculture and the environment programs exposed to cuts of around 8 percent in 2013, CBO says. For many Democrats, those are cuts worth fighting against, especially if Republicans try protecting defense programs.

The temptation to block the automatic cuts could grow even larger right after the 2012 elections, depending on the results.

The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush are scheduled to expire in January 2013. Extending them is a top GOP priority, while Democrats want to let them expire for the highest-earning Americans.

If either party wins White House and congressional control, its members could be ready to reshape both the automatic spending cuts and the tax cuts to their liking.

[stn_sage]

I absolutely LOVE this!
This just demonstrates how criminally irresponsible Congress is!
First, they concoct a plan to go to automatic cuts if they don't come up with a budget plan (deal).
Next, when it's apparent they can't make a deal, they attempt to
devise new legislation to negate 'the automatic trigger cuts!'
That's FANTASTIC!
How much LOONIER can they get!?
Talk about a political body that ain't playing with a 'full deck',
this is it, folks!

[josephp5]

This whole "supercommittee" thing was just a sham.

Republicans never intended to agree to any tax increases, even in return for Democrats putting everything on the table including Social Security and Medicare.

It's just like this ridiculous "Balance Budget Amendment" thing. While the US struggles with over 9% unemployment, Republicans are wasting time drafting this Amendment, which they claim will solve everything. Even if it passes Congress (which it won't), it still needs to be ratified by the state legislators of three-fourths of the states (that's 38 states).

38 states? Never gonna happen! And Republicans know it! But it allows Republicans cover---to claim they are doing something important to solve the debt crisis, without touching anything that would irritate their wealthy contributors like raising taxes on the rich or cutting Defense spending.

[eteamer]

Rome is burning.

[rightbehind]

Grover Norquist is typical of the deadbeats that use US highways and benefit from the Great Nation that has been built. That deadbeat needs to be put on a boat with all the supplies he can carry and put out to sea for any nation that wants him.

His tax pledge needs to be printed on toilet paper for all to use.

[bakulaji]

I love America. The land of plenty (of political wisdom) NOT. This comment was placed here after long rethinking, on my part, as a patriot, jingoist, Democrat, Oops, wrong party, make it a Tea Party, Oops, wrong again, Teat Party ain't no party to the current upheaval and down-hill deterioration of American family values.

Did I say family values? I guess I did. No way to renege my own statements, published or not.

Family, as determined by the American definition, is that which contain a male, Oops, a macho male head of the castle, sort of self elected person of a male sex. A legal wife (or two, if one's faith decides how many of this variety be, Muslims and Mormons, for instance). 2.3 children whose DNA matches perfectly or imperfectly, as the case may be of male member's children and female members children living happily under one's or the others same roof.

A flag flying in front yard and another flying in the backyard, not necessarily the tricolor. Could be a mono-color, if one member believes in a religious proximity to extraterritorial, Oops, foreign religion.

Apple pie with or without a sprinkling of cinnamon or a glob of cool ice cream, jelly or whipped cram with a red (artificially colored) cherry on top.

A holy book, preferably a Christian Bible but not necessarily, a Gideon variety. Could be a Koran, not necessarily embellished with artful designs of geometrical shapes dabbed with colors.

This typical family cares, shares and bares their canine teeth, just as soon as elections are announced. Sometimes in two years the other times in four. Actually, no announcement is necessary. The family is hardwired to judge when, where, how but not why.

Such family wakes up not by the alarm set in their bedrooms, but by the print and electronic media shenanigans. Actually, such family never sleeps. Too dangerous to sleep in hard times, under constantly changing scenarios played out in the ever hungry media.

Polls, pollsters, pundits and talking heads get into frenzy publishing results of what this peculiar family is doing, not doing, overdoing or thinking. Actually, this typical family stopped thinking a long time. They just take a cue, a view, a potent message, an urge to splurge their valuable vote and bingo.

You have an elected person doing good and bad things, mostly, the latter, for the rest of his or her natural life, barring accidents, of course.

I love America. I think, I am repeating myself.

...and I am Sid [e-mail]

[Ascolais]

You have to wonder; that the appointment of the so-called super-committee was done for pure theater and was never meant to succeed. All that our politicians seem to do is apply band-aids and kick-the-can real decisions to a later (after an election) date.

Our leaders claim that we are the worlds greatest Nation, yet we are no longer able to make responsible decisions and our politicians no-longer work for the benefit of the Country. The politicians seem to be puppets of self serving special interests.

[josephp5]

It's the REPUBLICANS that didn't want this supercommittee to succeed.

It was all a bluff to make it seem like Republicans were agreeable to a "balanced" approach of both cuts and tax increases. But thanks to their oath to Grover, they cannot possibly accept even the most miniscule tax increase, even a miniscule amount on the richest of the rich. They also cannot accept any cuts to Defence---it has to be all on the backs of the poor and needy.

[CherokeeFields]

In a shameful display of self-interest, the "Supercomittee" has demonstrated to the entire world how much they value their own careers over the needs of the nation they swore an oath to protect and serve.
In fact, the entire Congress has abdicated on their responsibility to run the government in favor of party politics. A sad day indeed for America.

[brzyu]

Put the troops on the borders. Secure the borders and stimulate the economy with all of the infrastructure improvements. That's how you kill two birds...Savings will be enormous as our efforts are mostly domestic. Let the special forces fight the wars; they are best at it anyway. And what's with the deal last summer; did they just read it now? Maybe they should read the crap they vote on, morons!

[LarryMoe2012]

McCain, Is a lying loser. This spoiled military brat, son and grandson of admirals has never earned an honest dime in his life. He left his POW buddies to die in prison while he caved in to his captors and disgraced America by broadcasting over enemy POW camp speakers that America was guilty for the war. The reason he has become the advocate for maintaining and increasing military spending is to insure the truth of his corrupt past is kept silent. Who does he think he is fooling? These elite fat cats live in ivory towers not realizing how transparent those towers are to "We the people".

[wdlandscapes]

vote all of these clowns out of office...remember how little they have done!!!