And they say it’s the unions who are thugs…
How, exactly, is this not extortion?
A way will be found. There are enough Democrats who are beholden to defense contractors to ensure that the defense budget is safe. They know that, but are hedging their bets.
I still say it’s the unions who are thugs.
Well, who’s supposed to be doing the extortion?
So, is it Congress that is doing the extortion? Who are the thugs? Again, Congress? 
-XT
Them too. And really, elucidator makes a good point.
I don’t think sequestration is going to happen, either, but the WARN Act requires that large businesses give at least two months’ notice to people who are facing layoffs. It’s Federal law, there really isn’t any option for these companies.
How, exactly is it extortion? Make your case-- don’t make an assertion and then expect others to refute it.
Has anyone indicated how these mandatory cuts would be implemented if they actually go into effect? Just because the defense budget gets cut, it doesn’t mean that all those cuts are immediately felt by the contractors. Sure, some projects will get outright cancelled, but some will only get scaled back. There could be other cuts that don’t directly impact contractors at all (downsize the active military, scale back on exercises, that sort of thing).
Unless there are concrete plans as to how these cuts would be spread throughout the Defense budget, then contractors can’t know if they will have to lay off workers at all, nor how many, nor when.
Perhaps “extortion” is a bit strong a word, but they are definitely engaging in scare tactics.
Downsizing the military will directly affect pretty much anybody that does business with the military. A smaller military buys fewer goods…from apples to zippers and everything in between. Companies that count on the military for a significant part of their sales will feel the pinch, and likely need to reduce staff.
Likewise, scaled back exercises will consume fewer resources…less fuel, ammo, food etc…all of which are purchased from contractors.
It would pretty much be a cut of 15% to every program except for military pay. Under current law, there is no flexibility to terminate one program to funnel the savings to maintain a full budget for another program, for example.
ETA: And when I say program, I mean everything, not just weapons. Contracts to mow the grass on bases, contracts for building a new barracks, funding for the families of military members to use hospitals not on military bases, the civilian workforce, etc. Everything except military pay.
How is it?
The law requires the notices. The budget cuts are currently in placew that would require the layoffs.
Who, specifically, are the extortionists in your mind, and what, specifically, would you have them do differently?
I get it, spending to boost the economy. Bully idea. 
I’m not advocating one way or the other. Just pointing out an error in the post I quoted. If military cuts are made, they will be felt in the civilian sector. There is no way to avoid it.
I hear you. That’s what us Dems/liberals were saying about cuts to government spending during a recession. Just a quick rib-nudge. Let’s not derail the thread.
What a filthy level of disingenuousness–defense industry and posters.
Defense contractors are the extortionists. They are threatening to send layoff notices in a manner such that current members of Congress are threatened with losing their office. It’s not hard to interpret this a threat to remove the defense cuts “or else”–“nice economy you have there in your district…would be a shame if something happened to it right before your election…”
Here’s an equivalent scenario to consider. The sequestration also requires deep cuts to Medicare. Suppose the lobbyists of the American Hospital Association told various Congress critters that their hospitals will be forced to start laying off doctors or denying care for certain Medicare patients starting Jan 2nd, and that they’ll send they layoff notices and/or the new care guidelines out four days before the local election.
IMO the sequestration is–and always has been–a joke; Congress will just ignore it or set up some escape hatch. I also think this is a fairly conventional position, one of those “everyone knows” policies that will be part of the lame duck negotiations–just like the Bush tax cut “expiration” in 2010. But this isn’t enough for the defense industry, so they’re threatening re-election efforts with an aim toward getting their congressional caucus to at least get the cuts off the table in advance of the expected negotiations–and perhaps angling for little bit more in the process.
BTW if I were only interested in the election outcome, I’d be all in favor of having the defense industry turn up the heat, because this is heat applied more specifically to Republicans than Democrats, i.e. if they carry out the threat, the GOP would receive the bulk of the damage. My problem is twofold: First, the republicans would likely cave under the pressure, leaving the Dems without much of a bargaining position in the lame duck session. Second, I just don’t like bullying, no matter who is the target.
Gee, that’s not what I’ve been told. Conservatives have been telling me the federal government can’t create jobs through federal spending (the Stimulus). Are you telling me they can destroy jobs by withholding spending, but not create them by increasing spending?
I dunno. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
I work for a defense contracting firm and as such could possibly be affected by this, and still I think it would be a rational and non-extortionate move on the part of the corporations. If I were a labor planner for a defense contractor, I would announce layoffs as well, because of the history of Congress. Last year they almost drove the U.S. government off a cliff, and if they don’t get their act together they might trigger the mandatory program reductions. So the only way for defense to rationally plan for this is to pre-announce layoffs, and not go through with them if the spending cuts are not made.
I fear that if the Democrats win this election or take only small losses, the Republicans will do their best to trigger these cuts in hopes of making the Democrats look bad. Whereas if the GOP wins, there is still a possibility they will be petulant enough to take one last jab at a lame duck president and Congress, but will probably be smart enough to not trigger the defense cuts since they have already secured their power for the next two years.
My wife is dead. Feel better?