Congress digs in for sequester battle -- again

Speaker of the House John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell emerge from the White House on November 16, 2012 in Washington, D.C. / Roger Wollenberg/Getty Images

More than two months after passing a short-term fix to avoid a devastating set of across-the-board spending cuts, Congress this month finds itself locked in a familiar game of chicken over the so-called "sequester" - and with just 25 days to come up with a new solution, there's little evidence any progress has been made.

With a March 1 deadline looming before the December deal expires, Congress faces yet another round of painstaking negotiations over a way to avert the $1.2 trillion worth of reductions, which are spread equally over defense and domestic non-defense spending over the course of 10 years. And while the sequester package was never intended to go into effect - in fact, it was designed to be so potentially devastating as to force Republicans and Democrats to on an alternate solution to reduce the deficit - the political atmosphere in Washington has been so bitterly partisan as to make any compromise near impossible.

Now, with just a few weeks left to act, defense officials are urging Democrats and Republicans to find a way to bridge their differences.

• Obama: "No doubt" more revenue still needed
• "Fiscal cliff" averted after deal clears House

"If Congress stands back and allows the sequester to happen, it would be a shameful, irresponsible act," said outgoing CIA Director Leon Panetta, in an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Panetta, who has been an outspoken critic to the sequester cuts from day one, delivered a sharp warning to Congress as to the impact such reductions would have on the military's ability to perform.

"If sequester goes into effect, and we have to do the kind of cuts that go right at readiness, right at maintenance, right at training, we are going to weaken the United States and make it more difficult to respond to crises," said outgoing CIA Director Leon Panetta, in an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Play Video

Obama: "No doubt we need additional revenue"

Economists have been equally dire in their assessments of economic impact of letting the sequester cuts go into effect, and in an interview last night with CBS News' Scott Pelley, President Obama argued that they had already had an impact on the nation's economic growth. He attributed findings in a new GDP report, which showed the U.S. economy shrank 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012, to a 22 percent cut in defense spending, and the "cloud of crisis" it created.

"I don't know if it will push the country into recession," he said, of the sequester cuts. "Washington cannot continually operate under a cloud of crisis... We can't afford these self-inflicted wounds, and there is a way for us to solve these budget problems in a responsible way, through a balanced approach that the vast majority of people agree with. If we do that, there's no reason we can't have really strong growth in 2013."

Despite the general sense of urgency over averting the cuts, there has been little word of any deal-making in Washington, and both sides appear far apart on the ideological tenets of any potential compromise. And another battle looms that promises to become conflated with the larger debate: Congress must pass a new federal budget plan before March 27, when the current continuing resolution to keep the government funded runs out.

On the House floor this afternoon, Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, went after the president for missing a deadline today to submit his budget to Congress, and suggested, "one example of something the president's budget could have addressed is his sequester."

"Now twice the House has passed legislation to replace the president's sequester with commonsense reforms that would reduce spending and preserve and strengthen our safety net for future generations," Boehner said. "We spread it all out. We have done our work.

"...But to replace the president's sequester, we need our Democrat colleagues to get serious about spending," he continued. "I wish I could give the American people more cause for optimism, but we see the president's budget is late, and the Senate hasn't passed a budget in nearly four years."

Already, a fight is brewing over Democratic calls for more revenues in the new budget.

Mr. Obama told Pelley yesterday that while he isn't planning any more tax rate hikes for now, "there is no doubt we need additional revenue, coupled with smart spending reductions, in order to bring down our deficit."

"There's a lot of waste in the system, and there are things that we can do to reduce health care costs," he said. "Can we close some loopholes and deductions that folks that are well connected and have a lot of accountants and lawyers can take advantage of, so they end up paying lower rates than a bus driver or a cop? Can we close some of those loopholes? If you combine those things together, then we can not only reduce our deficit, but we can continue to invest in things like education, and research and development ... Without raising rates again."

[Tank_Commander]

Nice picture CBS, if they had photo shopped ears and tails on them the caption could read: "rats leaving the main deck of the Titanic." They created this mess, each and every one of them, regardless of party affiliation. But of course, like little kids in the sandbox full of cat droppings, they want to point fingers and howl.

[Commonsense_Vet]

I scratch my head in disbelief when I read a lot of the articles on the media sites. Both parties continue to have a my way or no way attitude. I agree with what many have posted in that we are not going to resolve all of these problems overnight. What we need to be working towards is pushing this country in the right direction yet neither party seems willing to do that. The answer to bringing dowm the debt and the deficit is NOT to think it can be done all at once especially at the risk of damaging what is already a fragile economy. The answer also is NOT to expect the wealthy to bail out the government (although seeing how the government bailed out the wealthy I can see why many would support the idea). The simply and most common sense way to deal with the problem is to gradually reduce spending and gradually increase revenue, not by hiking taxes but by gradually eliminating a number of these silly tax deductions and tax breaks. It is absurd to think that more than 50% of tax payers can get away with paying no net taxes and think we will reduce the debt. Just as it is absurd to think you can make massive spending cuts and not throw the economy back into a recession. Which brings me to another point. Do people really think that by eliminating hundreds of thousands of jobs that it will automatically translate into reduced government spending> It won't because now these same people will be collecting unemployment and other bennefits meaning we will be shifting spending from one area of the government to another not to mention that these newly unemplyed people will not being much of anything in taxes. So how this is somehow going to help reduce spending is a mystery to me, it must be some kind of new math or something. Another point I want to make is that if the President and Congress are so concerned with reducing spending why are they not looking at the health care industry? Drug manufacturers take in record profits annually yet noone in Washington questions it. I would assume this is because drug manufacturers spent over $220 million in lobbying in 2012 alone. Which brings me to my final point, it is time that lobbying in Washington was done away with. The President and Congress is supposed to work for the American people not lobbyists. So long as lobbyists are calling all the shots in Washington nothing will ever change and while we are at it there should be massive campaign reforms to prevent the wealthy and big business from buying politicians however that doesn't seem possible now since the Supreme Court recently legalized corruption.

[tkdmusicgirl]

I don't see why the Republicans are so against taxing the rich higher. Actors, musicians and the like make millions every year! I think they can afford to give a couple million in taxes every year. No one needs a different car for every day of the week. They don't need a house with 23 bedrooms, three pools, and 37 bathrooms. The rich need to learn how to live below their means just as many hard-working middle class families have.

[marychgo]

The sequester should be eliminated and replaced by a triggered program of spending cuts tied to unemployment rates; for example, $50 billion in cuts (half Defense, half other discretionary) when the unemployment rate drops to 7%; another $50 billion (same split) when it drops to 6.5%; and so on. That would allow the economy to build up a bit of momentum before we crash it with major cuts in government spending.
Meanwhile, the most essential tax changes needed would eliminate some of the most regressive elements of the current tax non-system; for instance, taxing all personal income (wages and salaries, capital gains, dividends, and "carried interest") at the same rates; making all personal income subject to FICA and Medicare tax; eliminating all business tax preferences for mature industries; and adding a financial transactions tax.

[knsn_for_cmn_sense]

Ok Good.

They got a little revenue. Now let the spending cuts of the sequester happen... SPENDING CUTS ACROSS THE BOARD MUAHA HA HA.

[nearl451]

So what's so bad about the sequester? $100B per year. GREAT!

I didn't realize it was to expire, but nothing there's wrong with across the board cuts.

They should have espired all the Bush tax rates for a few years too.

The economy can take it.

After all what do they want? Less effect, like the taxes effect was negotitated?

[Cowmpound]

Its really disgusting. Look at that picture and what do you think of.

Looks, this is not going to be solved in March or this year. Maybe this decade.

If they are not smart enough to be able to scope this correctly to get something on the table people can believe in, to get a win, they need to all go. Each and every one of em.

The republicans make me sick. Change your tune already, its not working and hasn't for a long long time. Also, the Democrats need to shoe some leadership and cut some freaking spending.

I watch these blogs and its amazing how we have turned into pawns. Its obvious we need to cut spending and obtain more revenue and its not coming from the poor. The poor doesn't have it.

But we sit here and spew hate at each other and hypothetically don't move off our position. No better than the clowns in the picture of this article.

[sjc_1]

Republicans want to cut Social Security and Medicare then say they are "saving" them. Those programs are paid for with the Payroll Tax, keep your hands off of them!

[wfw3536]

Time for conservatives to develop some backbone and start cutting. Our children and grandchildren can't afford to continue down Obama's road of one plus trillion spending of debt each year. It is time to start getting the 49 million folks off of food stamps and the 23 million unemployed folks working again. What we need is a president who is a uniter not the great divider that we have now.

[Cowmpound]

Your comments are divisive. No better than the clowns in the picture. I believe most people agree with you regarding debt and food stamps. Food stamps suck. Much more for the people who have to be on them. The debt is a big problem. But Obama didn't start that. Could have done better, but he didn't create that mess.

If we don't have real progress, choose to get rid of each and every one of them, both parties, in 2014. I do.

Its our country, don't let them divide us into conservative/redumblicans or liberal/dumbocrats.

We are Americans AND SCREW ANYBODY WHO SAYS OTHERWISE.

[RobertVBrand]

Boehner and Reed keep making speeches telling us that "the American People won't stand for this" and "the American People want this." What the American People want is less of Boehner and Reed.