The Obama Administration has released a report outlining the damaging effects of a scheduled cut in spending that was part of the debt ceiling deal Congress struck with Obama back in 2011. And just like a year ago, the debate over the cuts appears to be stalled on Capitol Hill.

"It's been nearly a year since the president demanded a half a trillion dollars in automatic cuts to defense and,” Republican Senator Mitch McConnell said. “Yet with the date fast approaching we still don't know how he intends to handle it."

The President's Office of Management and Budget released a report last Friday detailing the impact of the automatic spending cut of $109 billion —known as the sequester—set to take place on Jan. 2.

The Administration says "no amount of planning can mitigate the effect of these cuts," and calls the sequestration a "blunt and indiscriminate instrument."

"It would be bad news in policy terms, but it wouldn't be the end of the world for most programs,” Michael O’Hanlon, Brookings Institution foreign policy expert, said. “There are some parts of the government that would get hit much harder. Civilian employees might have to get furloughed for example."

The Department of Defense will see a cut of more than $54 billion, and so will domestic programs like the FBI and Border Patrol, correctional officers, air traffic control, education grants, and the Department of agriculture's food inspection programs.

OMB suggests Congress work together and reach an agreement on a more balanced approach.

So far, though, there's been no consensus on the Hill, just opposing plans and finger pointing.

"The Senate has done nothing. The president has proposed no solution to this," Republican Vice Presidential nominee said.

"The Republican plan doesn’t not stop the sequester, is not fair and balanced demands no new revenues, does not ask for one red cent from the wealthiest people in America," House Minority Leader Democratic Nancy Pelosi said.

Lawmakers will leave Capitol Hill at the end of this week and likely won't return until after the Election—which is when they hope to deal with the looming sequester problem.

“The presumed working assumption there is the loser will be willing to put his or her political tail between his or her legs and basically accept the winner's rules,” O’Hanlon said. “But I haven't seen that too often in American politics in recent elections.”