Seeking Alpha

Dire predictions that defense firms will be legally required to send dismissal warnings to tens...

Dire predictions that defense firms will be legally required to send dismissal warnings to tens of thousands of employees if Congress doesn't stop the looming automatic cuts is just a lobbying tactic, says employment lawyer Margaret Keane. "Are we really talking about complying with the WARN Act, or are we talking about political pressure being applied?" Keane asks.
Comments (11)
  • Artaqq
    , contributor
    Comments (108) | Send Message
     
    Maybe if Washington would stop playing politics with our military every election cycle, we wouldn't have these problems. Always the military, police, fireman and education. The problem is, this clown may actually allow the cuts to happen.
    10 Jul 2012, 01:16 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1583) | Send Message
     
    Make sure to include the Republicans amongst the "clowns", as they agreed to the automatic cuts in exchange for automatic cuts that Democrats don't like. Was all part of the budget deal they all agreed to. So why should one side be able to squirm out, after the fact?

     

    Our defense budget is way too big, and we should be cutting it anyway.
    10 Jul 2012, 01:45 PM Reply Like
  • Artaqq
    , contributor
    Comments (108) | Send Message
     
    I will not include the Republicans in the 'clowns'. Republicans, for all of their faults, understand the importance of our National security and need for a strong military. China is outspending and outgrowing our military at a frightening rate. Anyone who doesn't pay attention that is a fool. Democrats have a will sell this Country down the river in the interest of apeasement. No respect given where not earned.
    31 Jul 2012, 11:43 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1583) | Send Message
     
    China isn't outspending our military. But why let those pesky facts stand in a way of a good rant.
    31 Jul 2012, 01:45 PM Reply Like
  • Artaqq
    , contributor
    Comments (108) | Send Message
     
    I stand corrected. You are correct, they are not outspending us. They don't get mired down in actually paying 'pesky' salaries to their 'workers'.
    31 Jul 2012, 05:05 PM Reply Like
  • youngman442002
    , contributor
    Comments (5131) | Send Message
     
    Well MS Lawyer....you cut their business by 30%....they have to cut their expenses by at least that amount...its simple economics..but this administration knows nothing about that and neither do lawyers....
    10 Jul 2012, 01:32 PM Reply Like
  • pmiller100
    , contributor
    Comments (359) | Send Message
     
    Despite whatever opinions one might have of the defense industry, these are businesses and us here on this website understand how businesses work, right? When this kind of potential revenue drop is staring you in the face, it makes business planning fairly difficult.

     

    As a taxpaying citizen, I can agree the defense budget needs to be cut. If I owned one of these contractors, I'd like a little more definitive idea of how much cutting, and in what areas. Unfortunately, that seems to be the kind of forward thinking our current elected "leaders" are not capable of doing, at least not to the point of reaching consensus. And the reason is, from what I can tell, partisan games. Both parties are at fault, as are us voters who elected children to perform the duties of adults.
    10 Jul 2012, 02:35 PM Reply Like
  • metallica
    , contributor
    Comments (11) | Send Message
     
    The doves in Congress love underfunding the military which they despise. Republicans are disgusted with the prospect of sequestration and are trying anything, even with bargaining on cuts to get this process moving toward some resolution. Obama out to make things as chaotic as possible since he feels that is politically advantageous. Hopefully this will all be dealt with responsibly when Romney is sworn in and Republicans have control of the Senate and House.
    10 Jul 2012, 02:43 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1583) | Send Message
     
    Both sides have had more than ample time to prevent the sequestration, let alone never needing to work the sequestration deal in the first place. And both have squandered the time because they perceived political advantage in doing so.
    10 Jul 2012, 06:25 PM Reply Like
  • Tom Files
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    I have been retired from Lockheed martin for 16 years. After working for 36 years at this company I can say that without what goes on behind closed doors we would be unprotected from all the evil that awaits.Those folks that control the budget have no idea what is saving their butts.!
    10 Jul 2012, 03:45 PM Reply Like
  • pmiller100
    , contributor
    Comments (359) | Send Message
     
    As a retired Marine officer, I'd have to conclude there's a fair amount of BS in that pitch, lol. What is that - the "if you only knew what I know, you'd be scared enough so as to give me as much money as I want" rationale?

     

    The defense budget is going to get smaller. Just the way it is. We can't quickly cut entitlement payouts, and defense is about half our total discretionary spending.

     

    Throw in the fact that we spend somewhere between a third and a half of all the money globally spent on defense, not to mention that most of next top-10 spenders are formal allies (and one who isn't is Switzerland), and you see a compelling case for looking there first.

     

    Now, if the "evil that awaits" is able to threaten us so dramatically while basically operating on a budget of peanuts, will spending hundreds of billions on our defense budget really counter what they're doing?
    11 Jul 2012, 11:44 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector