The Gathering Storm

Over at DoD Buzz is a piece on the upcoming Sequestration.  Unless someone does something about it, it will happen in January.  And it won't all be focused on the evil Military-Industrial Complex (MIC).

The thing about January is that it is after the November elections and well before the elections in 2014, and especially 2016.  For the voters the half-life of a political act is 90 days.  By November 2016 the Sequestration, unless it crashes the economy, will be a distant memory.

There is a Federal Law that says employers (more than 100 employees) must provide 60 days of warning before massive layoffs.  One thing Sequestration promises is big layoffs.  But, the US Department of Labor (Employment and Training Administration) says that such notification is not required because Sequestration is not a sure thing.

...relevant case law indicates that under the current circumstances Federal contractors, including defense contractors, are not obligated to provide WARN Act notifications 60 days before the date of the BCA sequestration order. See Halkias v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 137 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 1998). In Halkias, the court upheld summary judgment for the employer finding that when (1) the employer was aware of three possible outcomes - restructuring of the contract, cancellation of the contract, or default and (2) the Department of Defense continued to express support for the A-12 Avenger II fighter-bomber program, the WARN Act’s unforeseen business exception applied “probably until the last minute” before the contract was canceled. Halkias, 137 F.3d at 337. The Eighth Circuit came to the same conclusion in evaluating the totality of the circumstances around the cancellation of another employer’s A-12 contract. Loehrer v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 98 F.3d 1056, 1062 (8th Cir. 1996). As long as the likelihood and timing of contract cancellation remains speculative, an employer is not obligated to provide WARN notifications. See Halkias, 137 F.3d at 337.

So, per the circular, the President has thrown the problem into the lap of the House Republicans and thus DoL sees the possibility that this problem will be solved before 2 January.  Now there is a definition of optomism.

Back to the piece in DoD Buzz.  The author thinks that President Obama has found a campaign issue in running against Governor Romney on national security, arguing that the Governor is for increased military spending, while the President is for "balanced spending".

Me?  I'm for a set of strategy/spending options and the selection of the one that works best for us.

Hat tip to Neal.

Regards  —  Cliff