Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Feds to Pay for Illegal Activity to Avoid Bad Econ. News?

  1. #1
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,773
    Post Thanks / Like

    Feds to Pay for Illegal Activity to Avoid Bad Econ. News?

    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.

    Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the notice amounted to a "threat" to contractors.

    "It appears companies will bow to the threat implicit in last week's OMB guidance; withhold notices today or the government might not cover your court costs down the road," he said.

    Further, McKeon warned that the administration was using tax dollars to win over companies to follow the "dubious" and "politically motivated" guidance to ignore the federal law known as the WARN Act.

    "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."

    Lockheed Martin has reportedly already backed off threats to issue thousands of layoff warnings ahead of the election, in response to the administration's latest assurances and guidance.

    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.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.
    How can the FEds offer to cover legal fees that would be incurred by the Feds telling companies to break the Law???

    Doggin, please, help my sanity and explain this one!

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,554
    Post Thanks / Like
    Who's more mentally ill? The people of this administration? Or the people that support them and look the other way when this kind of stuff pops up?

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,494
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    Who's more mentally ill? The people of this administration? Or the people that support them and look the other way when this kind of stuff pops up?
    People who support a man who believes that they are evil and are going to hell. Mormon hell.


    Sent from my Double-Wide using Semaphore...

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,483
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    How can the FEds offer to cover legal fees that would be incurred by the Feds telling companies to break the Law???

    Doggin, please, help my sanity and explain this one!
    They would need to take it out of a budget appropriation. Nothing illegal in covering legal fees. That said, the expense of this could be ghastly.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,296
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    They would need to take it out of a budget appropriation. Nothing illegal in covering legal fees. That said, the expense of this could be ghastly.
    ...and all so Obuttocks will look good until after the election.

    (P.S. He doesn't really look good if you have half a melon. )

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us