Originally Posted by muppetry
Originally Posted by trumptman
Originally Posted by muppetry
That's fine - I understand your slant on this, and you could be completely correct. It is not the only possibility though. Do we have any actual legal opinion that indicates that the labor department legal guidance is wrong? I would need rather more evidence to be convinced that this is what you think it is.
It isn't my slant. The act is written quite plainly. The exceptions are spelled out and they don't involve politicians trying to get reelected. They do involve things like natural disasters. There has been no legal opinion rendered on the justice department memo because it was just issued and it would need a party to bring suit and a judge to rule. None of those things are likely to happen before the election in my opinion. It's good politics but terrible principles.
I'm not sure how you conclude that, other than I'm aware that is your opinion of this administration's spending. The defense budget is very complex, and, to be honest, a pain in the ass to deal with even without this kind of indiscriminate reduction. Since they haven't even figured out how to distribute the cuts, if they go ahead, I don't think it is unreasonable to request a delay of these notices.
I conclude it based on a number of facts. The president declared he would cut the deficit in half. He isn't even close and can't even get it under a trillion a year. He didn't let the Bush tax cuts expire. This deal was brokered involving the cuts to raise the debt ceiling. These are facts, not opinion. Obama has borrowed more than every other president than Bush COMBINED. He has borrowed more than Bush did in two terms in just one term. It is unreasonable to request a delay because one, it breaks the law and two it makes an assumption that even when both parties agree to a poison pill to force their own hands, that it really holds no value for at least one of the parties, aka Obama because he will exempt himself from the poison pill.
Think about how that harms future negotiations. You give a little. I give a little, then I force a lawsuit ignoring Congress when I write a memo excusing me from giving a little. It is straight up operating in bad faith.
It appears that they are arguing that because the specific effects of the sequestration, if it occurs, are not known, this will be covered under the "unforeseeable business circumstance" exception. While that seems like a stretch, I can see why (other than the election) they would want to do that.
On the budget issue, I was not saying that I didn't see how you concluded that in general - I meant from this particular action.
I'm not getting the bigger picture that you are painting for how this plays out - can you spell it out a bit more?
As to whether it could be read that way, that remains to be seen and it really is a break with all past practice on this. I would hate to see giant corporations now claiming they don't have to give their workers proper notice using the "Obama" exception.
The bigger picture is that of dual-poison pills to force everyone to operate and negotiate in good faith within a bipartisan system. When these mandatory budget cuts were presented in exchange for the deficit ceiling hike, clearly everyone put in things that harm someone politically. Democrats put in things to harm Republicans and Republicans put in things that would harm Democrats. Thus there are dualing poison pills that no one wants to swallow and thus everyone should get to the table and get something done.
The problem, Obama just exempted himself politically from part of his own poison pill. That means in the future no one will do a deal whereby if X doesn't occur then Y consequence will kick in because Obama just exempted himself from that. He was taken in good faith but will not be taken in that way in the future.
Democrats: We'd like some spending to stimulate the economy. We think 500 billion will buy down one percent unemployment and give us 1.5% additional economic growth.
Republicans: We think growth happens from tax cuts so we would like 500 billion in tax cuts from income and investment revenue. We think we will get the same numbers with our plan.
They agree to both provisions and declare that both must be revisited in two years into their five year run to see if the projections match the claimed effect. If the projections do not match then unless a majority votes passes, both provisions automatically are deauthorized and do not continue.
Two years pass and there is partisan argument about the lack of growth and the causes. Neither side wants to give in and both sides know they will lose if no action is taken.
Obama steps in and with an executive order, defended with a justice department memo, declares that he can continue the spending provisions and ignore the tax cuts. This is argued to be taking power away from Congress, ignoring the actual language of the bill, apply the understanding in strange and new ways.
Now of course it will go to court to be decided. The judges will rule about whether the president overstepped his role.
Regardless of all that, no one would dare except such a deal in the future knowing Obama will exempt his side from their own poison pill. Even if Obama loses in court, no one will dare deal with him in good faith again because he has acted in bad faith.