• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Grassley, Ayotte want answers on OMB promise to cover defense layoff costs

Hairytic said:
More likely, the Republicans who are hyping this issue up are just playing politics during an election year.
Click to expand...

No, more likely the President doesn't want the pink slips going out. What's the harm in fair warning for something that might not happen? What does the OMB gain but discouragin that warning...I mean, since we all know it's just a warning for something that is "unlikely to happen anyway".

It's really a non issue because it's well known that budget cuts on the Military would bring lay offs. The voters who work for these defense corporations already know they may lose their jobs shortly after January. It's a non story really.
Click to expand...

Not to the level of sequestration. A related issue to sequestration is the fact the President was unable to avoid such a drastic measure.

It's very much a story, and very relevant.
 
Hairytic said:
Where is your proof that the WH doesn't have the authority to guarantee that the guidlines they set forth will not be protected when the guidelines are being followed.
Click to expand...

I already gave it to you. You said "nuh-uhh!"
 
mac said:
The guidance issued Friday told contractors that if the automatic cuts happen and contractors lay off employees the government will cover certain liability and litigation costs in the event the contractor is later sued because it hadn’t provided adequate legal warning to its employees, but only if the contractor abides by the administration’s notice and refrains from warning employees now
Click to expand...

In July the Labor Department issued legal guidance making clear that federal contractors are not required to provide layoff notices 60 days in advance of the potential Jan. 2 sequestration order, and that doing so would be inconsistent with the purpose of the WARN Act.

The guidance on Friday reiterated what was sent out in July.
 
mac said:
No, more likely the President doesn't want the pink slips going out. What's the harm in fair warning for something that might not happen? What does the OMB gain but discouragin that warning...I mean, since we all know it's just a warning for something that is "unlikely to happen anyway".



Not to the level of sequestration. A related issue to sequestration is the fact the President was unable to avoid such a drastic measure.

It's very much a story, and very relevant.
Click to expand...

This story isn't gaining much ground in the media, which tells me there is very little to it. The only reason this story popped up was because two republican congressmen made a big deal out of it. It isn't the big deal those congressmen are making of it.
 
Hairytic said:
You didn't give me proof. YOu gave me opinion.
Click to expand...

:roll:

I gave you the CONSTITUTION and what powers the President actually has, and this isn't among those, and in fact expressly goes against the directive that he faithfully execute the laws. (You know, WARN is a law.)

As for paying the legal fees for the companies, he certainly doesn't have constitutional authority to do that, so why don't you show me the legislative authority? Good luck, because it isn't there.

The onus is on YOU to provide this.
 
Harshaw said:
:roll:

I gave you the CONSTITUTION and what powers the President actually has, and this isn't among those, and in fact expressly goes against the directive that he faithfully execute the laws. (You know, WARN is a law.)

As for paying the legal fees for the companies, he certainly doesn't have constitutional authority to do that, so why don't you show me the legislative authority? Good luck, because it isn't there.

The onus is on YOU to provide this.
Click to expand...
This article may explain it better than I have. Obama hasn't over stepped his authority in this matter and your interpretation of the Constitution is noted, but I don't think it's correct in this case.

Fox Hypes Incorrect WARN Act Charges To Stoke Sequestration Fears | Blog | Media Matters for America
 
Hairytic said:
This story isn't gaining much ground in the media, which tells me there is very little to it. The only reason this story popped up was because two republican congressmen made a big deal out of it. It isn't the big deal those congressmen are making of it.
Click to expand...

Obama administration tells contractors again: Don
Obama Administration Tells Contractors Facing Sequestration to Not Warn Employees About Potential Layoffs - Forbes
Obama To Defense Contractors: Skip The Pink Slips Before The Election - Investors.com

Really.
 
Hairytic said:
Based on the link posted to this thread:

Grassley, Ayotte want answers on OMB promise to cover defense layoff costs - Washington Times

An administration official told The Washington Times that the federal government paying for companies’ layoff costs and liability is legal under “long-standing cost principles” in federal acquisition regulations, but there is no reason for taxpayers to bear the costs because Congress has time to avoid the defense cuts and “we are confident they will.”
Click to expand...

Sequestration is the current law. They are being told to violate the current law.
 
Hairytic said:
This article may explain it better than I have. Obama hasn't over stepped his authority in this matter and your interpretation of the Constitution is noted, but I don't think it's correct in this case.

Fox Hypes Incorrect WARN Act Charges To Stoke Sequestration Fears | Blog | Media Matters for America
Click to expand...

There's nothing NEW in there, and it doesn't speak at ALL to what I said.

I asked you for the President's authority to bind the government to pay the companies' legal fees. You have not provided it.
 
If you stick your fingers in your ears and sing really loudly....you can pretend anything isn't happening...
 
cpwill said:
Sequestration is the current law. They are being told to violate the current law.
Click to expand...

No, they are not because we do not know which contracts will be cut yet, if any.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom