W.H. warns of "deeply destructive" spending cuts
CBS
(AP) WASHINGTON - A new White House report issued Friday warns that $110 billion in across-the-board spending cuts at the start of the new year would be "deeply destructive" to the military and core government responsibilities like patrolling U.S. borders and air traffic control.
The report says the automatic cuts, mandated by the failure of last year's congressional deficit "supercommittee" to strike a budget deal, would require an across-the-board cut of 9 percent to most Pentagon programs and an 8 percent cut in many domestic programs. The process of automatic cuts is called sequestration, and the administration has no flexibility in how to distribute the cuts, other than to exempt military personnel and war-fighting accounts.
"Sequestration would be deeply destructive to national security, domestic investments, and core government functions," the report says.
Sequestration could be Pentagon pork killer
Romney: GOP involvement in debt deal was "mistake"
The cuts, combined with the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts at the end of the year, have been dubbed the "fiscal cliff." Economists warn that the one-two punch could drive the economy back into recession.
The across-the-board cuts were devised as part of last summer's budget and debt deal between President Barack Obama and Capitol Hill Republicans. They were intended to drive the supercommittee -- evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans -- to strike a compromise. But the panel deadlocked and the warring combatants have spent more time since then blaming each other for the looming cuts than seeking ways to avoid them.
The White House report continues in that vein, blasting House Republicans for an approach to avoiding the sequester that relies on further cuts to domestic programs while protecting upper-bracket taxpayers from higher rates proposed by the president.
Will mandatory spending cuts hurt national security? Sharyl Attkisson reports.
In advance of the report's release, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney went on the offensive, blasting "the adamant refusal of Republicans to accept the fundamental principle that we ought to deal with our fiscal challenges in a balanced way."
In advance of the election, rival Democratic and GOP sides are dug in, unwilling to make the required compromises and unable to trust the other side. It's commonly assumed that there will be more serious efforts to forestall the cuts in a post-election lame duck session, though it may only be for a short time, to give the next Congress and whoever occupies the White House a chance to work out a longer-term solution.
If not, sharp cuts are on the way.
The report warns that the Pentagon faces cuts that "would result in a reduction in readiness of many non-deployed units, delays in investments in new equipment and facilities, cutbacks in equipment repairs, declines in military research and development efforts, and reductions in base services for military families."
On the domestic front, the White House warns of dire effects as well.
"The number of Federal Bureau of Investigation agents, Customs and Border Patrol agents, correctional officers, and federal prosecutors would be slashed. The Federal Aviation Administration's ability to oversee and manage the Nation's airspace and air traffic control would be reduced," the report says. "The Department of Agriculture's efforts to inspect food processing plants and prevent foodborne illnesses would be curtailed."
Many big programs, like Social Security, Medicaid, federal employee pensions and veterans benefits and health care would be exempted.
"Republicans have unfortunately made clear that they would rather see cuts in defense that could harm our national security, cuts in education and innovation, research and development, border security, cuts in vital programs and investments that we make as a nation, rather than ask millionaires and billionaires to pay a single dollar more in taxes," the report said. "That's not a responsible approach."
Popular in Politics
- Obama forgets to salute while boarding Marine One Play Video
- Petraeus biographer regrets affair
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen. 189 Comments
- Obama prom pictures surface 131 Comments
- GOP Rep.: Obama elected because of Reagan's immigration reforms
- Palin Image: Confident, Secure Play Video
- Is President Obama ending the war on terror? 297 Comments
- Pelosi ties bridge collapse to sequester
You could say that is ridiculous?
Paul Ryan has started the mission to go back on their agreed Sequestration agreement. Making every effort to make it the president's fault, his first salvo is "Breeding Weakness' when the entire TEA-Libertarian-GOP-Republican-Evangelical membership in the House agreed to it.
It seems that the TEA-Republicans have backed themselves into a bad spot as this impending sequestration and jobs loss will be blamed directly on them and their confrontational agreement during the "Debt Ceiling" fight last year. Texas' own John Cornyn, Paul Ryan and of the 222 Republicans who voted for Thursday's bill, 166 had voted for the Budget Control Act in August 2011. That's the legislation that created the sequester that nobody wants anything to do with now.
The Occupy Wall Street movement warned against with concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people and the concentration of power in stricter, less compassionate hands. Texas is being run by those less compassionate hands and too much power is in the hands of the TEA-Republicans.
I hope Sen. Mitch McConnell gets voted out next year, so the country can move forward.
Bush Totally threw Vet's under the bus by retro-actively changing which vets were deemed worthy of VA care based solely on time frames of service and a complicated, post-retirement income level calculation that not even the VA will post for people to see.
The screwing is so bad they won't even tell you what the cutoffs are publicly on their website. No, they want you to tell them how much you make so the VA can do the calculations and tell you that you are no longer covered (where prior to 2003, you would have been, automatically).
These changes effected all honorably discharged vets that did their time and served their country with honor and distinction.
Prior to Bush in 2003, they were covered. Afterwards, care is based on arbitrary dates of service and complicated income level cutoffs, all designed for the purpose of denying care to those that need it.
Talk is cheap GOP. Your actions show you are a hollow mouth.
That act needs to be repealed. It's bad enough that those that served got jerked around with the worst benefit packages of any generation of Americans since WW2, but to then take away what little benefits they DID have, retroactively was just pure cruelty and it shows that the GOP is all about screwing over the little guy.
Period.
"When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the white House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy." http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-20086598.html
FYI, Paul Ryan voted five times to increase the debt ceiling under Bush while still finding time to make stuff up about being an elite marathon runner and mountain climber...