Updated at 2:42 p.m. ET: In the Budget Control Act of 2011, President Barack Obama and Congress created a fail-safe device intended to spur agreement on a “grand bargain” of spending reductions and tax increases. The law, enacted as part of an escape from a potential debt limit crisis, created the famous “super committee” of 12 members of Congress which was assigned the job of devising entitlement and tax reforms which would reduce deficits by $1.5 trillion over ten years.

But the law included a default option: if the committee failed in its mission, then automatic spending cuts, called “the sequester,” would begin.

Neither Obama nor most congressional Republicans were happy with the prospect of automatic spending cuts, but once the president put his signature on the bill, those cuts were built into the law. Congress, of course, was free at any point to enact a new law to undo the cuts, but so far it hasn’t done so. Now that the cuts are less than a month from beginning, Obama is again warning of their effects.

Related: Budget battle resumes

In his statement Tuesday he called them “massive automatic cuts” and “deep, indiscriminate cuts to things like education and training, energy and national security” which he said “will cost us jobs, and it will slow down our recovery.” A few minutes later for emphasis he repeated the phrase “indiscriminate cuts.”

On Saturday Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Cater, in a speech at an international security conference in Munich, called the imminent cuts “huge and reckless” and said they would cause “devastating damage to the military.”

Nowhere in Obama’s statement Tuesday did he mention the exact dollar amount or percentage amount of the cuts that are slated to begin on March 1.

So how big are they? And are they “indiscriminate?"

To answer the second question first: in one sense, the cuts are not indiscriminate.

The Budget Control Act does in fact discriminate between entitlement programs, such as Social Security, in which benefit payments are automatically made to those people eligible for them, and what are called discretionary programs, such as the spending on the National Institutes of Health, the Federal Aviation Administration, or the National Park Service, which receive annual appropriations that can go up or down each year depending on the decisions of Congress.

For the most part, the cuts in the BCA exempt the entitlement programs: Grandma’s Social Security check is exempt, as is Uncle Pete’s veterans benefits check, but spending on NIH cancer research and on Zion National Park in Utah, for instance, is not.

As the Bipartisan Policy Center explained in a report last year, “The specified exemptions include Social Security, federal (including military) retirement programs, veterans benefits, Medicaid, and a host of other programs (mostly those benefitting individuals with low incomes). Furthermore, while Medicare would be subject to the sequester in the form of provider payment cuts, those cuts could not exceed two percent.”

But in another sense the cuts are indiscriminate in that they do not eliminate specific redundant or inefficient programs. The cuts are across-the-board to every federal department.

Recommended: GOP embraces cosmetic makeover, tweaking tone not principles

Alex Wong / Getty Images

President Barack Obama makes a statement during a press conference at the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House February 5, 2013 in Washington, DC.

How big will the cuts be in the current fiscal year?

Keep in mind that the current fiscal year, FY2013, began on Oct. 1 so Obama administration officials will have to implement 12 months’ worth of cuts in only seven months.

The Congressional Budget Office said in its annual budget forecast Tuesday that the automatic cuts will reduce spending by $85 billion in FY2013.

Even with the cuts taking effect, total federal spending will still be more than $3.5 trillion, a higher total than in FY2012. At 22.2 percent of gross domestic product in the current fiscal year, federal spending is high by the standards of the past 50 years. The 50-year spending average is 21 percent of GDP.

At the end of the Clinton presidency, a time which many people see as one of prosperity and when in fact there was a budget surplus, federal outlays amounted to only 18.2 percent of GDP. That’s partly because the economy was thriving, so the federal share of it was smaller than it would have been otherwise. When the economy is sluggish as it is today, federal spending – much of it automatic cash transfers in the form of entitlement spending – is relatively larger than it would be if the economy were flourishing.

The automatic cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act will reduce defense spending (other than spending for military personnel) by about 8 percent and non-defense discretionary spending by between 5 percent and 6 percent in FY2013, the CBO said Tuesday.

Members of Congress in both parties – especially those with military bases in their states or districts – have voiced alarm about the effect of the defense cuts. At last week’s confirmation hearing for Obama’s defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel, Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C. told Hagel, “Stopping sequestration from occurring is very important to me. North Carolina -- we have seven military institutions -- installations, and we have over a hundred thousand active-duty service members in my state.”

The BCA cuts, she said, “are going to harm our national security, will impair our readiness, will defer necessary maintenance that will help keep our troops safe and delay important investments in research and procurement as well as stunt our economic recovery at this time.”

Hagan was one of 74 senators voting for the BCA in 2011.

At a press conference at the Capitol Wednesday at which Republican members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees offered a proposal to avert spending cuts by means of cuts in federal civilian employee head count, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R- S.C. said, “We have our fingerprints as Republicans on this proposal, on this sequestration idea. It was the president’s idea, according to Bob Woodward’s book, but we as the Republican Party agreed to it. We got into this mess together and we’re going to have to get out together….. To the president: we bear responsibility as Republicans for allowing this to happen. Lead us to a better solution.”

Graham was one of the 26 senators who voted against the BCA in 2011.

Winslow Townson / AP

President Barack Obama shakes hands with supporters during a campaign stop in Windham, N.H., Saturday, Aug. 18, 2012. (AP Photo/Winslow Townson)

Jim Cole / AP

President Barack Obama waves as he leaves a campaign stop Saturday, in Rochester, N.H.

ROCHESTER, N.H. -- On the same day Republican vice presidential hopeful Paul Ryan defended his Medicare plan in front of a crowd of senior citizens in Florida, President Barack Obama blasted the GOP ticket for proposing to raise costs for the elderly while slashing taxes for the wealthiest Americans.

"Their plan makes seniors pay more so that they can give another tax cut to rich folks who don't need a tax cut," the president said of Republicans on Saturday in front of a crowd of more than 3,500 supporters here.

Since Ryan was tapped as Mitt Romney's running mate Aug. 10, Medicare has become one of the most contentious issues of the election because of the controversial Ryan budget that proposed dramatic changes to the government program.

Obama blasted Republicans for wanting to turn Medicare into a voucher system.

"Meanwhile Gov. Romney and Congressman Ryan want to give seniors a voucher to buy insurance on their own," the president said, citing an analysis that found the plan could cost seniors $6,400 extra each year.

"How many people think that's a good deal?  That doesn’t strengthen Medicare, it undoes the very guarantee of Medicare," he said.  "But that's the core of the plan written by Congressman Ryan and endorsed by Gov. Romney."

The president's remarks in New Hampshire were largely a response to earlier attacks from the presumptive GOP nominee in his first installment of what will become a weekly podcast.

"I think it’s outrageous that the president took $716 billion out of the Medicare trust fund to pay for Obamacare," Romney said.

And shortly after the podcast was released, Romney quickly got some backup from his newest teammate.  Ryan was joined by his 78-year-old mother at a rally in The Villages, Fla., the world's largest senior citizens community. “Here is what the president won’t tell you about his Medicare plan—about Obamacare," Ryan told the crowd. "The president raids $716 billion from the Medicare program to pay for the Obamacare program.”

And while the president was on the defensive regarding Medicare, he also continued to focus attention on tax rates. Throughout his stops in New Hampshire, he asserted that under Ryan's budget, Romney would pay less than 1 percent in taxes. 

"That's a pretty good deal, just paying 1 precent in taxes -- you're making millions of dollars. Here's the kicker, they expect you to pick up the tab," he told the crowd here.

This week Obama campaign manager Jim Messina sent a letter to his counterpart in the Romney campaign, stating Democrats would drop their calls for the former Massachusetts governor to release more tax returns if he made the past five years public.  Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades quickly responded, calling the letter another attempt for the Obama campaign to distract from a failed economic record.

The Romney campaign was again quick to respond to the president's attacks Saturday, calling them false and another way for the campaign to avoid talking about the president's record. Romney spokesman Ryan Williams blasted out a response: "Following news that 44 out of 50 states saw their unemployment rates rise, it is not surprising the president is launching yet another false attack."

The Granite State will have more action to look forward to on Monday, when Romney and Ryan will appear together in Manchester for a town hall.

THE VILLAGES, Fla. -- Campaigning with his retired mother at his side, Congressman Paul Ryan made the Romney-Ryan ticket pitch for fixing Medicare Saturday morning before thousands at the world's largest senior citizens community.

“Like a lot of Americans, when I think about Medicare it's not just a program, it's not just a bunch of numbers, it's what my mom relies on, it's what my grandma had,” Ryan said in his most detailed campaign speech yet. “Medicare was there for our family, for my grandma, when we needed it then; and Medicare is there for my mom while she needs it now, and we have to keep that guarantee.”

In a very personal appeal to the crowd that started with Ryan walking hand-and-hand with his 78-year-old mother, Betty Douglas, he promised to make sure “bureaucrats will not mess with my mom’s healthcare or your mom’s healthcare.”

The presumptive GOP vice presidential nominee also assured the crowd at The Villages the Romney-Ryan plan will not affect those already in retirement.

“Our solution to preserve, protect, and save Medicare does not affect your benefits. Let me repeat that. Our plan does not affect the benefits for people who are in or near retirement. It’s a promise that was made and it’s a promise that must be kept,” he said, with a large “protect & strengthen Medicare” sign behind him. “To save it for this generation, you have to reform it for my generation so it doesn’t go bankrupt when we retire.”

The Chairman of the House Budget Committee, speaking in the state with the highest concentration of voters over 65 in the country, had harsh words for President Barack Obama, as well.

“Here is what the president won’t tell you about his Medicare plan—about Obamacare. The president raids $716 billion from the Medicare program to pay for the Obamacare program,” Ryan told the crowd in the battleground state that went for Obama in the 2008 election. “Medicare should not be used as a piggy bank for Obamacare. Medicare should be used to be the promise that it made to our current seniors. Period. End of Story.”

Saturday’s rally marks Ryan’s first visit to Florida since being tapped as Mitt Romney’s VP exactly a week ago. The presumptive GOP VP’s plan to overhaul Medicare has been the focus of both Democrats' and the Obama campaign's attacks since he was selected.

Several thousand retirees turned out in one of The Villages’ town squares not only to hear the seven-term Wisconsin congressman speak but were also able to enjoy the sounds of Lee Greenwood, who sang “Proud to be an American” on stage just before Ryan and his mom walked up.

While Ryan focused on outlining the Medicare plan under a Romney administration in Florida, Mitt Romney was holding six private fundraisers in New York, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.

The Obama campaign said that Paul Ryan “flip flopped” on the issue of Medicare now that the Romney campaign is accusing President Obama of reducing Medicare spending in the same way Ryan had proposed in his budget.

On a conference call with reporters, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Ryan’s Democratic counterpart atop the House Budget Committee, noted that the president’s health care plan cut more than $700 billion mostly out of the Medicare Advantage program, which affected insurance companies and hospitals rather than beneficiaries. 

But Ryan’s budget plan also calls for the same spending reductions, even though Romney is now accusing Obama of “raiding” Medicare by instituting the cuts and has said he would restore the spending.

“It’s kind of sad to see Congressman Ryan be forced to flip flop on this issue by Gov. Romney,” Van Hollen said on the call.

He claimed that while Medicare trustees have estimated the spending reductions would extend the life of the entitlement program for eight years, Romney and Ryan would essentially be negating that extension should they implement their plan.

“They will hasten the insolvency of the Medicare program by 8 years, that’s according to the Medicare trustees. So what they’re announcing is that by the end of their term if they were to be elected, Medicare would have begun to go bankrupt by the end of their term,” Van Hollen said.

Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt suggested they would continue to hit Ryan on the apparent contradiction between his budget proposal and Romney’s plan, a strategy that allows them to hit their opponent on policy while also suggesting Ryan is a flip flopper, a claim they’ve long been making about Romney.

GREER, SC -- Declaring "we are the ones that brought up" the topic of Medicare, Mitt Romney tried to pivot to offense on the topic of the popular entitlement program, telling reporters today that Americans have a "stark choice" between his vision and President Obama's.

Writing on a white board used as a prop, Romney sought to clarify the difference between the two campaigns' positions on Medicare. Obama's means bankruptcy, Romney said, casting his own path as one toward solvency.

"My plan presents no change. My plan stays the same. No adjustments, no changes, no savings. The president’s plan cuts Medicare -- excuse me, well let’s see, I’ve got, there we go, by $716 billion cut," Romney said, scribbling on the board. "In addition, the trustees of Medicare estimate that approximately 4 million people will lose their coverage under Medicare Advantage. This is the plan they’ve chosen, the chose they prefer some 4 million current seniors will lose their Medicare Advantage plan."

Related: Campaign turns into Medicare debate

The differences, Romney argued, were "stark and dramatic," echoing advisers who, in the past several days, have telegraphed that the GOP nominee was set to go on the offensive on Medicare. "We’re going to get a lot of support from people who understand that Medicare should be protected for current seniors as well as for the next generation.”

Romney disputed that his plan for future seniors could be called a voucher system, and argued that it would create more choice and less government interference for younger workers who have not yet approached retirement. He said his plan would keep Medicare solvent by lowering costs through greater competition, and by indexing benefits to income levels, meaning higher income seniors would receive fewer benefits than those with greater need.

"The plan that I've put forward is a plan very similar to Medicare Advantage," Romney said. "It gives all of the next generation retirees the option of having either standard Medicare, a fee-for-service-type, government-run Medicare, or a private Medicare plan. They get their choice."

Evan Vucci / AP

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney points to a white board as he talks about Medicare during a news conference at Spartanburg International Airport Aug. 16.

Since the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan as Romney's running mate on Saturday, some Republicans have fretted that the younger congressman's own Medicare plan, which includes the same $716 billion in Medicare cuts that Romney decries, might be a distraction from Romney's core message on the economy. Romney disputed that too, calling Medicare a "big issue," that could sway seniors to the GOP ticket this fall.

“I think we are the ones that brought up the topic. I wanted to make sure that people understand what the president has done in welfare, what the president has done in Medicare," Romney said. "In both places he’s made pretty dramatic changes which I think the people of America will find illustrative of a very different point of view than I think most people have."

Romney also stuck by the fiery rhetoric he deployed on Tuesday night, when he called the Obama presidency "angry and desperate" to hold onto power.

"I think the American people are also disturbed with a campaign that's been as divisive as this campaign has been," accusing the Obama campaign and the vice president of tactics "unbecoming of the presidency."

Asked whether his own language, including telling supporters at rallies and fundraisers that the president does not understand America, contributed to the negative tone of the campaign, Romney did not respond, calling on another reporter to ask the next question.

There’s so much on this issue, it deserves its own section.

This headline from Reuters might be the most important point: “Presidential campaign focus turns to Medicare, not jobs.”

“Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign is trying to stay on the offensive in the increasingly heated debate over the future of Medicare,” the AP writes. “Romney and his running mate, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, signaled Wednesday that they invite scrutiny of their plans for the health care program that affects tens of millions of seniors. Such a focus would thrust the budget proposal Ryan authored — which included a controversial measure to transform Medicare into a voucher-like system — into the center of the race for the White House… The debate comes as Romney’s campaign continues an effort to undermine one of Obama’s greatest campaign strengths, his personal likability, trying to portray the outwardly calm Obama as a man seething with animosity and power lust.”

“GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s new promise to restore the Medicare cuts made by President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law could backfire if he’s elected,” the AP adds. “The reason: Obama’s cuts also extended the life of Medicare’s giant trust fund, and by repealing them Romney would move the insolvency date of the program closer, toward the end of what would be his first term in office. Instead of running out of money in 2024, Medicare says its trust fund for inpatient care would go broke in 2016 without the cuts. That could leave a President Romney little political breathing room to finalize his own Medicare plan.”

Yet here’s how the campaign responded: ‘The idea that restoring funding to Medicare could somehow hasten its bankruptcy is on its face absurd,’’ said spokeswoman Andrea Saul.

USA Today tries to set the record straight on the Medicare plans: To hear President Obama's re-election campaign tell it, you would think Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to end Medicare immediately and give the money to millionaires. And to hear Romney and Ryan tell it, you'd think Obama wants to fleece Granny and Grandpa of $700 billion in Medicare benefits and use the cash to finance ‘Obamacare.’

The truth is nothing of the sort — but those charges may drown out the truth between now and Election Day.”

It notes that Ryan’s original plan could have been characterized as ending “Medicare as we know it,” but not anymore. “The original budget plan written by Ryan and passed by House Republicans would turn Medicare into a ‘premium support’ plan. Seniors would have a fixed government subsidy with which to purchase private insurance — but the new version of that plan includes an option to retain traditional Medicare coverage.” But it adds that Ryan’s plan would make Medicare more expensive for seniors, “because the money seniors would get to put toward their insurance would be capped, while medical costs would not.”

It also points out of Obama’s “cuts”: “There are no cuts in benefits, and, in fact, seniors have already seen preventive services, such as annual exams and cancer screenings, with no co-pays. Instead, the savings comes by decreasing provider payments.” And: “Ryan's plan would repeal the health care law but keep the $716 billion in savings in place.”

And what about Medicaid? “Mr. Ryan’s budget is tougher on Medicaid, the big state-federal insurance program for the poor, which currently picks up the tab for a much of the nursing-home care of the elderly,” the Wall Street Journal writes.

The Wall Street Journal: “Paul Ryan Ventures Into the Medicare Debate.” The Wisconsin congressman did not discuss his budget proposal, which would use government-funded premium vouchers to subsidize the cost of private insurance plans. And he did not offer a specific plan from the Republican ticket beyond saying that he and Mr. Romney would protect and strengthen Medicare for today’s seniors and the seniors of the future. Instead, he argued that a second Obama term would mean drastic cuts to Medicare.” That’s even though Ryan’s budget assumes the same cuts.

Reuters: “Republicans gambling in taking Medicare issue head-on.” “The danger, according to political analysts, is that elderly dislike for Ryan's plan could shave off as much as 5 percentage points of voter support from the Republican ticket in closely fought races in half a dozen swing states, including Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania,” it writes. “Many Republican officials initially expressed misgivings about the Ryan pick. But a growing number now believe a powerful offensive could recast Medicare as a debate about President Barack Obama's unpopular healthcare reform law, a tactic that drew enough senior citizen support in 2010 to win a Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.”

Obama shot back against the Romney-Ryan Medicare charges. "Here's what you need to know -- I have strengthened Medicare," Obama said in Iowa. USA Today: “The changes will not hurt current Medicare recipients, Obama told the crowd. The cuts are aimed at health care providers, such as hospitals and medical device manufacturers, as well as waste and inefficiencies.”

That’s not a good headline for the president: “President Obama leads Mitt Romney among registered voters not likely to vote.”

“In an interview with People magazine Wednesday, Obama defended Biden, saying his running mate’s only meaning was that consumers won’t be protected if Wall Street reforms are repealed,” AP writes. ‘In no sense was he trying to connote something other than that,’ Obama said.”

“The selection of Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) as the Republican vice presidential candidate presents a new set of challenges” for Biden, the Washington Post writes. “Unlike four years ago, when Biden squared off against an unknown and largely untested Sarah Palin, the vice president is competing against a longtime congressman known for being a quick-minded policy expert. Now, unlike then, Biden must defend the Obama record while, associates say, keeping an eye on a potential 2016 White House bid of his own.” Biden said yesterday, “I know I’m sometimes criticized for saying exactly what I mean. It’s not going to change.”