After supercommittee failure, focus turns to automatic defense cuts

Photo by Astrid Riecken/Getty Images

After the supercommittee announced Monday it would not be able to reach a deal to reduce the deficit before its Wednesday night deadline, focus now turns to the $1.2 trillion in automatic "sequester" spending cuts that will automatically result from the committee's failure.

The cuts, which will be split evenly between domestic and defense spending programs, are now set to go into effect as of 2013.

Already, some in Congress are suggesting that those cuts might be undone - particularly the military reductions, which Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has suggested could cause men and women in the military undue harm.

In a joint statement on Monday, Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who both serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee, targeted the defense cuts as "draconian," and said they "cannot be allowed to occur."

CBSNews.com special report: America's debt battle

"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."

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

Leading Democrats have so far signaled that they will not support a change in the sequester rules, however, and Mr. Obama warned Congress Monday he would veto any effort to undo the cuts.

"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."

Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid argued "the sequester was designed to be painful, and it is."

"Make no mistake: we will achieve the more than $2 trillion in deficit reduction we agreed to in August," Reid said in a statement. "The sequester was designed to be painful, and it is. But that is the commitment to fiscal responsibility that both parties made to the American people. In the absence of a balanced plan that would reduce the deficit by at least as much, I will oppose any efforts to change or roll back the sequester.

Panetta said Monday that the defense cuts, if enacted, would be "devastating," and would "tear a seam in the nation's defense."

"The half-trillion in additional cuts demanded by sequester would lead to a hollow force incapable of sustaining the missions it is assigned," Panetta said in a Monday statement. "If implemented, sequester would also jeopardize our ability to provide our troops and their families with the benefits and the support they have been promised. Our troops deserve better, and our nation demands better."

Still, he sided with Mr. Obama that "Congress cannot simply turn off the sequester mechanism."

"Despite the danger posed by sequestration, I join the President in his call for Congress to avoid an easy way out of this crisis," Panetta said. "Congress cannot simply turn off the sequester mechanism, but instead must pass deficit reduction at least equal to the $1.2 trillion it was charged to pass under the Budget Control Act."

Unlike the president, however, Sen. Mitch McConnell put the onus on Mr. Obama, not Congress, to "ensure that the defense cuts he insisted upon do not undermine national security."

"For those of us who hoped that this committee could make some of the tough decisions President Obama continues to avoid, the Democrats' rejection of not one but two good-faith Republican proposals is deeply disappointing," McConnell said Monday. "The good news is that even without an agreement, $1.2 trillion will still be cut from the deficit. Now it falls on the President to ensure that the defense cuts he insisted upon do not undermine national security, as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has warned."

[magnumdr]

Our Country should be making cuts in what any elected person gets paid, and also their benefit packages. It seems like everyone in a public office that is supposed to be working "for the people" are all about money. You would never see a poor man get elected into any public office. The USA needs some honest people in every office we have and the money and power should be taken out of the senario. Their also should be term limits set so our public officals in any office does not have ant power issues by the people they have become attach with. Lets make this Government strong again. A Government of the people, by the people, and a Government for the people! Lets get away from who you know and what you think with no interferance from any companies or groups that have donated any money. All donated money should come from annoymous forms!. Lets get our Government back into the hands of the real people!

[worldcitizen1]

The Defense industry and Israel are Congress's sacred cows! Why, that's where the money is! They don't give a crap about the US taxpayers!

[tvwatcher5345]

they think cutting defense will hurt our soldiers, actually sending them to iraq where there was no interest to do so (the pro-israeli neocons talked bush into it) and it cost over 4400 Americans their lives and over 35 thousand wounded, now the neocons want at iran (who is powerful now that the US took out their arch enemy sadam), i think we should send in ground troops into iran made up of wolfowitz, feith, senor, kagan, pearle, lieberman, krystol, krauthammer, friedman, podhoretz, etc and any other armchair chicken soup hawks we can find, but their mothers think they did a great job

[boatdocster]

Mc Same -- Waahh, my sacred cow! How will I get my lobbyist contributions and PAC money?

Hey McSame - The nation is broke, and it's the fault of the overspending Congress for the last 60 years! Guys like you!!! Time for you to share in everyone else's pain.

[ladyang]

The trigger should have been bigger and hit the defense dpt exclusively. One, the neocons/teabaggers would have been forced to compromise and two, the miltary would not be hollowed out. The reserves and National Guard can do anything active duty can do and not cost the taxpayers as much! Just sayin....

[mrsherman]

How about stop building parts for obsolete aircraft and other equipment not even the National Guard uses?

[freeamerica31]

Complete Idiots. I can't figure out which side is worse but I do know their all idiots.

They would rather America fail than do what's right for the country.

The wealthiest of Americans are even getting into the act by saying pls tax us more, knowing that the people they contributed to in the previous elections will never agree to it. Smart PR move but it doesn't get the job done.

Four items that should never be reduced to such a level as to cause undue harm are Defense, SS, Medicare/Medicade.

Too many other Departments/Programs to be reduced or gotten rid of completely starting with foreign aid. Pls do your jobs responsibly in DC or at least divide the country and split the bill.

What would the wealthy do for labor if all they had was themselves to do the work. Let Mexican or Eastern European workers in on a work Visa and pay them low wages. That's all the wealthy want is slave labor. Time to turn the tide.

The land is divided up by representation of the people with half the deficit going to each side. The 1% get 1% of the U.S. and half the deficit. The rest of us get 99% of the land and half the deficit. Seems fair or you could just do it in Congress now without the ridiculousness of the issue.

[CaptainSmollett]

Slash defense spending and watch the unemployment rate go up!

But hey, what does Obama care...that won't happen until 2013.

What hypocracy - he's out promoting his jobs/spending proposal while at the same time threatening the opposite.

[retm-w]

So what you are saying is all jobs in the U.S. depend on defense spending. Not the waste, fraud and abuse that the defense contractors are noted for.

[worldcitizen1]

Defense of this country would not require policing the world. It is a money making racket. Foreign aid should be the first thing eliminated.

[stephand]

I wish they would report it correctly. It is not really "cuts", it is growing spending slower than planned. Only in Washington is spending more money considered "cuts".

[tramtrack]

As the "supercommittee" highlights, our democracy has morphed into a stinking morass and our government has become incapable of serving its people. Our political system doesn't attract the best among us, it attracts the most corrupt. We all know this. The modern robber barrons have the power, if not directly then through their political lackeys. Those few who would be decent must, and do, become corrupt to stay in power. As a result, both parties are dismal failures for all but the most rich. We all recognize this yet why, in a Democracy, do we also allow it? There is virtually no substance to our political dialog beyond superficial pandering, mudslinging and butt covering. Again, we all recognize this yet we demand no better. It seems so many of us are willing to give up thinking and, like stupid sheep, swallow the empty slogans of both parties as if they were based on reality. Some of us go further, adopting the slogans on "our side", living them out when at best they're useless garbage. There are honest disagreements in a democracy but politicians replace honest arguments with specious ones made just to stoke the flames. Our media on both sides is happy to play along . . . it raises ratings so they can sell more soap ads but we lose. Party politics now wins every single time. We're a mess as a nation and shame on both parties for ruining us. Before you break out the pitchforks, wake up everyone in this "Democracy" shame belongs to all. Here's my opinion on a solution. Step 1: we all stop accepting sound bites as arguments. The world's simply too complicated to be reduced to sound bites. Real world solutions require thought, sacrifice, and honest compromise. Who doesn't see this? Step 2: we all need to quit being party extremists and start working together. We must not allow politicians and media trolls on both sides drag our whole nation down to their pathetic useless level. There are real problems to solve, together we hold the politician's feet to the fire. Step 3: we all need to stop rewarding bad behavior. Turn off "News" programs where journalism has been replaced by thugs and hacks on both sides hammering each other. There's no way that's good for us. Instead tune into productive dialog, they count eyeballs and they'll get the message. We need to act civilly and start working out our differences like adults. Step 4: we all need to be more flexible and less lazy. Don't vote without thinking regardless of what banner folks are running under. Realize that though we may have different views things, we citizens all want what's best for our country. Step 5: kick the bums out. Certainly the current lot of politicians needs to go. Get rid of the tired and ineffective has-beens. Step 6: reduce corrupting influences, the toughest one. A constitutional amendment that provides for term limits and a ban on private money in political campaigns seems our only recourse.

[kiapa52]

yes indeed, we the people are to blame if we won't use our democratic rights for change. that means we have to back off from our obsession with single issue politics, party identities, and our favorite government program(s). of the people, by the people, and for the people has become of, by & for professional politicians working with moneyed interests... so that they can stay elected and retain their positions of relative comfort & power. congress, appropriately, has much of the power in this country... so nothing can change until we fundamentally change the congress. we need (extra)ordinary citizens in congress, and in numbers sufficient to change how things work in washington. The tea party achieved this on a small scale, taking on the relatively controversial objective to reduce the size of government. With an even simpler, universally palatable objective to clean up our government and return the power to the people... we, the people, could achieve even more.

we need a "people's caucus" in congress. to be a member of the people's caucus, a candidate must have signed the "people's pledge". citizens, please don't vote for any candidate, whatever your party affinity... that has not signed the people's pledge. people, this is doable....

People's Caucus Pledge:
Term limits - 2 in the House, 1 in the Senate
Campaign Finance - Take no more than $2500 from any one person or organization in a year
Take no money from special interests before, during, or after serving in Congress
Set Congressional pay & benefits consistent with the military & civil service guidelines
Seek and use the truth in while in office, and always share the truth with the American people
Commit to fiscal discipline that results in a long-term balanced budget & stable debt levels
Responsibly represent the citizens of your district and the overall best interests of the United States

There are no ideological requirements beyond those above. A Citizen Party candidate's positions on the issues should be vetted by the voters of his district, in a local election.