The Office of Management and Budget is now promising to compensate defense contractors for any legal penalties that would stem from violating the WARN Act, a federal law that requires employers to warn employees at least 60 days in advance of mass layoffs. The Obama administration had already been urging contractors to ignore the WARN Act in the case of the looming sequestration cuts, since the 60-day-minimum would mean hundreds of thousands of employees could get notices of pending layoffs just days before the presidential election.
But it’s one thing for the Obama administration to tell contractors that they shouldn’t worry about the law. It’s quite another to promise that the cost of any resulting lawsuits will be covered by the government (read: the taxpayers):
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.
The guidance said that if plant closings or mass layoffs occur under sequestration, then “employee compensation costs for [Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification] WARN act liability as determined by a court” would be paid for covered by the contracting federal agency.
There’s also a catch: employers have to agree to play by the “Department of Labor’s guidance” if they want any potential legal costs covered. The DOL’s guidance asks them not to send out layoff notices before the election.
That seems to have satisfied defense contractors. Today, Lockheed Martin announced it would not issue layoff notices in advance of the sequestration cuts. Where is the campaign media on this? The Obama administration just told defense contractors that taxpayers would pay for any legal penalties for not complying with a law that would have complicated Obama’s reelection campaign. Does that not warrant some scrutiny, or do we need a billionth article on Romney’s “47 percent gaffe” instead?
Unbelievable! What's next, Obama to Offer $100 cash to every voter (ie… illegal,felon,dead) to vote twice(maybe thrice) for this criminal regime.
Blatant corruption. By both the Obama administration and the media that covers for him.
So Obama is now directly using tax dollars towards his re-election. I know incumbents usually play fast and loose with the rules in election years, (like awarding contracts to key states and districts) but this seems beyond the pale. The only person benefitting from spending this hard earned tax payer money is Obama.
This can't be legal, can it? The government promising to pay people to break its own laws?
Gee, BHO, just pick my pocket once again for your campaign! I am sick of all the whimps who give in to this arrogant narcissitic king-baby. Everywhere I look whether MSM, Bureau of Labor Statistics, OMB, etc, all are towing the line for BHO. And now Lockheed Martin. Even the Pentagon is getting in the act with the drastic problems they are having getting military their right to vote thru absentee baalot. Shameful and disastrous what our country is being driven to.
Until Romney starts using words like "corrupt" and "deceit" and "liar" this story will never go anywhere, even though it should be enough for impeachment.
It IS grounds for impeachment – look up what Nixon was going to be impeached for had he not resigned.
Four letters that immediately come to mind: RICO. n nActually, the statute that more comes to mind is the False Claim Act — 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 — this is a statute that enables *anyone* to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the government and get somewhere between 15% and 25% of the amount falsely paid by the government. And collecting money from the government for something that they know to be illegal and that they will be fined for — a breach of a fiduciary duty to the government — arguably is a false claim. n nI also am not so sure that one can be indemnified for criminal acts that one agrees to commit. They are actually conspiring to break the law, conspiring with members of the Obama administration to break the law, and I am not sure that a court that finds these companies responsible for violating the WARN Act will permit them to accept governmental funding for this. n nAnd the other question I would ask is what is the government's financial exposure for this and exactly where is THAT money going to come from? Is that money being accounted for in the budget cuts — why do I suspect that it isn't?
People might be upset about this if they find out — like they should have been upset about Obama misusing funds to keep the Advantage program going until after the election. I still find it amazing that the media has completely forgotten what their job description is and so overwhelmingly covers up the news. n nThe coverup is in all events. I made the mistake of being amused in passing to a Democrat friend at the threat in high schools of walk-outs, boycoitts, and demonstrations against the new government meal guidelines — and she exploded on me about my being a liar and where do I get that garbage and, she said, they are hanging pictures of Michelle Obama up in school cafeterias because the kids love the new food so much. How is it possible to fight this?
Are any of these companies located in states that have their own version of the WARN Act? If so, the federal "exemption" won't trump those requirements.
I suspect that Obama's Mob would argue some combination of Federal Supremacy and National Defense being an enumerated Federal authority under Article I of the Constitution. It would be the same thing as Arizona enforcing immigration laws. n nI still say that the Federal False Claims Act is the route to go, someone like the Citizens United folk to bring the private lawsuit and while it likely would go to SCOTUS, such a suit would also be rather lucrative should they win it. n nThe other interesting twist on this is if Congress precludes any expenditure of funds for this — which would then mean that the private entities (defense contractors) would have breached contracts from the DOD and that could become even more interesting…
The WARN Act was passed over President Reagan's veto. This is a Democrat supported law being vitiated by a Democrat president.
Lets see, we have people in this administration that violate the Hatch Act, we send guns to Mexico that are used to murder one of our Border Patrol Agents, we have a president that spends his time on the talk shows and golf course and we have a nation that is in the crapper.
And two more border agents shot today – one dead, one wounded.
What next? Commit voter fraud and if you're caught, the White House will pay your fine?
Oh I suspect Obama will do one better — a wholesale pardon. What's the difference?
If Obama wins, this would be a PERFECT reason to impeach him. If Obama loses, it will a moot point.