Obama administration tries to block sequester layoff notices

posted at 10:01 am on September 29, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

The latest durable-goods orders report must have the Obama administration — and the Obama campaign — more worried than they publicly let on.  According to the National Journal, the White House will press government contractors to hold off on issuing layoff notices in October in anticipation of the sequestration cuts, afraid of the political backlash that will ensue.  In fact, the Obama administration is offering to indemnify government contractors for losses and fines for delaying those notices:

The White House moved to prevent defense and other government contractors from issuing mass layoff notices in anticipation of sequestration, even going so far to say that the contracting agencies would cover any potential litigation costs or employee compensation costs that could follow.

Some defense companies—including Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems and EADS North America—have said they expect to send notices to their employees 60 days before sequestration takes effect to comply with the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, which requires companies to give advance warning to workers deemed reasonably likely to lose their jobs. Companies appeared undeterred by a July 30 guidance from the Labor Department, which said issuing such notices would be inappropriate, due to the possibility that sequestration may be averted. The Labor Department also said companies do not have enough information about how the cuts might be implemented to determine which workers or specific programs could be affected should Congress fail to reach a compromise to reduce the deficit, triggering $1.2 trillion in spending cuts, half from defense, half non-defense. For 2013, that would amount to $109 billion in spending cuts.

Yesterday, the OMB went a little farther in wheedling contractors into playing ball:

So the Office of Management and Budget went a step further in guidance issued late Friday afternoon. If an agency terminates or modifies a contract, and the contractor must close a plant or lay off workers en masse, the company could treat employee compensation costs for WARN Act liability, attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs as allowable costs to be covered by the contracting agency—so long as the contractor has followed a course of action consistent with the Labor Department’s guidance. The legal fees would be covered regardless of the outcome of the litigation, according to the OMB guidance issued by Daniel Werfel, controller of the Office of Federal Financial Management, and Joseph Jordan, the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy.

In other words, taxpayers will cover the costs of these layoffs through more spending, even though the point of sequestration was to force cuts in government spending.  Instead of paying contractors — mainly defense workers — to work, we’ll start paying them not to work.  And why?  Because the White House doesn’t want massive numbers of layoff notices coming in the last few days ahead of the election.  And make no mistake — with overall durable goods orders dropping 13.2% in a month and defense orders dropping 40%, those layoff notices would otherwise be coming, and sooner rather than later.

In other words, the White House wants taxpayers to pay to cover up the inevitable outcome of sequestration to keep Barack Obama from suffering the political consequences of his own deal.  Unless those funds are coming from Team Obama, this looks pretty corrupt — which is undoubtedly why Obama chose to have this OMB edict issued late on Friday afternoon, when few would be paying attention.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

My understanding of WARN notices is they are for the employees’ benefit, so they have at least 60 days’ advance notice to be looking for another job. In this economy, 60 days ain’t much, but still it’s something. So Obama doesn’t want the workers to get their full notice, and then when they sue the employers who failed to give the notice, the taxpayers will pay the damages … in addition to any fines imposed on the employers. What about the employees who don’t sue, do they get anything?

toby11 on September 29, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Perhaps the idea is to pay them off with our money to head off lawsuit. Severance packages on our dime for breaking the law.

Philly on September 29, 2012 at 11:41 AM

HOW CAN THIS SPENDING BE LEGALLY OFFERED by the White House?? They do not have the ability to offer additional spending which has not been approved. … What magic money is going to cover legal costs for contractors who do not give adequate layoff notice???…

Hueydriver on September 29, 2012 at 11:12 AM

The way they are doing this is by telling contractors that those fines, fees, and costs would be considered allowable costs. That means those costs can either be directly charged to specific contracts if they are applicable only to a single contract, or as allowable overhead to be spread across all government contracts if not tied to specific contracts. Either way, it raises the cost of government contracts and reduces the amount of beneficial work that can be performed.

AZfederalist on September 29, 2012 at 11:41 AM

In addition to money to pay fines for violating the law.

Philly on September 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM

How does this make any sense.
We are sending 1.5B a year to Egypt mostly for their military, Egypt is now run by the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD whose goal is to destroy the western world.
Congress has temp. block this payment but I am sure the AH in chief will find away around it.
CUT OUR MILITARY AND DEFENSE AND SPEND THE TAXPAYERS MONEY(borrowed) TO SUPPORT OUR ENEMIES.

GOD HELP US.

concernedsenior on September 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Doughboy on September 29, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Do you honestly believe we aren’t past the point of no return? We haven’t got the wherewithal to repay the current national debt of 16 trillion. The nominally conservative court approved of taking property for the public good. It approved of shafting senior creditors. It approved of OTaxaCare. They’ve reduced freedom to minimal levels with those decisions. What is really left for a progressive court to do other than put the last nail in the coffin.

chemman on September 29, 2012 at 11:43 AM

This president continually manages to amaze me. He is not just offering to indemnify them for possible risks of not taking the appropriate action. He’s offering to indemnify them for breaking the laws that he as president swore an oath to enforce, just so their legal obligations won’t draw notice at a time that might hurt his bid to be re-elected.

He is urging them to break the laws for his own political benefit. How is this not worthy of impeachment?

tom on September 29, 2012 at 11:44 AM

It’s too bad that there isn’t another political party opposed to the democrats that could expose this blatant, illegal partisan chicanery. You know, a different party that could point out all of the unlawful activities of the president and his cronies. Perhaps even bring charges of using taxpayer dollars during an election to sway the electorate – which violates a lot of federal laws. Does anyone know where we can find such a political party? I don’t – not any more.

RoadRunner on September 29, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Obama is trying to run the country like a Ponzi scheme.

BuckeyeSam on September 29, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Where is Congress? Why aren’t they demanding answers? Any state or commonwealth, especially in the DC metro area, should be screaming bloody murder right now. They’ll have to provide unemployment or borrow the money from the US government to pay it.

Outrage does not cover it.

Philly on September 29, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Don’t ignore the fact that the backside of this message is: you, gooberment contractor, will still have to cut these employees and you will still make less money from this gooberment contract – hey, you might even lose the business altogether. You also may get sued by these former employees for not following the WARN act and even though we said we’d cover those legal costs for you, we’re 99.99% sure that we’ll be telling you instead “Sorry, no money for that now that The Won has been reinstated to his rightful throne.”

natasha333 on September 29, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Nixon was an amateur by comparison.

bigmacdaddy on September 29, 2012 at 11:36 AM

This administration makes Nixon look like Mother Teresa.

This administration makes carter look like a foreign-policy / macro-economic genius.

The fact that he’s even in this race given his given his total disregard for the rule of law, let alone his economic and foreign-policy failures is disturbing.

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 11:44 AM

i thought it was the law to notify them at a certain time point….

breaking the law once again for dear leader

cmsinaz on September 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Not sure enough in my brain about this law ….
if the layoffs ARE delayed, what happens when Romney & Ryan win in Nov ??
Will the layoffs still HAVE to happen, or can this thang be rescinded, repealed or whatever ?

pambi on September 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Nixon at least try to keep his corrupt behavior contained to one covert scandal. This administration has no shame and does not care about what anyone thinks.

Philly on September 29, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Perhaps the idea is to pay them off with our money to head off lawsuit. Severance packages on our dime for breaking the law.

Philly on September 29, 2012 at 11:41 AM

More specifically, the more will go to trial lawyers who will surely file class-action lawsuits.

Guess which political party that trial lawyers support.

Those who pay federal income taxes get screwed all the way around.

BuckeyeSam on September 29, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Good questions, pambi.

Philly on September 29, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Obama is trying to run the country like a Ponzi scheme.

BuckeyeSam on September 29, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Indeed.

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Impeach the Pimp in Chief!

workingclass artist on September 29, 2012 at 11:50 AM

In other words, the White House wants taxpayers to pay to cover up the inevitable outcome of sequestration to keep Barack Obama from suffering the political consequences of his own deal.

I am sure the Main Stream Media will get right on this……

redguy on September 29, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Does anyone know where we can find such a political party? I don’t – not any more.

RoadRunner on September 29, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Regardless of who wins in November, a lot of Americans will be looking for that party. And will discover each other.

de rigueur on September 29, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Weasel coward. Desperate acts of a desperate man. An honorable man of law and morals, he is not.

NickelAndDime on September 29, 2012 at 11:59 AM

On a side note, as a defense contractor employee, is this my Obama phone?

NickelAndDime on September 29, 2012 at 12:00 PM

In other words, the White House wants taxpayers to pay to cover up the inevitable outcome of sequestration to keep Barack Obama from suffering the political consequences of his own deal.

Isn’t that illegal?

Yeah, I know…hahahahaha!

jnelchef on September 29, 2012 at 12:01 PM

I’m beginning to suspect that this Obama guy isn’t exactly on the up and up.

natasha333 on September 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Comment of the year.

faraway on September 29, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Gophergirl, they did send layoff notices. Obama is the most corrupt president since Nixon in history. He cares more about keeping his job than about you losing your job. These criminals have got to go.

Philly on September 29, 2012 at 10:09 AM

FIFY.

Nixon was an amateur by comparison.

bigmacdaddy on September 29, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Did Nixon even have any corruption scandals aside from Watergate? The only one that comes to mind was having FBI files on his political rivals, but Clinton surpassed that back in the 90s.

If we’re going to pick out corrupt administrations, let’s not forget that the Clinton administration engaged in coverups, saw a lot of people die in suspicious circumstances, and deliberately smeared the names and reputations of people in the White House Travel Office for no reason but to have an excuse to fire them and replace them with some of their political cronies.

Better comparison: the most corrupt administration since the Clinton Administration.

But this latest move of Obam’s makes even that a lie. Even Clinton didn’t promise to indemnify businesses for breaking the law.

Although that’s probably only because he never had to. I have faith that Billy Jeff could have risen to the occasion for any corruption necessary to get re-elected.

Therefore, the real difference in this case is the desperation of Obama. And he’s only going to get more desperate.

tom on September 29, 2012 at 12:05 PM

On a side note, as a defense contractor employee, is this my Obama phone?

NickelAndDime on September 29, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Well played.
Answer ? Looks like it, yes.

pambi on September 29, 2012 at 12:06 PM

i doubt mittens will make an issue of this at the debate, but HE SHOULD!

Dr. Demento on September 29, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Obama now leads in every major poll including Rasmussen.

Apparently America has decided……..and they don’t like squishy RINOs that pose as Conservatives.

FORWARD over the cliff America!!!!

PappyD61 on September 29, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Really so what if you get laid off?

Lay around on your fat lazy American *** and get your Obamaphone, food stamps, housing subsidies, and then gripe that you deserve more!!!!

Forward America…..over the cliff!!!!

PappyD61 on September 29, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Where is Congress? Why aren’t they demanding answers?
Philly on September 29, 2012 at 11:44 AM

They are quivering in fear not of the Obama machine, but of the tea party that they’ve created by their own cowardly failure to do what they must to save what’s left of this nation.

The entire system is broken, and I fear it is lost regardless of who wins this election.

Don L on September 29, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Ok, to a libbie, Preezy is saving all of these jobs, right ?? What a hero !!
Such a malodorous move, yet difficult to effectively explain to libbies.
Hmmm.

pambi on September 29, 2012 at 12:15 PM

This story is nothing compared what might well await us in a second Obama term, even with a fully-in-hand Republican Congress. There will be no restraints at all on Obama, and he will have the ‘flexibility’ he mentioned to the Russians. No one knows exactly what he meant by that word, but I worry about the implications and what he truly has in mind.

Just look at that scowl of his. Never in my life have I seen a president give that kind of look to anyone, ever. Not even Reagan gave that kind of look to a Soviet leader, and those guys threatened us with nuclear annihilation if world events got out of our respective or mutual control.

Obama has no such courtesy, it seems, let alone respect for anyone.

I don’t scare easily, but at this point I truly fear for my country and the futures of my children and their families.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 12:17 PM

employee compensation costs for WARN Act liability, attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs as allowable costs to be covered by the contracting agency—so long as the contractor has followed a course of action consistent with the Labor Department’s guidance.

Oops, sorry Mr.Defense Contractor, you didn’t follow Labor’s guidance correctly. Yours costs will not be covered, but thanks for not sending out those layoff notices.

olddog58 on September 29, 2012 at 12:25 PM

The Obama Administration is good at mass layoffs. They did the same thing with NASA in 2010.

AeroSpear on September 29, 2012 at 12:25 PM

The way they are doing this is by telling contractors that those fines, fees, and costs would be considered allowable costs. That means those costs can either be directly charged to specific contracts if they are applicable only to a single contract, or as allowable overhead to be spread across all government contracts if not tied to specific contracts. Either way, it raises the cost of government contracts and reduces the amount of beneficial work that can be performed.

AZfederalist on September 29, 2012 at 11:41 AM

And is being offered by someone who, with the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies, has shown that he is not in any way bound to follow any contract produced and can break them at will with you having no recourse.

Or, put differently, on November 7th, the enforcement actions and fines for not following the law begin.

Only a complete and total imbecile would fall for this one. The correct and wise response is to send out the notices anyway; that way, the Obama administration has to sue you for not violating the law and existing regulations.

northdallasthirty on September 29, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Ya know….
I’m startin’ to get the idea that this 0bama guy is somewhat dishonest.
Anyone else getting this idea, or am I just misinterpreting things?

LegendHasIt on September 29, 2012 at 12:44 PM

This will all get exposed, esp in local markets. It should be a national scandal, and the SuperPacs should get the story out in affected markets.

GOP members of Congress will file suit, which will also expose this fraud.

Many of the lawyers at these defense contractors to date have not taken the bait, nor should they.

matthew8787 on September 29, 2012 at 12:48 PM

This administration makes Nixon look like Mother Teresa.

This administration makes carter look like a foreign-policy / macro-economic genius.

The fact that he’s even in this race given his given his total disregard for the rule of law, let alone his economic and foreign-policy failures is disturbing.

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Sad to say, but my 13-year old daughter has a better grasp of both fiscal and foreign policy than anyone in this administration.

bigmacdaddy on September 29, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Computer crash slowed this response. This needs to be clarified as it is a common misconception:

Most military contracts are what is termed cost-plus contracts. This means that even though we may have a negotiated cost for a product, we will pay that cost plus any overruns that occur. The Federal Acquisition Regulations cover what costs are allowable for the contractor to claim.

STL_Vet on September 29, 2012 at 11:29 AM

This is a common misconception regarding cost plus contracts. Firm Fixed Price contracts are contracts where the contractor agrees to complete a certain measurable task for a fixed amount of money that includes a negotiated profit. The contractor must deliver on the agreed product for the negotiated price regardless of how much it costs to complete the task. If the contractor is able to perform the work faster and for less money, that is to the contractor’s benefit; if problems arise and it costs more to perform the contract, the contractor loses profit and possibly may wind up having to put in company money to complete the contract. Because unforseen circumstances are high risk, profits for FFP contracts are negotiated higher to cover the risk. Generally these contracts are only bid for activities that are reasonable risk.

Cost plus contracts are contracts for which the contractor agrees to execute work as defined in an agreed upon statement of work for a specific amount of money (the cost of performing work) plus a fee, the fee (profit) can be either fixed fee or incentive fee, but the contract basis is the agreed upon cost. The contractor executes the contract and performs as long as the agreed upon cost is not exceeded. If the contractor completes the work below the cost, profit for the contractor is higher (within certain bounds) and the government and contractor may agree to perform additional work within the scope of the contract. If things don’t go well, and the contractor reaches the end of the money before completing the work, all work on the contract stops and the government determines whether to issue a contract modification authorizing additional funds, issue a new contract to perform the remainder of the work, or to cancel the contract completely. A cost plus contract is NOT a blank check allowing the contractor to spend whatever it takes to get the job done. These contracts are issued for high risk activities, those kinds of activities that have “miracle occurs here” or “Invention completed here” milestones in a schedule. Because contractor risk is lowered with cost plus types of contracts, allowable fee (profit) is substantially lower than for Firm Fixed Price contracts.

The rest of what you wrote is correct as far as making the charges for the fines allowable. I’m not sure that the FAR allows reimbursement for costs relating to illegal activities, so it seems that the regime is breaking the law here as well (not that anyone here is surprised by that)

AZfederalist on September 29, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Oh C’mon already with this corrupt a-hole.

How the frig can this be legal?

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 10:55 AM

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the Obama regime believes that the law applies to the actions of the regime.

AZfederalist on September 29, 2012 at 10:59 AM

For instance, we have Federal laws that prevent gun sales to straw buyers, but this administration encouraged/allowed/directed dealers to break the law. Ask those dealers how much help they’ve received since Fast and Furious was exposed.

Hill60 on September 29, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Obama wants the cake and eat it too.

Above all he wants to manipulate the labor figures, coming out just before the elections.

More troubling, he’s using your tax dollars to ‘buy’ the silence and manipulation of the companies. Read carefully.

Media and Obama-hacks, spontaneously combust, or suffocate from what you eat, Obama’s sh*t, which is not Beluga caviar.

Schadenfreude on September 29, 2012 at 12:58 PM

In other words, taxpayers will cover the costs of these layoffs through more spending, even though the point of sequestration was to force cuts in government spending. Instead of paying contractors — mainly defense workers — to work, we’ll start paying them not to work. And why? Because the White House doesn’t want massive numbers of layoff notices coming in the last few days ahead of the election. And make no mistake — with overall durable goods orders dropping 13.2% in a month and defense orders dropping 40%, those layoff notices would otherwise be coming, and sooner rather than later.
In other words, the White House wants taxpayers to pay to cover up the inevitable outcome of sequestration to keep Barack Obama from suffering the political consequences of his own deal. Unless those funds are coming from Team Obama, this looks pretty corrupt — which is undoubtedly why Obama chose to have this OMB edict issued late on Friday afternoon, when few would be paying attention.

Buying re-election from those who despise him the most. To Hell with him. Open your eyes. Don’t let him get away with such blatant charlatanry.

Schadenfreude on September 29, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Sikorsky just cut 700 jobs in NY state.

Schadenfreude on September 29, 2012 at 1:07 PM

In a sane America, people are fired and prosecuted over naked manipulation of the law to buy an election.

cane_loader on September 29, 2012 at 10:31 AM

America is no longer sane or lega.

Obama is a charlatanic thug.

Schadenfreude on September 29, 2012 at 1:11 PM

legal

Schadenfreude on September 29, 2012 at 1:11 PM

But the Friday guidance from the Office of Management and Budget raised the stakes in the dispute, telling contractors that they would be compensated for legal costs if layoffs occur due to contract cancellations under sequestration — but only if the contractors follow the Labor guidance.

This is a bribe, and does not indemnify any damage or compensatory awards in those potential lawsuits.

So the employees still lose their jobs, the companies still get sued, the government covers the legal costs (the ABA approves, btw), and our ability to defend ourselves takes a huge hit.

This is a win in the White House.

BobMbx on September 29, 2012 at 1:26 PM

This may be grasping at straws, but if Obama is reelected, we might be spared the most dire consequences by the fact that he only knows how to do one thing: campaign. He won’t have to do that again so couple that with his incredible laziness, and he might just kick back and do nothing for four years other than party, show up on talk shows for his weekly adoration fix and golf.

natasha333 on September 29, 2012 at 1:27 PM

So instead of losing the votes of all the people who are definitely losing their jobs, he’s going to lose the votes of those who don’t know if they’re losing their jobs or not, which is a much bigger number.

As a cynical, pre-calculated political move, I don’t see the benefit.

James on September 29, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Boehner and company had nothing to do with Sequestration. Nothing to see on our side of the divide. Could have Passed a clean Debt Increase bill of 400B and kept doing so every 4 to 5 months. Could have actually kept up some pressure to actually cut our deficit and gotten more Americans to wake up and see the results. Instead, they chose to give Obama to total pass on all of it. Great Job Chumps.

Immigration reform in Reagan’s days… In fact, every single time we were offered something that would happen later that would have beneficial to America’s interest it never materialized, but the immediate costs and detriments always happened and were always at a higher cost than originally proposed.

Blame Obama, Blame Obama, Blame Obama. Dude, the Republicans passed the damned bill that made this possible! Nothing says competence like enabling the enemy EVERY SINGLE TIME. They have to be doing it on purpose.

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 1:40 PM

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Those days are over.

W’s “see you at the bill signing” immigration fiasco helped spawn the TEA party.

It became such a losing issue that Obumbles wouldn’t even go near it for 4 years (mainly because a majority of Americans reject it)

But don’t let facts get in the way of a good narrative, troll.

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Your derangement syndrome is showing…

Read what I wrote, not the deranged argument you imagine I did.

Reagan’s Immigration reform was supposed to come with a crack down on illegals crossing the border, immigrants overstaying their visa’s and more border control. Instead what happened was they legalized some 4 times the number of illegals they said they were going to do and then proceeded to forget about the rest of the deal.

Here we had the gifting of Obama 2 trillion in debt, with supposed to be a commission to tackle the hard spending cuts needed, which never materialized, SURPRISE, followed by, OMG we cannot let the sequestration happen after all!

Grow up, look at what your REPUBLICAN PARTY DID TO ENABLE THIS!

We will give you everything you want right now if you promise LATER ON TO DO SOMETHING GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY. As has always happened with this kind of situation. The harmful actions always happen and the good future actions never materialize.

That was the reference to immigration.

Tim_CA = BLINDERS ON

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Tim_CA = BLINDERS ON

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 1:54 PM

lol….didn’t you tell us you were going to have to stop posting for awhile obamabot?

Why are you even here?….you’ve already stated that your sitting out the election.

We get it. Republicans bad….Obama better choice.

Now keep your promise and go color for awhile. If you ask nicely, maybe mommy will give you some chocolate milk.

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 2:00 PM

A corrupt President and regime. A corrupt media. An ignorant, slothful majority who want to be take care of by the corrupt government so they can play with their free phones and watch reality TV. Welcome to the new America.

Ultimately, this will lead to self-determination by flyover states. Look at Spain. That is the future.

Rockshine on September 29, 2012 at 2:05 PM

From the other thread.

But, in case you’re wondering, it doesn’t much bother me. It’s the Republicans who put defense cuts on the table and Republican intransigence on taxes that makes sequestration likely. Democrats would have preferred automatic tax increases as a penalty, but no – Boehner couldn’t deliver his caucus for a rational (as rational as this sort of thing can ever be) deal.

Let’s be clear: Obama’s going to win, the Democrats are going to hold the Senate and — while both the Prez and the Senate are willing to compromise (too willing) — no deal is going to get done unless the Republicans compromise as well. You can have a few rich people pay a little bit more (maybe cut some loopholes and have an even smaller few pay a lot more) or you can gut the defense of our nation. It’s your call.

urban elitist on September 29, 2012 at 2:07 PM

lol….didn’t you tell us you were going to have to stop posting for awhile obamabot?

Why are you even here?….you’ve already stated that your sitting out the election.

We get it. Republicans bad….Obama better choice.

Now keep your promise and go color for awhile. If you ask nicely, maybe mommy will give you some chocolate milk.

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Poor Timmay is unable to make an argument as to why my statements are false or wrong. So the poor little Timmay resorts to telling me to get lost?
I’m still engaged in the election. I stated that at this point in time Romney has not earned my vote. Big difference, well, it is a big difference for people with working mental faculties.
By the way, as is apparent in this thread, your reading comprehension is exceptionally dull and inadequate, much like some other aspects of your being. I stated that my posting will be reduced, not completely gone, you understand this, or should I inquire if there is a special educational kindergarten teacher around that can help your figure it out?

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Some points to note.

1. The WARN Act has state and/or local law equivalents with language that is slightly different from its provisions. Thus, depending upon where the companies in question are located, even if this shameless ploy by the President succeeds with respect to the federal law, it won’t necessarily end the issue altogether re: the need for notice to be provided.

2. The WARN Act was passed over President Reagan’s veto. It’s nice to see the Democrats hoisted on their own petard here.

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on September 29, 2012 at 2:11 PM

urban elitist on September 29, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Or just passed a clean $400B debt limit increase, followed by another $400B clean Debt Limit Increase bill… until the election.

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 2:12 PM

By the way, as is apparent in this thread, your reading comprehension is exceptionally dull and inadequate, much like some other aspects of your being. I stated that my posting will be reduced, not completely gone, you understand this, or should I inquire if there is a special educational kindergarten teacher around that can help your figure it out?

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 2:08 PM

I ain’t as got as much lernin’ as you reeel smart tolls.

lmao.

Again troll…you’ve stated that you’re NOT VOTING. That means that in your mind, a second obumbles term is preferable to a Romney Presidency.

Sorry amigo…but your opinion means less to me than the dog crap I have to pick up in the yard this afternoon.

You can pretend to be some indignant “conservative” all day long….but you fool me exactly ZIP.

Again – You’re a real HERO, troll….to both Family and Country.

Now keep yer friggin’ promise, and go play in your sandbox for awhile.

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 2:16 PM

I think what Obama is doing is disgusting and I also think it should be considered illegal. He should not have authority to spend money congress has not authorized. Particularly since this goes directly against a bill he himself signed into law and decided to take take the most damaging path possible while still following that law.

The problem I have with the Republicans is that they ALWAYS FALL FOR THIS. It cannot just be stupidity, it has to be on purpose.

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Again troll…you’ve stated that you’re NOT VOTING. That means that in your mind, a second obumbles term is preferable to a Romney Presidency.

Sorry amigo…but your opinion means less to me than the dog crap I have to pick up in the yard this afternoon.

You can pretend to be some indignant “conservative” all day long….but you fool me exactly ZIP.

Again – You’re a real HERO, troll….to both Family and Country.

Now keep yer friggin’ promise, and go play in your sandbox for awhile.

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Timmay!!! Have not decided yet if I am voting. As of this one moment in time, I am not. Is the election today? Why no, it is not. That total lack of learning on your part is showing. That means that between now and the date of the election I have the opportunity to change my mind.

OMG, seriously!?! It is possible for people to change their minds? I did not know that, that is why I am pushing to change people’s mind on this website called Hot Air! TIMMAY!!!

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 2:21 PM

The problem I have with the Republicans is that they ALWAYS FALL FOR THIS. It cannot just be stupidity, it has to be on purpose.

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Perfect example of either obamabot troll or complete moron playing “indignant” conservative.

Well done, sir.

(I’m betting on the former)

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 2:21 PM

TIMMAY!!!

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 2:21 PM

lol…you sure is edumacated ok.

C’mon lib….fess up….you had a good run….lol.

lmao.

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 2:24 PM

The problem I have with the Republicans is that they ALWAYS FALL FOR THIS. It cannot just be stupidity, it has to be on purpose.

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Perfect example of either obamabot troll or complete moron playing “indignant” conservative.

Well done, sir.

(I’m betting on the former)

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 2:21 PM

I gave facts above that support my statement. What did you offer? Trollish comments stating I am the troll. Irony has a hard time getting through to you with anything less than a spike and a sledge hammer I am guessing. TIMMAY!!!

The Republicans got rolled on amnesty back with Reagan, one of his biggest mistakes according to Reagan was allowing them to have what they wanted now and then promising something beneficial in return later.

Here we have something even worse. Giving them what they want now, and giving them the power to use the negative impacts of their own negligence to force our hands into giving them even more. Held hostage by the gun we handed them. YEAH, great negotiations. We had the ability to hold them hostage. Just vote for a clean debt limit increase of a small amount and make them keep coming back begging for more.

But hey! they have an (R) they are gods and infallible! Only to Timmay!!!

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 2:27 PM

TIMMAY!!! I have a track record of being conservative going a looooong way back. Something you and your little click of allies on here do not have. I have been on Hot Air since the first registrations promoting CONSERVATIVES. So, your line about me being liberal, has a 0 as the possibility.
Conservative, not Republican. Conservative. When Republicans do not act CONSERVATIVELY, they do not represent me.

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 2:30 PM

I gave facts above that support my statement. What did you offer? Trollish comments stating I am the troll.

Irony has a hard time getting through to you with anything less than a spike and a sledge hammer I am guessing. TIMMAY!!!

But hey! they have an (R) they are gods and infallible! Only to Timmay!!!

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Timmay!!!

TIMMAY!!!

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Timmay should I inquire if there is a special educational kindergarten teacher around that can help your figure it out?

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 2:08 PM

LMAO…

Please remind us about trollish comments and “Irony” troll.

(you are friggin’ hilarious).

KEEP YOUR PROMISE!

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 2:38 PM

TIMMAY!!!astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 2:30 PM

lol.

I think you looooooove me.

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Conservative. When Republicans do not act CONSERVATIVELY, they do not represent me.

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 2:30 PM

You’re a lotta things you little mush-mouthed squish…..but your certainly no conservative. A Conservative wouldn’t sit out an election as important as this one is.

As a conservative, I’m simultaneously amused and insulted.

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 2:43 PM

I think you looooooove me.

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 2:40 PM

When you decide to attack me using your trollish remarks the way you do, you lose the aura of respectability.
If, on the other hand, and you can do this at any point in time, just offer some facts without insulting me that back up your side of the argument, and I will then treat you nicely as I reply to you, with facts and no insults.

You chose to have a less than cordial conversation with your personal attack on my very well thought out remarks. TIMMAY!!!

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 2:44 PM

TIMMAY!!!

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 2:44 PM

lol….you want to kiiiiiissssss me!

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 2:46 PM

(Ed is an amazingly patient man….I’d have booted me 2 comments after I started poking the troll).

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 2:49 PM

You’re a lotta things you little mush-mouthed squish…..but your certainly no conservative. A Conservative wouldn’t sit out an election as important as this one is.

As a conservative, I’m simultaneously amused and insulted.

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 2:43 PM

You say it is that important. Prove it. In fact, prove that Romney, a well known progressive will do anything different. Base that argument not on words that have no meaning, but on his past actions while in office.

Now then. Romney might offer me something in an widely distributed advertisement, at the debates, in a widely viewed interview or in one of his stump speeches. I’m looking for one thing in particular, I would imagine it is a CONSERVATIVE item. Cut, Cap and Balance. Do you agree that this is a conservative item? That would give me some belief that the direction of the nation, at this MOST IMPORTANT OF ELECTIONS is actually going to change course. He of course might offer something different that shows that he will work fervently to change the course of the nation rather than slow the pace of destruction down.

If there is going to be a problem, I would rather it happen while I am the one to suffer, not kick the can down the road onto the backs of other people like a coward. Our founding fathers did not spend their time kicking the can down the road, did they?

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 2:53 PM

(Ed is an amazingly patient man….I’d have booted me 2 comments after I started poking the troll).

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Well, at least you admit you are the actual troll. The poking part is the dead give away. That is what trolls do. I on the other hand just put out information and respond to trolls.

We really need a special educational kindergarten level teacher on this site in order to translate things for some people.

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 2:57 PM

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Amigo….you really need to get your story straight…..

Now you’re an ABR (even though he’s the nominee)?

And

that “anybody” includes Obama?

AND

You’re a conservative?

AND

You see no difference between Romney’s platform and Obama’s?

Are you starting to see how you stretch credulity at a “conservative” website?

Just come out already….we’d all have a lot more respect for you. We’ll still have fun…..you can still loooooove me!

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 3:02 PM

We really need a special educational kindergarten level teacher on this site in order to translate things for some people.

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Naw…..that’s what we have smart “conservatives” like you for.

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 3:04 PM

You see no difference between Romney’s platform and Obama’s?

Are you starting to see how you stretch credulity at a “conservative” website?

Just come out already….we’d all have a lot more respect for you. We’ll still have fun…..you can still loooooove me!

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 3:02 PM

I see a difference. A difference of degree. Not a difference in direction.

See, the country is headed for a cliff. Putting Romney in does not move that cliff one foot further away. It just changes the speed at which we reach the cliff, by slowing us down a little bit. At the end of 4 years of Obama, we will be much closer to the cliff and headed towards it faster. At the end of 4 years of Romney we will be much closer to the cliff, not quite as close as Obama would put us, and moving a bit slower. But closer we will be. Then go 4 years further out in time, and we will be closer still. At some point we will hit the cliff, the end of the line, destruction and much gnashing of teeth. Do you disagree with this prognosis? If so, specify where.

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 3:07 PM

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 3:07 PM

ok…so just to be clear….you believe that obama and romney will both take us off a fiscal cliff….Romney will just take longer?

So stopping obamacare, fixing SS, pushing sane, real (Ryan) budgets, releasing domestic energy policy, stopping subsidies to BS energy follies and putting an end to crushing new business regs and reining in the EPA – (have you read the Romney Platform at all?) – equates to 4 years of Marxism unhindered by worries of reelection?

You’re a fool…..and you’re honestly too stupid to vaote.

You’re right….

STAY HOME.

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 3:04 PM

You are talking to a real Troll. He is trolling you for the response pretending to be someone else than the Romney Bot he actually is.

Steveangell on September 29, 2012 at 3:27 PM

You are talking to a real Troll. He is trolling you for the response pretending to be someone else than the Romney Bot he actually is.

Steveangell on September 29, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Hilarious.

Never considered it but…looking back he did get a true conservative to smack him in the face with Romney.

He really doesn’t seem that smart…..but if so – well played sir!

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 3:37 PM

So stopping obamacare,

\
Replacing, not stopping. He will replace it. Go back and look what he sees as a good solid perfectly functional health care system.

fixing SS

Extending the life of Social security is a sure fire way to ensure that the social decay it causes continues to degrade the average voter of the nation. As was the plan of the program to begin with. How do you fix something that by its very nature destroys what you hold dear and true?

pushing sane, real (Ryan) budgets,

In 2010 and 2011 we were talking about Balanced Budget Amendments and caps on federal spending. Now that sounds like a sane, real and sustainable budget.

The Ryan plan now makes “Conservative” talk about maybe possibly in 8 to 12 presidential cycles we could maybe reach a point where we have a balanced budget. Until then, we will be running deficit after deficit after deficit, allowing the interest on that debt to compound, year after year, decade after decade. Sounds sane to me… Just put our kids on the hook while we keep enjoying our deficit spending until after we are all dead.

releasing domestic energy policy

That is possible, but we had the power to do that in 2001 through 2006. Also note that Romney, in his last year as governor, when he already knew he was not running for re-election stated that he would protect the oceans from energy production. He also promoted and passed a cap and trade program, spear headed a regional greenhouse gas initiative, and called a coal powered generation plant a people killer kowtowing to the environmentalists he had no need to kowtow to because he was not running for reelection. So, yeah, it is possible, and that is a good thing. It is not certain at all though where he will allow us to get the energy from and which environmentalists he will be kowtowing to in the white house.

stopping subsidies to BS energy follies

These are probably the weakest harms Obama has caused. That is saying much because they rack up into the tens of billions total. So a big point.

and putting an end to crushing new business regs and reining in the EPA –

This is great news, and very welcomed. But he will just change a few people in the areas where the regulations originate, tell them to scrap a few regulations, and keep many of the others. Remember, he is very friendly with environmentalists, not the kind that care for nature, but the kind that hate humans… So, it is a move to slow the beast down, it does not stop it. To stop it would be to eliminate EPA and OSHA. I’ll be waiting patiently for him to call for one or both or others to be dismantled in total. Why? Because the next Democrat will just undo what Romney does and redo what Obama did and add insult onto injury. If you leave in place the tools of the left, those tools will be used.

(have you read the Romney Platform at all?) – equates to 4 years of Marxism unhindered by worries of reelection?

You’re a fool…..and you’re honestly too stupid to vaote.

You’re right….

STAY HOME.

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Yes I have Read Romney’s policy free goal oriented platform. All 87 two sheets per PDF version of it. It is printed at work, bound, and been read and highlighted several times with notes. Want to know the most frequent note? HOW? Goal, no policy. HOW?

So, the fast road to the cliff, or a slow road to the cliff.

If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace. – Thomas Paine Whose ‘Common Sense’ and ‘Crisis’ papers were important influences on the American war for independence.

I guess we can just kick the an down the road. Leave available every last progressive policy and agency for their use next time they are in power. Figure out a way to make the productive produce enough to pay for the unproductive peoples’ socialized welfare payments for another decade or so. That totally sounds conservative to me. It has been working so well for the last, ummm well, forever. Look where it has brought us thus far.

So, you honestly think Romney will make it so we will not have trouble in the near future? This is an honest question…

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 3:42 PM

This can’t be legal, can it?

They’re telling these businesses they will pay them for breaking the law?

That’s crazy.

blue13326 on September 29, 2012 at 3:49 PM

So, you honestly think Romney will make it so we will not have trouble in the near future? This is an honest question…

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Honestly…wtf is wrong with you?

You claim to be “Conservative” yet you need reassuring fairy-tales just like every other lib-idiot.

What happens is up to YOU ya dolt…and YOU’RE NOT VOTING!

Go troll somewhere else….I’m done with you.

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Honestly…wtf is wrong with you?

You claim to be “Conservative” yet you need reassuring fairy-tales just like every other lib-idiot.

What happens is up to YOU ya dolt…and YOU’RE NOT VOTING!

Go troll somewhere else….I’m done with you.

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 3:49 PM

You say that all the time.

So, you think Romney will not in fact stop the trouble that is most certainly brewing right now. That has to be an admission that all you want is to push that day of reckoning off onto the shoulders of some future group of people.

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 3:53 PM

This can’t be legal, can it?

They’re telling these businesses they will pay them for breaking the law?

That’s crazy.

blue13326 on September 29, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Should not be. But he is also promising to pay them with money that has not been authorized by congress yet… Which should also be illegal.

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Sequestration was an add on to the debt limit increase bill that the Republican Congress passed. It included a 2 trillion dollar increase in the debt limit, required there to be a commission formed to cut government spending by a certain amount, and if the commission failed, then there would be automatic cuts to the budget.

Effectively, the Republicans caved into the Democrats demands for $2 trillion dollars of unaccountable spending since there has been no budget for 3 years and counting, and then handed the Democrats the weapon by which they can hold the Republicans hostage.

What would you call such an action? A reverse Hostage crisis? You pay upfront to the people who you want to hold you hostage later and give them the weapon by which to do it?

Personally, I call that collaboration.

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 4:10 PM

This president continually manages to amaze me. He is not just offering to indemnify them for possible risks of not taking the appropriate action. He’s offering to indemnify them for breaking the laws that he as president swore an oath to enforce, just so their legal obligations won’t draw notice at a time that might hurt his bid to be re-elected.

He is urging them to break the laws for his own political benefit. How is this not worthy of impeachment?

tom on September 29, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Yep, this and any many others that he is guilty of should be impeachable offenses, yet we have a situation whereby half the country if not more supports this d-bag who put the US on the same path as Grrece (and I don’r think I am exaggerating, just fresh grom Europe and I am shocked at the similarities), my mind refuses to understand this enormity….no amount of mental gymnasyics and rationalization and/or exercise in massochism could make any normal individual justify their choice for such a disaster of a president…..a pathological liar, a narcissist, a promoter, abbetter and apologist for law breaking…our POTUS. Moochers, enjoy!!!

jimver on September 29, 2012 at 4:26 PM

There really isn’t anything legal about this at all.

Can we get someone to hold hearings so at least we can get this on the news? Oh wait….never mind.

goflyers on September 29, 2012 at 4:26 PM

jimver on September 29, 2012 at 4:26 PM

We’ve been on the path to Greece for decades now. Social Security is a near hundred trillion dollar unfunded liability by 2060. Medicare adds another near hundred trillion by that date. Our general spending right now, the current 16 trillion we owe, compounded at normal interest rates is worth about 132 trillion in debt by 2060. That precludes any additional debt we accumulate on other things such as wars, recessions, depressions, and additional welfare programs that the current welfare programs make certain to happen in the future as the population gets more and more depraved of good morals.

Obama is just speeding things up friend. But we were headed there any ways. Apparently, everyone just wants to push it off until they themselves are long dead. Let other people’s children suffer, just give me what I am OWED.

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Why would a business agree to not hand out pink slips now, knowing they’ll be handing them out shortly, to keep an administration in power that’s contrary to their self-interests?

bigmacdaddy on September 29, 2012 at 10:25 AM

In order to keep what remains of their government contract(s).

Barnestormer on September 29, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Where else would the government go for these contracts? China?

onlineanalyst on September 29, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Where else would the government go for these contracts? China?

onlineanalyst on September 29, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Europe and Brazil and maybe Japan.

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Where else would the government go for these contracts? China?

onlineanalyst on September 29, 2012 at 5:20 PM
Europe and Brazil and maybe Japan.

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 5:28 PM

So Obysmal wants to outsource jobs?

onlineanalyst on September 29, 2012 at 5:55 PM

So Obysmal wants to outsource jobs?

onlineanalyst on September 29, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Already did. Didn’t he contract an airplane to Brazil and tried to Contract the air tanker to EADs until that contract was cancelled and returned to Boeing?

I am not sure if Japan builds much military… But they are close enough an ally I figured the could be included in a list of potential builders.

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Sequestration was an add on to the debt limit increase bill that the Republican Congress passed. It included a 2 trillion dollar increase in the debt limit, required there to be a commission formed to cut government spending by a certain amount, and if the commission failed, then there would be automatic cuts to the budget.

Effectively, the Republicans caved into the Democrats demands for $2 trillion dollars of unaccountable spending since there has been no budget for 3 years and counting, and then handed the Democrats the weapon by which they can hold the Republicans hostage.

What would you call such an action? A reverse Hostage crisis? You pay upfront to the people who you want to hold you hostage later and give them the weapon by which to do it?

Personally, I call that collaboration.
astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 4:10 PM

That may be too harsh.

But seriously, I don’t see how you argue that sequestration is a good thing for Republicans. Unless, of course, you’re a Ron Paul type who believes that we can cut defense to the bone and no one will ever notice.

It seems to me that the Republicans hung their hopes on the sequestration cuts being SO bad for Defense that the Democrats would never let them happen, much like the Doc Fix that keeps getting done for Medicare every year.

They underestimated just how much pain the Democrats were willing to let the nation go through to keep power.

I don’t think it’s collaboration at all. I think the Republicans keep underestimating the ruthlessness of the Democrats, much like
people don’t suspect traitors because it never occurs to them that others might really be willing to sell out their country for a little profit.

But the result is the same. For whatever reason, the Republicans got rolled.

tom on September 29, 2012 at 6:11 PM

tom on September 29, 2012 at 6:11 PM

If it only happened a couple times in the past, I would agree with you that it is just an act of getting rolled. once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action,

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 6:22 PM

It should be noted that the WARN Act was a politically-motivated, Democrat-sponsored bill that was cooked up in 1988 as a spear to poke at President Reagan and try to drive the blue-collar Reagan Democrats away from George Bush. Mike Dukakis made it a centerpiece of his campaign. Then Reagan surprised everyone and signed the bill, taking the issue off the table for the campaign.

There isn’t a lot of wiggle room in the statute. Democrats wrote it that way on purpose. It’s pretty delicious to see them now hoist by their own petard.

rockmom on September 29, 2012 at 6:42 PM

tom on September 29, 2012 at 6:11 PM

If it only happened a couple times in the past, I would agree with you that it is just an act of getting rolled. once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action,

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Were debating whether Republicans are stupid or evil?

I feel almost like a …. Democrat!!

I think I’ll go take a shower now.

tom on September 29, 2012 at 7:24 PM

And how else is Obysmal trying to buy this election? Obamaphones.
They will herd the sheep to the proper polling place(s).
http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/free-obamaphone-facts-and-fiction-t9728.html

onlineanalyst on September 29, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Remember also this whole notification law is a Democratic idea which they forced through.

It’s just outrageous, and yes – corrupt.

Adjoran on September 29, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3