The preemptive moves came as the supercommittee stalled Thursday. | John Shinkle/POLITICO Trigger-unhappy lawmakers eye exit

Lawmakers from both parties have warned what a disaster the automatic spending cuts would be if the deficit-slashing supercommittee fails to reach a deal in just under three weeks.

But the reality is that the so-called trigger might not carry the live round everyone fears.


A growing number of lawmakers are already talking about reversing the automatic spending cuts to defense and domestic programs that would go into effect if the supercommittee doesn’t find at least $1.2 trillion in deficit cuts by Nov. 23.

Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) confirmed Thursday that they’re working on “alternative” legislation that would scale back the size of cuts that can be made to the Pentagon. On the other side of the political spectrum, liberals are talking about rolling back automatic cuts to domestic programs.

“We can’t afford the cuts as the secretary of defense has said and service chiefs have testified,” McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, told POLITICO. “We can’t afford that size in cuts.”

The pre-emptive moves to water down the trigger come as the supercommittee stalled Thursday, stuck over how to handle tax revenues. The 12-member panel has stopped meeting for the time being, several sources said. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have stepped up their involvement significantly; they gathered the six committee Republicans in Boehner’s office for a third-straight day Thursday.

Likewise, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) met with the Democrats on the panel Thursday afternoon, and the panel’s co-chair, Patty Murray (D-Wash.), spent an hour at a closed-door lunch listening to Democratic senators lay out their demands.

The pessimism over whether the supercommittee can reach a deal has intensified the move to water down the automatic cuts.

Defense hawks in particular have been beating the drum on the need to avoid the trigger since half of the cuts would come from military spending. The other half would come from domestic programs, although Medicaid and Social Security are shielded from the trigger and cuts to Medicare will max out at 2 percent.

The cuts aren’t set to go into effect until January 2013 — meaning there could very well be a new congressional majority and president who could work against the trigger, and a full year for special interests to lobby lawmakers to ensure their interests are protected.

Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.), chairman of the House subcommittee that handles defense appropriations, said Thursday that he would do “anything possible” to avoid the trigger — also known as sequestration — if it went into effect.

“I think sequestration is just not a good way to go,” he said Thursday. “I would much prefer to give the Congress an opportunity to work its magic, … to avoid sequestration. Congress would just have to settle down and do some work on the issue.”

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) — who opposed the legislation that created the supercommittee because of its effect on defense spending — said he, too, would favor a bill that would avert the trigger for defense cuts.

“From all of the testimony we’ve had, if we go to sequestration, these cuts will be absolutely devastating to the national defense of our country,” he said. “It will be irreparable.”

Murmurs of overriding the automatic cuts persist even though congressional leaders — who have become increasingly involved in the high-stakes negotiations — have pledged to stick to the agreement, triggers and all.

Boehner said Thursday that he would abide by the automatic cuts if the supercommittee doesn’t come up with a plan, saying he “would feel bound” to the trigger. And House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said to reporters Thursday that cuts will happen — even if the supercommittee ultimately doesn’t act.

“It won’t be achieved in the best possible way, but it will be achieved,” she told reporters Thursday.

But as congressional leadership brushes off the thought, the idea of overturning the trigger isn’t gaining traction with only defense-focused Republicans. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) — who has sponsored a bill that would dismantle the supercommittee altogether — said she would be open to reversing it because the trigger “certainly does not bode well for me and my constituents.”

“There’s going to be some kind of movement to undo those kinds of cuts on the defense,” she said. “So we’ll see if there’s room for something else if that happens.”

Added Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.): “If we’re going to lock the gun in terms of the trigger, then obviously if we’re sparing one, then we should look at sparing all of them.”

Two co-chairs of President Barack Obama’s fiscal commission warned against any legislative action to unravel the cuts this week in testimony before the supercommittee, saying that turning off sequestration would be the only thing worse than the panel’s failure.

“It would not only show that government really can’t work and doesn’t work, but I think it would show that there’s no hope to do the kinds of things, no matter how tough they are, to have a viable [fiscal] situation,” one of the co-chairs, Erskine Bowles, told POLITICO on Thursday.

In plans presented behind closed doors, supercommittee Republicans and Democrats appear far apart: Democrats have proposed a $3 trillion proposal with $475 billion saved from health care programs and $1.3 trillion in new revenue, particularly taxes. Meanwhile, Republicans want a $2.2 trillion plan with $640 billion in non-tax revenue. An aide close to a supercommittee lawmaker said Thursday that no new proposals have been unveiled since those plans were put forth last week.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), a fiscal hawk who also serves on the Armed Services Committee, argued that contemplating legislation to alter or nix the trigger was an unproductive exercise.

“I’m not going to try to undermine what is a great enforcement mechanism before they’ve even finished their work,” she said Thursday. “That would be really dumb.”

Jonathan Allen and Manu Raju contributed to this report.