• 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

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,676
Reaction score
4,282
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Its illegal. They're basically telling the defense contractor to break the law and then say they'll cover costs incurred by doing it? Friggin ridiculous.
 
Grassley, Ayotte want answers on OMB promise to cover defense layoff costs - Washington Times

How do they get away with this stuff?

"Furious over the White House telling defense companies to ignore federal law requiring them to warn employees of possible layoffs from pending defense cuts, two key Republicans are demanding to know the legal rationale behind the guidance.
"



How did Obama ever get away with the illegal war against Libya? It was a clear violation of the War Powers Act. How does he get away with suing Arizona over it's immigration law while ignoring illegal sanctuary cities all over the country? How does he get away with picking and choosing laws that he refuses to support and enforce in violation of the constitution?
 
I am sure the answer will be 'Hey the GOP timed this thing with precision expecting us to have to announce layoffs that will not happen just before the election so we don't have to comply with the law because it was a dirty trick to put us in the position to have to comply with the law....and as I told senator McCain, 'I won. Get over it.'"
 
good scott, the chutzpa.


I.... I'll admit, this blows my mind.
 
On Monday, Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems backed down from summertime threats to issue layoff warnings to employees just days before the election, saying the Obama administration and the Pentagon had given them assurances that it won’t immediately kill major defense contracts if automatic spending cuts go into effect in January.

Read more: Grassley, Ayotte want answers on OMB promise to cover defense layoff costs - Washington Times Grassley, Ayotte want answers on OMB promise to cover defense layoff costs - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

That doesn't sound like an order.
 
It's not breaking the law because right now the layoffs are non-specific and hypothetical. Who do you send a pink slip to when the exact areas cut haven't been decided?
 
It's not breaking the law because right now the layoffs are non-specific and hypothetical. Who do you send a pink slip to when the exact areas cut haven't been decided?

They're not non-specific or hypothetical according to current, active law. The idea that the law will be changed is non-specific and hypothetical.
 
They're not non-specific or hypothetical according to current, active law. The idea that the law will be changed is non-specific and hypothetical.

Ok. So give me a name. Which person should a pink slip be sent to? Which contracts will be cut? Specifically. Which companies? Go ahead and check the law, tell me which contracts or companies are named.
 
I don't think it too much a stretch to assume its the very same companies the OMB sent letters to asking them not to send out the pink slips as mandated by federal law and promising to cover the costs of any resulting litigation for not following the federal laws requiring them to .
 
Ok. So give me a name. Which person should a pink slip be sent to? Which contracts will be cut? Specifically. Which companies? Go ahead and check the law, tell me which contracts or companies are named.

All cancelled contracts are already tied to specific programs.


This is a pretty flimsy defense you are mounting.
 
That doesn't sound like an order.

I agree. An "order" would be much too honest. Obama is much more subtle than that. This way he retains some "deniability" with regards to skirting the law to avoid the implication that more layoffs are in our future.
 
It's not breaking the law because right now the layoffs are non-specific and hypothetical. Who do you send a pink slip to when the exact areas cut haven't been decided?

I suspect the defense contractors have a good idea where the cuts will need to be made. The law requires that "notice" be made of impending layoffs before the "pink slips" are sent out. Obama is attempting to wave the notice.
 
I suspect the defense contractors have a good idea where the cuts will need to be made. The law requires that "notice" be made of impending layoffs before the "pink slips" are sent out. Obama is attempting to wave the notice.

Exactly. If not, why did OMB send letters to specific companies?
 
Why do defense contractor employees get special notice anyway? That just seems odd to me.
 
I agree. An "order" would be much too honest. Obama is much more subtle than that. This way he retains some "deniability" with regards to skirting the law to avoid the implication that more layoffs are in our future.

It's an "instruction". Defense contractors live and die now by political favors, and they know better than to bite the hand that might smack them.
 
So you DON'T know. Got it.

no. but the contractors do, which is why they were going to send out the notifications (in accordance with the law). And the Obama administration knows, which is why it told those specific companies not to (in violation of the law). Your complaint that they must not exist if no classified information is posted on a public debate forum regardless. :roll:
 
Grassley, Ayotte want answers on OMB promise to cover defense layoff costs - Washington Times

How do they get away with this stuff?

"Furious over the White House telling defense companies to ignore federal law requiring them to warn employees of possible layoffs from pending defense cuts, two key Republicans are demanding to know the legal rationale behind the guidance.
"




Another story GOP is trying to beef up to sound like a scandal. It only shows how desperate the GOP is getting. It makes the whole party look weak and scared.
 
Another story GOP is trying to beef up to sound like a scandal. It only shows how desperate the GOP is getting. It makes the whole party look weak and scared.

really. Who gives a hoot about the notion of separated powers or rule of law, anywho? the President is above the law!!!
 
Another story GOP is trying to beef up to sound like a scandal. It only shows how desperate the GOP is getting. It makes the whole party look weak and scared.

Good grief. The White House asks contractors not to send out layoff notices just before the election, as the law requires, and then offers to pay their legal fees if they get sued because of it.

The White House has no authority to do any of that, and the motivation is plain -- they don't want the layoff notices to affect the election, because they happen in swing states (Lockheed-Martin in VA, specifically).

This isn't ginned up. This is outrageous. What you're doing is trying to spin it into no big deal, but in fact, it IS a big deal.
 
Back
Top Bottom