I've read the letters sent to federal contractors myself. The Department of Labor and later, reiterated by the Department of Defense, advised federal contractors to ignore the WARN Act. Labor even pledged to cover any legal costs expenses incurred by companies who ignore the law - with taxpayers' money of course. For those unfamiliar with this law, it is intended to give employees 60 days notice from their companies if a major lay-off or plant closing is anticipated. With sequestration looming, one would think that this is exactly the situation that the law was intended to address - thousands of middle-class employees losing their jobs unexpectedly. But not according to the Labor Department. Paraphrasing from the DOL guidance letter, WARN Act notices are neither necessary or appropriate because it is uncertain whether sequestration will occur or if it does, what effects it will have on existing contracts. Then what is an appropriate circumstance? I guess one that doesn't involve giving "pink slips" just before a presidential election to thousands of folks in battleground states like Virginia .
Obama's lack of leadership and lack of respect for the "rule of law" have brought the country to this point. So much for President Obama caring for the middle-class! Pathetic!!!
I suggest that to cover all of our bases, and in an abundance of caution lest someone suffer unnecessary anxiety, we should issue WARN Act notices to all and sundry for: hurricanes, asteroid strikes, alien abductions, earthquakes and resultant tsunamis, snowstorms, transit strikes, blah blah blah... Honestly you USG contractor types sound like Europeans but with more whining. Wait!!! Breaking news on Bloomberg....."Chinese spokesman announces that they do not intent to EVER issue WARN Act notices".....
ReplyDeleteAgain with the hyperbole! I'm actually starting to think you might really believe some of the stuff you say. So I guess you think the chances that the sequestration will happen are pretty slim. So when is the WARN Act necessary then? Oh maybe in the case of Solyndra? Actually I don't think they complied with the law either. Shocking!
ReplyDeleteI declare today a hyperbole free zone on PC. To that end, a few hard cold facts to focus the minds of the "pull up the ladder" crowd on some inconvenient truths. I talked about this effect in a post a few weeks back. According to a recent study by the IMF of the US demographic, those aged 65 in 2010 will receive USD 333bn more in benefits than they contribute in taxes. This represents a staggering 17 times the benefits derived by someone aged 25 in 2010. The Economist calls this the largest wealth transfer in the history of the earth, surpassing even the systematic plundering of Soviet state-owned enterprises after the collapse of the former Soviet Union. The rising inequality is more generational than class based. As Harvard professor and economic historian Niall Ferguson has written, "Baby boomers need to look at economic history and demographics. They have accumulated a colossal system of entitlements, the burden of which will fall on future generations starting the moment they retire."
ReplyDeleteLet us pause for a moment to remember and mourn the passing of a true American hero, Sen. George S. McGovern.
ReplyDeleteAnd your evidence that Christ was a socialist is...? He said give to the poor not give to the government so it can help the poor. Don't misinterpret "Render unto Caesar..." as meaning paying taxes is a good thing. As a matter of fact, Jesus understood the benefit to the giver in giving voluntarily not as a result of government coersion.
ReplyDeleteBV: With regard to retiring Baby Boomers, the solution for the future is to begin allowing new employees to shift their contributions from Social Security to their own IRA. If you work the math, it is undeniable that a $166.67 a month contribution to an IRA from 22 to 65, even if you factor in a 25% crash in the stock market every 20 yrs (which has never happened every 20 yrs) would create a retirement account that is owned by the contributor and their heirs valued over $1.3M. The contributor could then withdraw a livable retirement amount each month until at least 90. But then the government wouldn't have control, so that wouldn't be good now would it?
ReplyDeleteYou totally miss the point. Once the money is gone, it's gone. Indeed it's already gone so let's stop digging a hole for our kids by giving boomers a gold-plated retirement. Radical reduction of entitlement spending, including Draconian reductions to Medicare, Social Security, and federally funded defined benefit pensions schemes must be implemented even if it means reneging on legacy commitments. Most of all, stop the mortgage interest tax deduction, it's nothing more than a transfer payment aka boomer welfare.
ReplyDeleteI agree that something must be done but it needs to be done in a reasonable fashion. Talk about throwing Granny over the cliff! I don't agree at all with how SS, Medicare and some of the federal pensions were set up to begin with. They were doomed to fail. But unless you just want to transfer this debt to cover an enormous increase in the welfare roles it has to be done in a responsible fashion. All this still doesn't address other spending where government doesn't even have an "obligation" to pay. We waste a butt ton of money on things the federal government has no business paying for. Historically we have seen what happens - even in the US - when the government fails to honor its pension obligations. Riots by Civil War veterans and WWI pensioners. Now multiply that 1000 fold. Maybe that is why the feds are stockpiling millions of rounds of hollow point, jacketed, high velocity ammunition.
ReplyDelete