Supercommittee makes it official: No deal

Updated: 5:58 p.m. ET

After more than three months of negotiations, the congressional supercommittee announced Monday that it would not be able to reach a deal to reduce the deficit by the group's midnight deadline, citing "inability to bridge the committee's significant differences."

"After months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee's deadline," said Republican Rep. Jeb Hensarling and Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, the committee's two co-chairs, in a joint statement.

"Despite our inability to bridge the committee's significant differences, we end this process united in our belief that the nation's fiscal crisis must be addressed and that we cannot leave it for the next generation to solve," the statement continues. "We remain hopeful that Congress can build on this committee's work and can find a way to tackle this issue in a way that works for the American people and our economy."

CBSNews.com special report: America's debt battle
Obama pledges to veto effort to undo automatic spending cuts

Technically, the 12-person bipartisan group of lawmakers has until Wednesday at midnight to reach an agreement for reducing the deficit by $1.2 trillion, as was tasked to them as part of Congress's August deal to raise the debt limit. But the members are legally required to make their plan public at least 48 hours before voting on it -- which means that the committee must come to a deal by Monday night.

According to the debt limit deal, the committee's inability to compromise will result in $1.2 trillion worth of automatic cuts in domestic and defense programs as of 2013. The so-called "sequestration" was designed to serve as an incentive for compromise, and both parties had previously emphasized their commitment to avoiding those triggers.

In remarks Monday evening, President Obama warned Congress he would veto any effort to undo the sequester cuts, and called on Congress to "figure it out" in the year before the cuts kick in.

"Already some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts," Mr. Obama said, speaking for about four minutes in a live broadcast Monday evening. My message to them is simple: No."

"I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts," he added. "There will be no easy off-ramps on this one. We need to keep the pressure up to compromise, not turn off the pressure. The only way these spending cuts will not take place is if Congress gets back to work and agrees on a plan to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion dollars. That's exactly what they need to do."

At least seven committee members were involved in last-minute negotiations aimed at hammering out an agreement on Monday, and Democratic Sen. John Kerry purportedly floated an eleventh-hour proposal to the committee that would have included $1 trillion worth of tax increases.

But the issue of including tax revenues in the deficit reduction package remained a sticking point throughout the negotiations, and as of late afternoon on Monday, one Democratic aide said there had been "no sense of progress" despite the continued talks.

In a statement Monday afternoon, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, one of the Democrats on the supercommittee, said he was "very disappointed" in the group's failure, and expressed his hope for a meaningful discussion about why the committee was unable to meet its goal.

"Many will portray this failure as the inevitable consequence of two partisan sides refusing to give ground," Van Hollen said. "Blaming both sides equally will be the simple storyline and the path of least resistance. And it will be easy for people to deride any attempt to explain what happened as more partisan finger-pointing."

"That approach would be as easy as it would be wrong. It would ignore everyone's responsibility to seek the facts and the truth," he added. "In the days ahead, I urge the public and the media to carefully review the facts and record about what prevented the Joint Committee from developing a sound and balanced plan. I look forward to that discussion."

House Speaker John Boehner said he hoped the House would "forge ahead with the commitments we have made to reducing government spending and removing barriers standing in the way of private-sector job creation" despite the absence of a deficit reduction package.

"Doing otherwise is not an option," Boehner said in a statement. "This process did not end in the desired outcome, but it did bring our enormous fiscal challenges into greater focus. I am confident the work done by this committee will play a role in the solution we must eventually find as a nation."

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have already begun pointing fingers for what is increasingly being seen as an exercise in partisan congressional dysfunction.

One GOP leadership aide targeted Democrats' insistence on tax increases in any framework for a deal as the reason for the committee's failure, and contended that President Obama had designed a political strategy that doomed the committee to failure. 

"The Supercommittee's failure is a direct result of President Obama's negligence and Democrats' intransigence," added RNC chair Reince Priebus in a statement. "Over the last four months, Republicans on the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction worked around the clock to offer multiple proposals that would have broad bipartisan appeal. While Republicans were at the table negotiating in good faith, President Obama continued to prioritize campaigning over governing."

Democrats, on the other hand, took the GOP's refusal to raise taxes as a sign that the party is beholden to anti-tax activist Grover Norquist.

"Americans demanded and Democrats repeatedly supported a big, bold, and balanced plan to reduce our deficit and grow our economy," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in a statement. "The plan could not be balanced because Republicans insisted on extending the Bush tax cuts for people making more than a million dollars a year and repealing the Medicare guarantee - while refusing to accept a jobs proposal. By rejecting a balanced approach, Republicans chose to keep their pledge to Grover Norquist to protect the wealthiest one percent at all costs."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid blasted Republicans for "listening to the extreme voices in their party instead of the voices of reason."

"I am disappointed that Republicans never found the courage to ignore Tea Party extremists and millionaire lobbyists like Grover Norquist, and listen instead to the overwhelming majority of Americans - including the vast majority of Republicans - who want a balanced approach to deficit reduction," he said in a statement. "For the good of our country, Democrats were prepared to strike a grand bargain that would make painful cuts while asking millionaires to pay their fair share, and we put our willingness on paper. But Republicans never came close to meeting us halfway."

Meanwhile, Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee, turned their attention to the impact they believe the sequestration will have on American national security -- and said the "draconian" defense cuts "cannot be allowed to occur." 

"As every military and civilian defense official has stated, these cuts represent a threat to the national security interests of the United States, and cannot be allowed to occur," the two said in a joint statement. "We are now working on a plan to minimize the impact of the sequester on the Department of Defense and to ensure that any cuts do not leave us with a hollow military. The first responsibility of any government is to provide for the common defense; we will pursue all options to make certain that we continue to fulfill that solemn commitment."

In a press briefing Monday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney deflected criticism that the Mr. Obama was insufficiently involved in the negotiations, noting that while the president put forth a blueprint for a deficit reduction plan, "there wasn't a seat at that table, that I'm aware of, for a member of the administration."

"This committee was established by an act of Congress. It was comprised of members of Congress. Instead of pointing fingers and playing the blame game, Congress should act, fulfill its responsibility," Carney  said.

While Carney conceded that the committee's failure to reach a deal will result in cuts to the defense budget that are "much deeper than we think are wise," he declined to suggest that the White House might reverse the so-called sequester.

Congress "needs to hold itself to account," he said. "And also should not then try to undo the consequences of their own failure, the consequences that they themselves passed into law." 

Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services committee, said Monday evening he would be putting forth legislation aimed at preventing trigger cuts he argued would do "catastrophic damage to our men and women in uniform."

"I will be introducing legislation in the coming days to prevent cuts that will do catastrophic damage to our men and women in uniform and our national security," McKeon said in a statement. "Our military has already contributed nearly half a trillion to deficit reduction. Those who have given us so much, have nothing more to give."

Commentary: Supercommittee failure gives both sides what they want

[Florian_Schach]

the failure of the Supercommittee to reach a decision is not in the least bit surprising. But it is no excuse for not coming up with a plan that puts Americans back to work and puts America back onto the path for economic recovery. What we can't afford is that people stay unemployed so long that they are no longer able to be hired(http://eng.am/sTx56V). A long term plan is necessary for everyone going forward.

[maistir]

Why should we expect Congrees to be much different than the voters themselves? US voters are split and generally antagonistic, as most comments here show. Smart folks willing to compromise don't wield a lot of power in either party.

[Jhihmoac]

"No Deal"....and besides, it's the holiday break - SHEESH!

[zbcbs]

Obam a hit a bases loaded home run. He so outsmarted the Republican/Tparty. Think about it: First he outsmarted them when they held the country hostage on the deficit; now he gets 1.2 Trillion in budget cuts from the sequester (mostly from the overbloated defense budget); only nominal cuts to Social Security and Medicare; the Bush Tax cuts will expire in 2 months to start bringing in another trillion dollars in debt reduction; and bringing the troops home next year is another trillion dollars. So, while the Republican/Tparty just said no to everything Obama outsmarted them by getting nearly 4 Trillion in cuts while protecting Social Security and Medicare.

Of course, politically, he's shown that all the Republican/Tparty cares about are tax cuts for the rich. Needless to say, he will soon put in extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits which the Republican/Tparty will block and once again showing all they care about are protecting the wealthy and big business.


The guy is brilliant. The Republican/Tparty and their candidates are idiots. And the media is completely lame in not understanding what a huge victory this is for Obama and the country.

[Zann-Zel]

I love the way he works! Forcing the republicans to show how much they are in this for nothing but the MONEY, and saying to hell with the American people!

[starving1968-3]

by vsmit November 22, 2011 9:47 AM EST

You are obviously blinded by your hate filled ideology. Trying to defend a FAILED president and FAILED policy.







None of Obama's policies have been enacted. The republicans blocked ALL of them.

[starving1968-3]

by vsmit November 22, 2011 9:47 AM EST
60% wasn't tax cuts and yes, I'm saying stimulus was an $870B union payback.

What do you mean EXPLODED from 3.9% to 5.5%. What I wouldn't give to have a 5.5% unemployment rate right now.

You are obviously blinded by your hate filled ideology. Trying to defend a FAILED president and FAILED policy.

Not because I say so. I don't count. What does count are the results. 9%+ unemployment, over nearly 3 years. Deficit at $1.3T over nearly 3 years. Increase in the national debt by ~50% over 3 years.

The facts are what count, not somebody's opinion.

By the way, what is Obama's plan for his next term? Heard anything about his jobs plan, NO. Heard anything about deficit control, NO. Have you heard ANYTHING about Obama's plan for his next term, anything, NO.

All Obama has left is to try to blame Republicans for his parties failure to lead, failure to right the economy, failure to manage the budget. So sad.







We would all love to have a 5.5% unemployment rate right now. But the republicans are doing everything they can to keep the unemployment rate high, so that they win the election in 2012.

They started 2001 with a 3.9% unemployment rate, and gave Obama a 8% unemployment rate with 700,000+ people - PER MONTH - losing their jobs. yet somehow, bizarrely, you attribute the 700,000+ people that lost their jobs in December 2008 to Obama. Apparently you believe he can time travel backwards.


And you want to keep attributing the deficit and rising national debt to obama, but you fail to mention that the Medicare Part's B and D overhaul collectively add almost $600 BILLION to the national debt - EVERY YEAR. You also fail to mention that the bush tax cuts add over $400 BILLION to the national debt each year. That's three REPUBLICAN CREATED POLICIES, that add almost ONE TRILLION to the national debt -- EVERY SINGLE YEAR, regardless of who the president is.

When will you finally admit that those three legislative actions - the medicare part b, the medicare part d, and the bush tax cuts - add almost ONE TRILLION to the national debt every year? Or if you think they are "deficit neutral", tell me how they are paid for.

[lovethiscountry]

The President got exactly what he was hoping for. . . he can continue blaming the Republicans. Another strategy on his campaign trail.

[starving1968-3]

by vsmit November 22, 2011 9:26 AM EST
You mean like the stimulus was supposed to "create jobs".

The FACT is that the Bush tax cuts gave us <6% unemployment under nearly all of the GWB term.

It would be NICE if we could say that Stimulus gave us a lower unemployment rate under Obama.

If you rolled back the (now Obama) tax cuts, unemployment would go up way beyond the current 9% rate Obama has created.







You're so blinded by your hate filled ideology.

bush came into office and the unemployment rate was 3.9%.

AFTER his "tax cuts to create jobs" were enacted, the deficit EXPLODED and the unemployment rate WENT UP to 5.5% within 3 years.

The 9% unemployment rate that you attribute to Obama, was caused by the 700,000+ people - PER MONTH - that were losing their jobs at the end of 2008 and in january 2009, while BUSH WAS STILL PRESIDENT.



The stimulus was a one time shot to the economy to try and get it going again, of which 40% of the stimulus was tax cuts. Are you saying that tax cuts didn't create jobs?

[starving1968-3]

by vsmit November 22, 2011 9:14 AM EST
Invalid assumption that eliminating tax cuts brings dollar for dollar revenue in. When you take money out of people's pockets, they spend less, fewer jobs are created and fewer people pay taxes.








The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were given to the rich, specifically to "create jobs".

Unemployment SOARED to 10% while the wealthy got those tax breaks, and they currently aren't hiring anyone.

If you're given tax breaks to create jobs, and you don't create jobs, then why should we keep giving the tax breaks?

[starving1968-3]

by vsmit November 22, 2011 9:10 AM EST
The Kool-Aide must be good. Obamacare will be as "budget neutral" as medicare / medicaid are today. You were fed a lie and believe it.







The CBO analysis says that it's going to be an $800 BILLION savings over 20 years. they picked apart the numbers and analyzed it carefully. They are non-partisan and don't present numbers with a "lean" to them.

You however are guessing, or worse yet - parroting what Fox News told you.

guess who i'm going to believe?

[starving1968-3]

From cns news, huh?

"The Right News, Right now".

No partisan slant to their lie filled ideological garbage, is there?