Obama pledges to veto effort to undo automatic spending cuts

Updated 7:00 p.m. ET

President Obama is promising to veto any effort to undo the automatic spending cuts that are set to take effect now that the congressional supercommittee has announced its failure to strike a deal to cut $1.2 trillion from the deficit over the next 10 years.

"Already some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No," Mr. Obama said from the White House briefing room Monday evening. "I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending."

"There will be no easy off ramps on this one.," he added. (watch at left)

The president's statement came about an hour after the chairs of the bipartisan supercommittee, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas., officially announced that they would be unable to reach a deal, citing an inability to bridge "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 Hensarling and Murray in a joint statement.

CBSNews.com special report: America's debt battle

The supercommittee was created in August as part of the deal to raise the nation's debt limit. In addition to a $1 trillion in cuts agreed to then, the committee was tasked with finding $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years. Since the committee was unable to reach agreement, $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts -- divided equally among defense and domestic spending -- is set to take effect starting in 2013.

Some in Congress want to undo those cuts, particularly to defense spending, but Mr. Obama said he would not accept that. He called on Congress to come up with a deal in the next year to avoid that.

"One way or another we will be trimming the deficit by a total of at least $2.2 trillion over the next 10 years," he said. "The only way these spending cuts will not take place is if Congress gets back to work and agrees on a balanced plan to reduce the deficit by at least 1.2 trillion dollars. That's exactly what they need to do."

Mr. Obama called on Congress to come up with what he called a "balanced" plan that includes both spending cuts and tax increases, and he blamed Republicans for the supercommittee's inability to strike a deal.

"They continue to insist on protecting $100 billion worth of tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans, at any cost, even if it means reducing the deficit with deep cuts to things like education and medical research, even if it means deep cuts in Medicare," he said. "So at this point at least, they simply will not budge from that negotiating position. And so far, that refusal continues to be the main stumbling block that has prevented Congress from reaching an agreement to further reduce our deficit."

Meanwhile, Republicans blamed the president and Democrats for the failure of the supercommittee.

"The Supercommittee's failure is a direct result of President Obama's negligence and Democrats' intransigence," RNC chair Reince Priebus said 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."

By pledging to veto changes to the automatic cuts, Mr. Obama says he's trying to pressure Congress to come up with a deal in the next year.

"We need to keep the pressure up to compromise, not turn off the pressure," he said. "Although Congress has not come to an agreement yet, nothing prevents them from coming up with an agreement in the days ahead."

Commentary: Supercommittee failure gives both sides what they want

[TZ64]

Make no mistake this sequester is going to hurt many middle class americans, starting with your average middle class federal workers. There are 800,000 federal workers in the department of defense alone who are now looking at a furlough. I am a federal firefighter and have now been notified that beginning in late April, I will lose 20% of my take home pay due to furlough. My wife and I have two children to care for, but that doesn't matter to either side of this fight in Washington. It is obvious that they don't care about what is best for the american people as a whole. They only care about what will help them further their political careers by pleasing thier constituants and lobbists. So many people think that cutting government spending is such a simple solution and I agree government spending needs some serious trimming but most people don't realize that the goverment doesn't cut thier spending by spending less on most items, congressmen don't lose any of their exorbitant income or benifits, most big expensive government contracts don't suffer . It's the little guys, the every day goverment employee who protects people and their homes, who ensures you're safe during travel, who fights to keep dangerous criminals and drugs off the streets. They are the ones who are forced to bear this burden. Our Social Security rose 2% just like everyone elses did this year. Our costs for fuel, groceries, child care, and all other everyday living expenses are rising at the same rate as everyone elses and we (federal workers) haven't seen a pay raise in over two and a half years. Now we are going to lose another 20%, where does it stop. There is no doubt that the government needs to cut spending but there are so many other ways to save money. They don't need to do what they are doing to federal workers who are no more than average middle class americans.

[Socialization]

Give Obama more money so he can give it to his political contributors....

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration restructured a half-billion dollar federal loan to a troubled solar energy company in such a way that private investors — including a fundraiser for President Barack Obama — moved ahead of taxpayers for repayment in case of a default, government records show.
Administration officials defended the loan restructuring, saying that without an infusion of cash earlier this year, solar panel maker Solyndra Inc. would likely have faced immediate bankruptcy, putting more than 1,000 people out of work.
Even with the federal help, Solyndra filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection earlier this month and laid off its 1,100 employees.
The Fremont, Calif.-based company was the first renewable-energy company to receive a loan guarantee under a stimulus-law program to encourage green energy and was frequently touted by the Obama administration as a model. Obama visited the company's Silicon Valley headquarters last year, and Vice President Joe Biden spoke by satellite at its groundbreaking.
Since then, the implosion of the company and revelations that the administration hurried Office of Management and Budget officials to finish their review of the loan in time for the September 2009 groundbreaking has become an embarrassment for Obama as he sells his new job-creation program around the country.
An Associated Press review of regulatory filings shows that Solyndra was hemorrhaging hundreds of millions of dollars for years before the Obama administration signed off on the original $535 million loan guarantee in September 2009. The company eventually got $528 million.
Given the company's shaky financial condition, Republican lawmakers say the decision to restructure the loan raises questions about whether the administration protected political supporters at taxpayers' expense.

[Overruled1]

The plants were models of modern technology, the technology was sound and more efficient than flat panel technology.
It clearly had a better future instead somehow it ended up bankrupt.
I have to wonder who to blame for it's demize, you clearly consider it a government conspiracy when it's clear it wasn't.
The FBI has all the files, and it is being restructured, I don't believe we've seen the last of this tech.
You implicate a crime was committed by the President where there was no crime. Just a bad investment and foreign government competition.
The Associated Press should turn over to the FBI what they claim to have found if illegal.
As for Republican lawmakers who say the decision to loan was political, they always say things like that, since it is a democrat in office.
If you want oversight, why has a criminal been elected a California Representative let alone become the chairman of the house oversight committee investigating the AG?. Darrell Issa has an extensive criminal history along with suspicions of insurance fraud and is the richest man in congress with 300 million dollars.

[helmyelsaid]

Presidential warning.

[helmyelsaid]

Presidential warning.

[Socialization]

So now not only does Obama **** away 1/2 a billion to his political contributors at Solyndra, but now the taxpayers have to cough up another 13,000.00 per Solyndra employee in federal assistance. This is another 14 million of tax payer money going towards Obama's rip off of our tax money.

"Employees fired by Solyndra LLC, the solar-panel maker that failed after receiving a $535 million federal loan guarantee, were certified for U.S. aid under a program for workers hurt by overseas competition.

The Labor Department decided to award trade-adjustment assistance on Nov. 18, according to a posting today on the agency's website. Solyndra ceased operations on Aug. 31 amid cheaper imports from China."

And most of you people want to give the Obama Administration more money... Unbelievable...

I am sure that unemployed workers from all unions will now be lining up for their 13K per person gift because their companies could not compete with overseas companies.......

[retm-w]

Solyandra wasn't union, so that means every non union worker can line up for their 13k per person gift. Seem there were just as many no union jobs that went to china, of course you righties don't want to talk about that all you want to do is blame people trying to make a decent living.

[Socialization]

by retm-w November 22, 2011 4:06 PM EST
"Solyandra wasn't union, so that means every non union worker can line up for their 13k per person gift. Seem there were just as many no union jobs that went to china, of course you righties don't want to talk about that all you want to do is blame people trying to make a decent living."

Yeh great, so now because a company cannot compete, we the tax payers have to fork over another 13K per person union or not...

Thanks Obama.... That trickle up you have been practicing has done ****. except of course cost me and my fellow taxpayers more money....

[credibility2]

The president's veto can be over ridden by a two-thirds vote in the Senate and House. So, our president saying he would veto something is true to a certain point, but his veto could be diminished with the right number of votes.

[kilgary]

...so 12 Republicans and Democrats couldn't do the hard job of compromise; but you expect 2/3rd majorities in BOTH houses to be able to come to an agreement? The "Super" Congress wouldn't have been created if the actual Congress was capable of legislating. You can't get a 2/3rd majority vote on whether or not the sky is blue in today's Congress.

[credibility2]

...both parties have bandied about the word compromise...the committee should have never been formed, had our president been a leader, instead of relegating his responsibilities to others...

[askagain]

Why would the Republicans hand Obama and the Democrats what they want? If they did that, they might as well be Democrats. Thankfully, the Republicans did not cave. Many of us are tired of going in the wrong direction.

[kilgary]

"Not caving" will result in $550 billion cuts to the defense budget over the next 10 years. GOP! GOP!

[canislupus16]

Why would the Democrats hand Republicans what they want? If they did that, they might as well be Republicans. Thankfully, the Democrats did not cave. Many of us are tired of going in the wrong direction.

[gerryrigger]

Simple analogy: Republicans handed Obama a steaming pile of krap. Obama made them eat it. End of story.

[askagain]

Why would the Republicans hand Obama and the Democrats what they want? If they did that, they might as well be Democrats. Thankfully, the Republicans did not cave. Many of us are tired of going in the wrong direction.

[Overruled1]

ROFLMAO.....nice anala gy

[arthanyel]

All I can say to the Republicans is to paraphrase the Bible - "What they sow, so shall they reap."

It's just disgusting that every American is going to have to pay (both literally and figuratively) for their idiocy.

To be a Republican you need to believe:

1. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Barack Obama

2. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's Daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

3. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Viet Nam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

4. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority for years was enforcing U.N. resolutions in Iraq.

5. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational drug corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

7. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

8. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

9. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools. Evolution is a lie, but get a flu shot every year because the virus evolves.

10. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which tens of thousands die and the nation is plunged into debt is solid national policy.

11. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

12. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

13. You support "Executive Privilege" for every Republican ever born, who will be born or who might be born (in perpetuity.)

14. Support hunters who shoot their friends and blame them for wearing orange vests similar to those worn by the quail.

15. You can vote to raise the debt limit as long as Obama is not President.

16. Officials should allow Christian prayer and Bible studies in schools and government buildings as a matter of Religious Freedom, but Muslims should not be allowed to build mosques or be elected to office because they practice Islam.

17. You have an argument why every one of the above is sensible and not hypocritical, and besides look at all the terrible things the Democrats may have done.

[realist29]

The most accurate description of what it means to be a republican today. You didn't miss a thing. I have also cut this entry, because more people need to see this. I'm a Canadian who has traveled all over the U.S.and have made great friends. It saddens me to watch the GOP continue to run your country into the ground and watch an ex-president (bush) send soldiers to their deaths in Iraq based on lies. GOP are treasonous.

[arthanyel]

The debate over cuts vs. revenues is making fundamental assumptions that are invalid, and therefore the arguments are equally invalid. Republicans say we must only spend what we take in (ignoring the fact they have artificially lowered the amount we take in by more than $440B per year) and that it would be better to cut firefighters than tax the 1% another 0.5% (which would still leave them WAY better off than in 1999). Let's use the firefighters as example of the flawed assumptions.

If no one paid for the fire department until they needed it, there wouldn't be a fire department. But if we let people's houses burn to the ground when we could save them, how stupid is that for a society? So either we have to accept the moral burden of allowing the house to burn (or people to die in the streets if they don't have medical care, or be homeless if they can't afford a house) or we have to accept that we are willing to pay something to NOT have that happen.

That's why in the grand scheme, this debate is not, and SHOULD not, be about the level of revenues or the level of spending. It should be about what we want the government to DO. If we agree that we want firefighters and the government is supposed to provide them, we need to pay enough taxes to have them. So too with EVERY government service.

Unfortunately since this is a democracy, it doesn't mean 100% have to agree. And because people are fickle (especially independents) the system was designed to moderate those tendencies to prevent exactly what we are seeing here. If the President, the Senate, and the entire House were elected every 2 years, we would have a Tea Party Nation right now. Fortunately we have those checks and balances, so voters can undo the damage they did in 2010 in 2012.

[luadda22]

Number one, we are not a democracy. Number two, fire departments are funded by local municipalities, not the federal government. And number three you forgot to list 2008 as a year that has damage that needs to be un-done also. No matter how much it pains me to say this, but I would rather give Clinton a 3rd term than Obama a 2nd.