Obama: Break the Law & We'll Pay Your Legal Bills!

It's Bush's fault and you're racist for bringing it up!!!!/s

At first sight, at least, it looks rather odd, but there appear to be some subtleties:

That would indicate that they are not being incited to break the law.

That indicates that the layoffs in January are not expected to happen, and that the DOD do not want the potential disruption that would be caused by issuing the notices.

Of course it would obviously be beneficial to Obama for those notices not to go out before the elections, but without more information I don't think one can conclude with any certainty that it is the main motive. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

At first sight, at least, it looks rather odd, but there appear to be some subtleties:

 

 

Quote:

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.

 

That would indicate that they are not being incited to break the law.

No, that would indicate that the Justice Department, Obama's Justice Department, believes they are above the law and do not mind sorting this out at great cost after the fact.

This would indicate that Obama isn't at all serious about getting spending under control and that the mandatory cuts that were to big triggered related to his inability to submit and get anything resembling a budget passed are a giant joke to him. If reelected, he will simply borrow, spend and kick the can down the road some more.

That's leadership there!

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

At first sight, at least, it looks rather odd, but there appear to be some subtleties:

 

 

Quote:

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.

 

That would indicate that they are not being incited to break the law.

 

No, that would indicate that the Justice Department, Obama's Justice Department, believes they are above the law and do not mind sorting this out at great cost after the fact.

 

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Quote:

“We will not issue sequestration-related WARN notices this year,” Lockheed announced in a written statement. “The additional guidance offered important new information about the potential timing of DOD actions under sequestration, indicating that DOD anticipates no contract actions on or about 2 January, 2013, and that any action to adjust funding levels on contracts as a result of sequestration would likely not occur for several months after 2 Jan. The additional guidance further ensures that, if contract actions due to sequestration were to occur, our employees would be provided the protection of the WARN Act and that the costs of this protection would be allowable and recoverable."

 

That indicates that the layoffs in January are not expected to happen, and that the DOD do not want the potential disruption that would be caused by issuing the notices.

 

Of course it would obviously be beneficial to Obama for those notices not to go out before the elections, but without more information I don't think one can conclude with any certainty that it is the main motive.

 

This would indicate that Obama isn't at all serious about getting spending under control and that the mandatory cuts that were to big triggered related to his inability to submit and get anything resembling a budget passed are a giant joke to him. If reelected, he will simply borrow, spend and kick the can down the road some more.

 

That's leadership there!

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

At first sight, at least, it looks rather odd, but there appear to be some subtleties:

 

That would indicate that they are not being incited to break the law.

 

Let me get this straight.  The Labor Department (under the direction of the President who is up for reelection in 5 weeks) decided that...surprise...the law doesn't apply here.  Got it.  

That indicates that the layoffs in January are not expected to happen, and that the DOD do not want the potential disruption that would be caused by issuing the notices.

 

The layoffs WILL happen if sequestration occurs.  The layoffs don't have to be definite to be covered by the Act.  

 

Quote:

Of course it would obviously be beneficial to Obama for those notices not to go out before the elections, but without more information I don't think one can conclude with any certainty that it is the main motive. 

 

You have to be kidding me.  I mean, talk about something not even passing a smell test.  

Same as I replied to Trumptman - you may be correct and I understand your suspicion of this, but I think your interpretation is slanted by what you would like to be the case, and you may have prematurely ruled out the less desirable (from your point of view) explanation.  And I'm not sure that these layoffs will necessarily happen, since the details of the cuts have not been developed (a different problem) as far as I know. Hopefully at some point we will find out if your suspicions are correct or not.

Quote:

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 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

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.

 

Quote:

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?

I'm starting to get the impression that Obama is just trying too hard.  He actually seems like a pretty nice, cerebral guy, but he wouldn't last for a second if he were a republican.  If there's anything he should learn from Bill Clinton it's that he should try less hard.   He should pick his battles and make the best use of the cover that the mainstream media will run for him.  If he actually did less, there would be less to go wrong, and, frankly, he does a lot of things wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

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?

 

The effects of sequestration are not required to be known.  Layoffs don't even have to be certain.  What we do know is that several contractors foresee the possibility of layoffs.  They are therefore required to give notice of those layoffs.   If you have another specific explanation, I'd love to read it.  I've seen none that even makes the slightest bit of sense, other than they feel the notices will be damaging politically.  

So I may have misread the provision, but it appears to me that the layoffs have at least to be planned, and foreseeing a possibility is not a trigger - hence the exception that they are invoking. I wonder if there is a deal negotiation going on in the background that they think has a reasonable chance of avoiding the layoffs. Or it could be shameless electioneering - I'm sure it will come out in the end.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

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.

 

Quote:

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.

Example:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

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.

 

Example:

 

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.

OK - I see where you are going I think. So you think this might be a prelude to Obama attempting unilaterally to abandon the cuts altogether? I was thinking there might be a bi-partisan initiative going on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

OK - I see where you are going I think. So you think this might be a prelude to Obama attempting unilaterally to abandon the cuts altogether? I was thinking there might be a bi-partisan initiative going on.

Well regardless of whether they are abandoned or whether they go forward, the point is that you can't exempt yourself from the consequences. If there are layoff notices that by law should go out, then all parties agreed to the cuts, the dates, the triggers, etc. It is a bad faith move.

Another example that likely has hurt Obama even with Democrats. He declared his health care plan didn't have a tax, but then had the Supreme Court rule the penalty/mandate was indeed a tax. They ruled on that because his administration put that argument forward to the courts. During the Democratic primary Obama declared he didn't even support a mandate. So he had gone from no mandate to a mandate that isn't a tax to it's a tax.

Such tactics make good politics, but over the long run cost him his credibility and his ability to govern. This is why, in my opinion, his own budgets haven't even gotten token support in the Senate from even members of his own party.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

OK - I see where you are going I think. So you think this might be a prelude to Obama attempting unilaterally to abandon the cuts altogether? I was thinking there might be a bi-partisan initiative going on.

 

Well regardless of whether they are abandoned or whether they go forward, the point is that you can't exempt yourself from the consequences. If there are layoff notices that by law should go out, then all parties agreed to the cuts, the dates, the triggers, etc. It is a bad faith move.

 

Another example that likely has hurt Obama even with Democrats. He declared his health care plan didn't have a tax, but then had the Supreme Court rule the penalty/mandate was indeed a tax. They ruled on that because his administration put that argument forward to the courts. During the Democratic primary Obama declared he didn't even support a mandate. So he had gone from no mandate to a mandate that isn't a tax to it's a tax.

 

Such tactics make good politics, but over the long run cost him his credibility and his ability to govern. This is why, in my opinion, his own budgets haven't even gotten token support in the Senate from even members of his own party.

OK - it's the exempting himself from the consequences bit that I'm not following. What is he exempting himself from?

As for the health care tax, the argument is semantics. The penalty was ruled a tax because it was proposed to be collected through the tax code. If the same penalty had been collected by a different means it would not have been ruled a tax. I'm sure the linkage was unforeseen. I actually think that is an example of poor politics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

So I may have misread the provision, but it appears to me that the layoffs have at least to be planned, and foreseeing a possibility is not a trigger - hence the exception that they are invoking. I wonder if there is a deal negotiation going on in the background that they think has a reasonable chance of avoiding the layoffs. Or it could be shameless electioneering - I'm sure it will come out in the end.

 

From what I read, I don't think the layoffs have to be definite.  I do know that contractors sought guidance from the Dept. of Labor as to whether or not they had to send them.  Lo and behold, they said "hold off."  Hmmm.  

Yes - and I agree that it looks a bit fishy, but I would not rule out that the declared reasons are the real reasons, or that there are non-public negotiations going on that may render the layoff issue moot in the near future. There is a big spectrum of probability between definite and remote possibility. I just hate jumping to conclusions.