“He was surprise to find out that DoD forbid their agency heads to prepare for a fiscal cliff because it has not officially occur. “
So forget the cliff. If defense spending were to be cut by, say, 20% next year in a budget approved by Congress and signed by the president - he’s saying that DOD would do NOTHING at all in anticipation of the lower budget, prior to October 1 - nothing, like lowering the rate of buying new hardware, in advance? Of course not...in fact they place orders YEARS IN ADVANCE. Were they placing orders based on funds that were NEVER BUDGETED?
My point is that the Cliff spending level is the law of the land, passed by Congress and signed by the President - and yet they were told it wasn’t real. Like I say, CRIMINAL CHARGES need to be filed here.
BobL wrote:
“If defense spending were to be cut by,say,20% next year in a budget approved by Congress and signed by the president - he’s saying that DOD would do NOTHING at all in anticipation of the lower budget,prior to October 1 - nothing,like lowering the rate of buying new hardware,in advance? Of course not...in fact they place orders YEARS IN ADVANCE. Were they placing orders based on funds that were NEVER BUDGETED?”
Questions to BobL and fee:
The company i work for has a contract for x Widgets to be sold to xx branch of the military, it goes to the end of 2013.
Does the DoD expect sudden cuts/cancellation of the project?
Multiply that by however many programs..... and its 1989-1992 all over again.... or will it be that bad?
DoD legal guidance was the cliff can be avoided by a political settlement, thus it would be wrong to panick the people until the political deal fails to occur. Under DoD legal guidance, managers cannot inform their workers until the last moment. Problem many DoD workers do not pay attention to politics. From the financial papers they read, MSM argue a deal will happen because the sequestor is too horrible to accept.
Problem with the legal guidance is during the 1994 shutdown, DoD made plans way ahead of the shutdown and managers prepped. So why was it legal to prepare in 1994 and illegal to prepare in 2012? Something is not right here.
I could see DoD workers suing the gov on those grounds. Private industry was suppose to inform workers 60 days prior to layoffs, but Dept of Labor inform them that it was not necessary (for political reasons) and offer to cover employer costs if they are sued by laid off workers. All major DoD companies went along fearing retribution if they followed the law. I think laid off workers of Defense contractors will sue and the case will work its way up to the Supreme Court. Issue will be can Exec branch of gov order private citizens or companies to ignore a law and force taxpayers to cover the legal liabilities if the gov is wrong??
I could see DoD workers suing the gov on those grounds. Private industry was suppose to inform workers 60 days prior to layoffs, but Dept of Labor inform them that it was not necessary (for political reasons) and offer to cover employer costs if they are sued by laid off workers. All major DoD companies went along fearing retribution if they followed the law. I think laid off workers of Defense contractors will sue and the case will work its way up to the Supreme Court. Issue will be can Exec branch of gov order private citizens or companies to ignore a law and force taxpayers to cover the legal liabilities if the gov is wrong??