Republicans rip White House for putting tax dollars on line over possible defense layoffs

From 20CFR639.5(a)(3):

Notice may be given conditional upon the occurrence or nonoccurrence of an event, such as the renewal of a major contract, only when the event is definite and the consequences of its occurrence or nonoccurrence will necessarily, in the normal course of business, lead to a covered plant closing or mass layoff less than 60 days after the event. For example, if the non-renewal of a major contract will lead to the closing of the plant that produces the articles supplied under the contract 30 days after the contract expires, the employer may give notice at least 60 days in advance of the projected closing date which states that if the contract is not renewed, the plant closing will occur on the projected date. The notice must contain each of the elements set out in this section.

So you're claiming this applies to people working on contracts which expire on Jan 2nd and will be renewed if the sequester is not remedied?

Or you're claiming these people get mass layoff notices every year 60 days before Jan 2nd just in case their contract is not renewed?

First off, regarding your desire to talk about this in a nonpartisan fashion. Absolutely.. I'm discussing law, not politics. This is an obvious application of settled case law, which is the precise reason the government is willing to indemnify Lockheed.

The government indemnifies contractors for all sorts of things all the time, from the lowly city contractor working on poo factories to Lockheed making billion dollar flying death robots. An FSU document nicely sums it up:

So a set of conditions are laid out and if they are met, indemnification is permitted if it can be reasonably expected that the letter and the spirit of the law are followed (more or less). This part is in no way extraordinary. Your town has indemnified someone today. Probably more than one someone.

As explained in the memorandum, Lockheed might want to protect itself and just issue a WARN on every employee in the company. This has the unfortunate side effect of triggering a ton of government assistance in trying to get these people new jobs, retrained, etc. It's going to cost a ton of money to fix a problem that doesn't exist... yet. The WARN act calls for specifics to be known (exactly who, exactly where, etc.) so it doesn't turn into a big waste of time and money.

Unfortunately, Lockheed has a very strong business incentive to make this as big and splashy as possible. At the same time, they have the right to point out that huge defense cuts will cost a bunch of jobs. And then there is the obvious issue of every butthead with a keyboard complainin on them thar tubes bout that socialist weasel doin it for political gain if Obama says don't do it. The Labor dept. memo does a very good job of sticking to the law, as they absolutely should. They should be commended for asking what the spirit of the law is, what the letter of the law is, and then following it. The memorandum explains all and even if you disagree with it, the conclusion makes sense to a reasonable person and that's the standard a judge will judge by.

But thinking is hard so a couple idiot congressman attack the low hanging fruit and Fox News reports it as truth without even a cursory nod at context (because freedom) and then the lowest common denominator posts it here because liberals are idiots.

Fin.

If congress would pass budgets on time and implement them more than 60 days in advance there would be no such issue. Unfortunately we have elected a group of slack jawed representatives and senators that are incapable of doing their duty.

Doesn't Congress still need to come up with a compromise even if Romney wins? If so, how can you say the cuts won't happen if Romney wins? His win would not guarantee or even increase the odds that much of these jobs being saved.

So are you saying I should vote for Romney because he's a liar, or because he will be ineffective at getting things done?