Lockheed To Furlough 3,000 On Monday, Layoffs Also Kicking In

Dawn Kawamoto writes "Lockheed employees are the latest casualty in the government shutdown, with the defense contractor announcing Friday it plans to furlough 3,000 workers on Monday. But what they didn't mention is they are laying off workers too, says a Lockheed source on the hush-hush. Lockheed, of course, isn't the only defense contractor taking it on the chin. Other contractors include United Technologies, which has furloughed 2,000, and BAE Systems which cut 1,000."

Comments

Who shut down the government?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even when it comes to something as basic, and apparently as simple and straightforward, as the question of who shut down the federal government, there are diametrically opposite answers, depending on whether you talk to Democrats or to Republicans.

There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going -- except for ObamaCare.

This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.

As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.

Whether ObamaCare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.

ObamaCare is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality.

But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.

The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies -- unless they are in an agency that would administer ObamaCare.

Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who -- if anybody -- "wants to shut down the government." But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.

The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?

If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility.

You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.

When Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply a bald-faced lie. You can check the history of other examples of "legislation by appropriation" as it used to be called.

Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact.

Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt.

Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.

None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans get their side of the story out -- and articulation has never been their strong suit -- the lies will win. More important, the whole country will lose.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2013/10/04/who-shut-down-the-government-n1716292

(I got layed off today. There my Hope and Change right up my ass.)

Re:Who shut down the government?

[AuMatar]

No, the supreme court found the Individual Mandate constitutional. They also found the Medicaid expansion constitutional, what they found unconstitutional was the part that penalized states who didn't implement it. That was the part stripped. Which is why some states chose not to implement it, even though the federal government was paying for it.

Funny thing about the supreme court- they may have no authority to cancel part of a law, but they also have no authority to say a law is constitutional or not. They took that authority onto themselves, as part of Marbury v Madison. If they hadn't done so, there would be no power capable of determining that and Congress would be able to pass and the president enforce any law, Constitutional or not (for a great example, see the Alien and Sedition acts of the early 1800s). The right to cancel part of a law is pretty much necessary to do that job- if a bill has a tiny portion that's illegal, it's much closer to what Congress wanted to cancel part of it than all of it. If Congress then wants to tweak or get rid of the law in response they have that power. Two flaws in the Constitution that we've patched without official amendment.

Re:Who shut down the government?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody with a brain thinks state healthcare is "free", but most civilised people in every civilised country excepting The USA recognise that state healthcare is both more efficient, cheaper, and fairer than private insurance. Many people, myself included, also recognise that private health insurance, while more expensive, less efficient and less fair, offers better coverage, and so elect to have private insurance in addition to our state provided universal health care.

It's a very American way to look at fairness, a way that no other country shares, to view it as fair that if you are born with an illness or disease, or are unfortunate enough to be out of work or between jobs at the onset of a disease that you should just die.

A system that provides healthcare in a non-discriminatory manner can only be provided by government. How else would you do it? force health insurance companies to insure patients and cover pre-existing illness? No one would sign up for insurance until they had a serious illness. That spells disaster for an insurance company who operates on the principle that the well subsidise the sick. The only options then are discriminatory health cover, where the uninsured sick are left without option, as practiced in the US, and universal cover, as practiced in every other civilised country in the world.

And it's beginning to look like you guys aren't really that civilised.

Re:Defense

[Anonymous Coward]

The Democrat controlled Senate rejected ALL OF IT.

Yes that is how it works. They can accept it or reject it. There is no cherry picking. Bringing healthcare reductions into a vital bill after votes on repealing obamacare has failed over forty times is nothing more than a hostage tactic.

You cannot be fired over a government shutdown. You can be furloughed or laid off, but not fired.

That combined with your clear lack of understanding of civics, I am not surprised you do not have a job, but rest assured your children can still get healtchare.

Re:Defense

[Sri Ramkrishna]

Right now, it's one party that's has lost it's marbles. They could end this at any time. The reason is that Boehner won't allow a clean vote based on partisan reasons. That's the whole issue here. Partisan reasons. It's ridiculous, especially coming from the party that talks endlessly about being the party that doesn't like the spend. They are the opposite. I've voted Republicans before, but I'm not voting Republican tell they've kicked Tea Party and ideological and religious meglomaniacs out of their party. It mgiht be nice to have run off elections at the local layer. But we still need a press that can lay out the issues without making everything into some kind of partisan war. It gets people all hot and lathered trying to defend their team.

Re:An amazing chance for good.

[SydShamino]

I live in the middle of Austin, yet I'm represented by someone who lives in suburban Houston. My only option is to vote for or against the guy who is guaranteed to win thanks to gerrymandering.

How exactly can I fire him?

Re:The government wants you to hurt.

[HJED]

It looks like those sites in that list are now all running on the same server (given they are serving an identical page, and nslookup returns the same IP address for all of them). Most likely they have one server running to keep that page displayed whilst turning off the rest of the servers that would be needed for normal operation (considerably more than one).
Also they are probably worried about the sites getting hacked or breaking whilst they're not paying anyone to fix them...

Re:Damn

[JDAustin]

Yea, actually it does. We buried ourselves in debt so the free world wouldnt have to be subjugated so we should get something in return.

Re:The government wants you to hurt.

[SplashMyBandit]

Lockheed Martin is a welfare queen sucking heartily on the tax payer titty for decades...boo fucking hoo.

Yes, but if Lockheed Martin is working on less defence stuff surely US taxers and Government spending should go down, right? Government spending won't go down - it's just misdirected elsewhere (wasteful and counter-productive entitlement programes). The problem is not simply the defence contractors - it is Government spending that citizens cannot constrain (in any country, but especially under the current authoritarian US Administration). The Republicans in the US are trying to take a stand (although clearly when in power they are part of the same spending problem).

The solution is for US citizens to demand Government be limited to enumerated Constitutional functions and ensure that the Congress makes the laws and approves spending and the executive implements the laws. That's what this p!ssing match is really about in Washington - Executive overreach of powers by the White House and its allies in the Senate and demands for unconstrained spending. Because the White House and Senate is not getting their way they refuse to accept any of the four spending bills that House of Representatives has put before the Senate. Hence, the Government shutdown is being caused by the Senate, not the House! defense contractors have nothing to do with this, but look to shed workers to avoid massive ObamaCare costs. ObamaCare is turning into the total clusterfsck is was always destined to be, and is badly hurting the people it was (allegedly) designed to help (US citizens).

There is never a problem that Government cannot make worse. ObamaCare is a prime example of this.