If a $16 trillion debt wasn't enough for taxpayers to lose sleep over, the Obama administration has offered to pick up the check -- at taxpayer expense -- for legal costs associated with defense industry layoffs should automatic Pentagon cuts be triggered.
Republicans are now crying foul over the move, accusing the White House of playing politics over the possibility of mass layoffs. At issue are the crush of Pentagon budget cuts set to go into effect starting in January should Congress fail to avert them. Under federal law, many employers are supposed to give 60-day notice of "mass layoffs" if they are considered likely, but the Obama administration for months now has urged companies not to do so.
Last week, the administration doubled down on that plea by offering to cover legal fees in compensation challenges.
Even though the (White House budget office) directive purports to protect the defense industry against the costs of not complying with the WARN Act, they cannot guarantee how the courts would rule in such an action. Thus the president has pledged to compound the impact of sequestration by dedicating already scarce resources to cover needless court costs," McKeon said.
Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., also said it was "troubling that the Obama administration would openly encourage the violation of federal law and offer to pay the legal fees that resulted."
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., claimed Obama was trying to prevent layoff notices from hitting mailboxes "right before the election."
"This is typical Barack Obama politics -- being supportive of the WARN Act when convenient and against it when it creates political downside," Graham said. "This is the most outcome-based White House in memory."
The notices are required under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and generally require employers with more than 100 employees to provide 60-day notices of "mass layoffs if they are reasonably foreseeable."
Republicans rip White House for putting tax dollars on line over possible defense layoffs | Fox News
This is just getting ridiculous, does anyone in Washington follow the law anymore?
The offer to pay the legal fees was included in a memorandum issued by the administration Friday that also restated the Labor Department's position from July that contractors should not issue written notices to employees because of the "uncertainty" over the across-the-board cuts to the defense budget and other federal spending that will occur Jan. 2 unless Congress reaches a new deal.
The notices are required under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and generally require employers with more than 100 employees to provide 60-day notices of "mass layoffs if they are reasonably foreseeable."
The projected $500 billion in Pentagon cuts under the so-called sequestration will occur because Congress failed to agree on a deficit-reduction plan in the wake of the deal last summer to raise the debt ceiling.
The guidance issued by the Labor Department this summer stated "it is neither necessary nor appropriate" for federal contractors to issue the warnings.
The latest memorandum states the federal government would cover employee compensation under the WARN Act -- "irrespective of the outcome" as long as the contractor follows the Labor Department guidelines.
Read more: Republicans rip White House for putting tax dollars on line over possible defense layoffs | Fox News
Highlighted some important details here:
A) There's always the possibility that Congress will reach a new deal. Considering the amount of federal workers this entails, I would be shocked if they didn't.
B) It doesn't seem like the layoffs are a guarantee. To me, it seems like Obama is confident that Congress will reach a new deal and he is will to compensate the workers if Congress fails to do it's job.
This isn't about Obama, but Congress yet again failing to do their job.
Highlighted some important details here:
A) There's always the possibility that Congress will reach a new deal. Considering the amount of federal workers this entails, I would be shocked if they didn't.
B) It doesn't seem like the layoffs are a guarantee. To me, it seems like Obama is confident that Congress will reach a new deal and he is will to compensate the workers if Congress fails to do it's job.
This isn't about Obama, but Congress yet again failing to do their job.
I can see some of what you say, but a business has to plan based upon the current law, not what it could change to in the future. It is Obama's fault alone, not exclusively, but he really didn't support the Simpson-Bowles Commission and because there was not the necessary agreement on the proposals, the cuts and tax increases became mandatory.
I'm a big fan of zero based budgeting rather than baseline budgeting. Unfortunately Congress isn't in that business.
Highlighted some important details here:
A) There's always the possibility that Congress will reach a new deal. Considering the amount of federal workers this entails, I would be shocked if they didn't.
B) It doesn't seem like the layoffs are a guarantee. To me, it seems like Obama is confident that Congress will reach a new deal and he is will to compensate the workers if Congress fails to do it's job.
This isn't about Obama, but Congress yet again failing to do their job.
Of course there is going to be a compromise deal. Not even the teapublicans would be assinine enough to tank a deal.
Of course there is going to be a compromise deal. Not even the teapublicans would be assinine enough to tank a deal.
It wasn't obama that blew up simpson bowles, it was ryan. He and his congressional cronies voted against it, while all the republican senators on the panel voted for it. Hmmmm.
Zero based budgeting in government - can you imagine the chaos? It would be fun to watch especially the cat fights when this or that program got x% more or less. Certainly perk things up.
Perhaps there will be a deal, but there is no deal now and the law requires a 60-day notice of layoffs. No one in the administration has the authority to issue a waiver, and Obama has no authority to compensate either the companies or the workers for legal expenses or lost wages.
I agree with Republicans on this one. These people deserve to know their jobs are up in the air, and the taxpayers should not be paying to help Obama avoid negative PR.
I guess an argument can be made that he is trying to prevent panic in the market, but it comes across far too self-serving to me.
But the Obamabots would be asinine enough to tank a deal, just like they did last time.
You might think that there will be a compromise deal and there might, but businesses have to plan for the law as it is today and since the WARN act has a 60 day notification, they are put in a position to comply with the law. They could just as easily abolish the WARN act but we know that won't happen.
Yes Ryan was one of the 7 no votes (the no votes included 4 D's and 3 R's) but it's not like Obama lobbied any of the members on how to vote. How about this, more Republican Senators voted for it than Democratic Senators. See, numbers can presented a lot of ways to show bias one way or the other.
No...this is about congress failing to come to an agreement AND the WH trying to cover up the layoffs so it wont affect the election.Highlighted some important details here:
A) There's always the possibility that Congress will reach a new deal. Considering the amount of federal workers this entails, I would be shocked if they didn't.
B) It doesn't seem like the layoffs are a guarantee. To me, it seems like Obama is confident that Congress will reach a new deal and he is will to compensate the workers if Congress fails to do it's job.
This isn't about Obama, but Congress yet again failing to do their job.
It is only required if mass layoffs are forseeable in the future and the Labor Department has stated that this is not the case.
way to re-write history there.
Or do you always get your news from Fox?
I agree with Republicans on this one. These people deserve to know their jobs are up in the air, and the taxpayers should not be paying to help Obama avoid negative PR.
I guess an argument can be made that he is trying to prevent panic in the market, but it comes across far too self-serving to me.
No...this is about congress failing to come to an agreement AND the WH trying to cover up the layoffs so it wont affect the election.
No...this is about congress failing to come to an agreement AND the WH trying to cover up the layoffs so it wont affect the election.
Do tell...which 'cuts' did republicans vote for? Did this not come about because the 'supercommittee' of democrats and republicans couldnt come up with a handful of DEFICIT cuts (not debt cuts) over a 10 year span?The Republican inssited and voted for the sequestration cuts and now are cryng like the little children that they are. Actions have consequences, intelligent people learn that by the time they are 5.
Not real strong on reading...or reading comprehension are you? Nope...like a good little Sheriff Woody doll you have to spew that party line without regard to ANYTHING actually relevant to the OP, article, or what actually happened.There will be no reason for the Republicans to hold up a deal after the election and that is what the Whitehouse believes will happen. Meanwhile it is business as usual for the obstructionist party.
The Republican inssited and voted for the sequestration cuts and now are cryng like the little children that they are. Actions have consequences, intelligent people learn that by the time they are 5.
Thats not what he is doing. He is bribing the companies to not issue pink slips because they are afraid it will make them look bad before the election. He is offering taxpayer dollars companies to cover legal challenges for the companies NOT following the law. Did you actually read any of this?So Obama talking about compensating workers that get screwed over by a do-nothing Congress is supposed to be a bad thing?
Do tell...which 'cuts' did republicans vote for? Did this not come about because the 'supercommittee' of democrats and republicans couldnt come up with a handful of DEFICIT cuts (not debt cuts) over a 10 year span?
I dont think people are whining about the cuts. I think people are upset that the White House is attempting to bribe contractors to NOT issue pink slips for layoffs because they know it will hurt their unemployment numbers. I think people are upset that the White House is offering to use taxpayer dollars to pay for fines and legal challenges the companies will face if the fail to offer said pink slips.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?