• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Shock and awe, Bush Administration practicing fiscal restraint closing military bases

Status
Not open for further replies.

goodcow

Member
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050513/D8A2CTHG0.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon proposed Friday shutting about 180 military installations from Maine to Hawaii including 33 major bases, triggering the first round of base closures in a decade and an intense struggle by communities to save their facilities.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld also recommended a list of scores of other domestic installations - including 29 major bases - that will remain open but with thousands fewer troops. Dozens of others will gain troops from other domestic or foreign bases.

Overall, he has said his plan would save $48.8 billion over 20 years while making the military more mobile and better suited for the global effort against terrorism.

Rumsfeld's proposal calls for a massive shift of U.S. forces that would result in a net loss of 29,005 military and civilian jobs at domestic installations. He proposes pulling a total of 218,570 military and civilian positions out of some U.S. bases while adding 189,565 positions to others, according to documents obtained by The AP.

The closures and downsizings would occur over six years starting in 2006.

"Our current arrangements, designed for the Cold War, must give way to the new demands of the war against extremism and other evolving 21st Century challenges," Rumsfeld said in a written statement.

Even before the Pentagon announced the proposed changes, some lawmakers were vowing to spend the next few months working to stop the closures altogether or at least to protect their states' bases, while others whose bases gained jobs praised the Pentagon proposal.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., condemned the proposal to close Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod, calling it "a mistake."

"Otis is the number one base for homeland defense on the entire East Coast. ... It simply makes no sense to close Otis in the post 9/11 world."

"I'm absolutely pleased," Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri said after learning his state would keep all of its military bases. "That is the solid good news for the state of Missouri," said Skelton, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.

Among the major closures were Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico, which would lose more than 2,700 jobs, the Naval Station in Ingleside, Texas, costing more than 2,100 jobs, and Fort McPherson in Georgia, costing nearly 4,200 jobs.

Other major bases - including the Army's Fort Bliss in Texas, the Naval Shipyard in Norfolk, Va., and Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland - would see gains, as they absorb troops whose current home bases are slated for closure.

Before closures or downsizings can take effect, the Defense Department's proposal must be approved or changed by a federal base closing commission by Sept. 8, and then agreed to by Congress and President Bush, in a process that will run into the fall.

In four previous rounds of closures starting in 1988, commissions have accepted 85 percent of bases the Pentagon recommended for closure or consolidation. However, the current commission's chairman, Anthony Principi, has promised not to rubber stamp Rumsfeld's list.

One major closure Rumsfeld seeks is Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota, home to 29 B-1B bombers, half the nation's fleet of the aircraft, and the state's second largest employer.

Freshman Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., called the Pentagon "flat wrong" about Ellsworth, and he vowed to help lead an effort to delay the entire round of closures. "We will continue to fight to keep Ellsworth open," he said.

Rumsfeld also recommended closing the Naval Station in Pascagoula, Miss., which barely survived previous base closure rounds. The decision was a blow to Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., who had fought the 1995 round of closures. At stake are 844 military jobs and 112 civilian jobs.

New England took a major hit, and Connecticut suffered the biggest loss in terms of jobs with the proposed closure of the U.S. Naval Submarine Base in Groton, Conn. Shuttering the installation would result in the loss of 7,096 military jobs and 952 civilian jobs.

Calling the recommendation "irrational and irresponsible," Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said, "It insults our history and endangers our future."

The base - which began construction in 1872 as the Navy's first submarine base - is homeport to 18 attack submarines and also home of the Naval Submarine School, three submarine squadrons staffs and other support facilities.

Another facility that barely made it through the previous rounds but showed up on the latest hit list was Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine, whose shutdown would affect 201 military jobs and 4,032 civilian jobs.

President Bush's home state wasn't immune from the chopping block. Texas is slated to lose 15 facilities. In addition to Naval Station Ingleside, the Red River Army Depot and several Reserve and Guard installations are on the hit list.

New Jersey's Fort Monmouth is also slated for closure, triggering an angered Democratic Rep. Rush Holt to vow to "Fight like hell to change it. I'm not about to let the Pentagon's error put the fort and the soldiers it serves in harm's way."

The Pentagon also proposed eliminating scores of Reserve and National Guard bases, part of Rumsfeld's effort to promote "jointness" between the active-duty and reserve units.

Pennsylvania would lose 13 facilities, including the Naval Air Station at Willow Grove, while Alabama and California - the state hit hardest in the previous four rounds of closures - are to see 11 installations apiece shuttered, mostly affecting Reserve and Guard units and Defense Department accounting offices. New York is to lose nine.

Base closings represent a high-stakes political fight, because they affect jobs in congressional districts.

When a U.S. military installation shuts down, its officers and their families are uprooted and relocated to facilities elsewhere, leaving holes in customer bases of local businesses.

"Affected communities will be offered support and assistance through the Office of Economic Adjustment following the completion of the process," Michael Wynne, the Pentagon's technology chief said at a briefing on the recommendations.

Nevertheless, targeted communities, with their well-being on the line, are expected to harness the efforts of lawmakers, local civic officials and hired lobbyists, as well as base commanders themselves, to try to convince the commission to keep their facilities up and running.

For years, the military has operated more bases than it needs for the 1.4 million troops on active duty. Congress has refused to authorize a new round of base closings since 1995 but reluctantly signed off on the idea last year after President Bush threatened to veto an entire spending bill.

Lawmakers say it is unwise to close bases while U.S. troops are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the Pentagon argues that the timing is perfect to enlist cost-cutting measures given pressures from the ballooning federal deficit and to reshuffle the stateside network of bases while it reshapes the entire military.

Closures in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995 eliminated or realigned 451 installations, including 97 major ones, resulted in a net savings to the government of about $18 billion through 2001. The Pentagon projects recurring annual savings of $7.3 billion from those four rounds combined.
 

Alcibiades

Member
except: "For years, the military has operated more bases than it needs for the 1.4 million troops on active duty."
 

Dilbert

Member
"Fiscal restraint?"

According to the article, closing bases will save the government $48.8B over twenty years. But where are the statistics about the impact on the local and state economies which will be affected when those bases close? One of the targeted bases is the second-largest employer in South Dakota. Yeah, real great thinking there.

If you want to save shitloads of money in the defense budget, STOP FUCKING FIGHTING IN IRAQ. We've spent $200B+ in just over two years for a bullshit cause...and people are actually impressed that we might get savings of just over two billion a year for the next twenty years? The war in Iraq is TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE LARGER.

And, oh yeah, kill off NMD while you're at it. You might as well set money on fire in a big field to create a smokescreen to blind the missiles.
 

Culex

Banned
I really hope they don't close the Groton Sub Base. It's the first submarine base ever built, and a staple for the shore area in Groton/New London/Niantic.
 

Macam

Banned
I don't know if this necessarily falls under "practicing fiscal restraint"; this is more Rumsfeld's deal to restructure the military into his idea of a leaner, more modern force (Related article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/11/politics/11rumsfeld.html). Despite the fact that I think Rumsfeld is generally scum, I'm not entirely sure whether his plans to restructure the military is a good one or not; I certainly that some restructuring is necessary and a worthwhile undertaking, but I'm just not informed enough on military proceedings to have any real idea on whether his plans are ultimately a good thing or not. The senators' reactions are expected however, particularly considering we're talking about a loss of jobs, federal financing, and so on. Kerry in particular magically grew a pair of nuts this last year and has consistently opposed just about anything coming from the administration so that's of little surprise.

Rumsfeld's point about the current structure being based on the Cold War would carry more weight with me if Bush and co. weren't attempting to recreate that same international paranoia by botching every chance at international stability thrown his way. Less biking in Maryland, more reading Foreign Affairs, Mr. President.
 

Lambtron

Unconfirmed Member
-jinx- said:
"Fiscal restraint?"

According to the article, closing bases will save the government $48.8B over twenty years. But where are the statistics about the impact on the local and state economies which will be affected when those bases close? One of the targeted bases is the second-largest employer in South Dakota. Yeah, real great thinking there.
Being a reasident of North Dakota, I've heard lots on talk radio about the proposed base closings and the effects it would have on the communities invovled. The tiny air base here in Fargo is integral to the airport, for example. The Air Force operates the ambulance and fire crews on the airfield-- if they didn't have those, we couldn't have an airport.

I understand that you have to cut some fat, and I'm sure there are areas where there are a couple of bases that could be consolidated, but I don't think that closing 90-some bases is the answer. To be totally honest, I'm shocked that none in ND got the axe. Conrad is up for re-election in aught-six, and he's on the Republicans' shitlist.
 
Seems like the bases at my hometown are not on the list...I think there's been a lot of lobbying to help keep them off it, looks like it worked (same thing happened when the Clinton Admin was doing base closures as well)...a good percentage of civilians in the area are employed by the local bases (from what I hear my hometown bases' employment is like 60% civilian, 40% actual military).

A good deal of my childhood was spent at these bases since my father was permanently stationed there (he eventually did civilian work there too when he retired from service), so these bases have a personal sentimental value to me.
 
Close bases with pesky personell requirements so they can better fund cold-war era weapons systems (howitzers and air superiority fighters) and feed their ever-growing overhead instead
of actually putting more troops on the ground and more real, helpful tools for those troops.

There's no fiscal restraint here. This is just another chapter in the Pentagon's long march to replace spending money supporting soldiers with spending money to support defense contractors and unecessary, unproven technology.
 
48 billion over 20 years. A little over 2 billion a year? So they're closing all these bases to save an amount that equals the cost of ONE fighter jet a year? :lol
 

Phoenix

Member
Tommie Hu$tle said:
I don't know what the fuck you pussies are whining about. Wal Mart is always hiring, Jesus H. Fucking Christ.

You have to wonder about a company that is *ALWAYS* hiring :D

Additionally MANY people across the board are saying that much of these closings will also serve a political purpose as well, weakening certain Democratic candidates moreso and making it harder for them to get reelection. While this is possible and I certainly wouldn't put it past them, hopefully that's not really going on.

Sal Paradise Jr said:
48 billion over 20 years. A little over 2 billion a year? So they're closing all these bases to save an amount that equals the cost of ONE fighter jet a year? :lol

Well there is a problem with that because we don't have any fighters that cost a billion dollars, but yeah, you think they could perhaps just not make as much stuff that they don't need if they wanted to save that little an amount of money because what they are saving (while good in its own right) is a mere pittance compared to what is spent per year.
 

whytemyke

Honorary Canadian.
-jinx- said:
"Fiscal restraint?"

According to the article, closing bases will save the government $48.8B over twenty years. But where are the statistics about the impact on the local and state economies which will be affected when those bases close? One of the targeted bases is the second-largest employer in South Dakota. Yeah, real great thinking there.

If you want to save shitloads of money in the defense budget, STOP FUCKING FIGHTING IN IRAQ. We've spent $200B+ in just over two years for a bullshit cause...and people are actually impressed that we might get savings of just over two billion a year for the next twenty years? The war in Iraq is TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE LARGER.

And, oh yeah, kill off NMD while you're at it. You might as well set money on fire in a big field to create a smokescreen to blind the missiles.

Well... you hit the nail on the head. They spend twice as much in one year on this war in Iraq (maybe a lil less) then this would get for the next twenty years. I'm not saying we shouldn't close bases, cuz there are a LOT of needless bases. But you've gotta have something stronger than this.

And I'm a big fan of NMD, but you've gotta realize when this shit needs to be trashed and repaired. You're totally right... it's just a waste of money. Start over at the drawing board. It'll save money in the end.
 

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
The air force base in my hometown was spared, thank goodness. The town really depends on it. I can't believe they're closing the naval air station in Pascagoula, that's Trent Lott's hometown.
 
Phoenix said:
You have to wonder about a company that is *ALWAYS* hiring :D

KBR is always hiring as well so 6 in one hand half a dozen in another.


Phoenix said:
Additionally MANY people across the board are saying that much of these closings will also serve a political purpose as well, weakening certain Democratic candidates moreso and making it harder for them to get reelection. While this is possible and I certainly wouldn't put it past them, hopefully that's not really going on.


It's always what is going on. But you know what in reality the probably do need to reduce the foot print of bases since we have less manpower requirements. It doesn't hurt that more and more troops will be delployed overseas anyways.
 
South Dakota residents must feel like cheap whores right now the way they were used in the Senate race of Thune v. Daschle in 2004.

Thune: "Elect me, I'm a Republican, and with more Republican on the commission instead of people like Daschle, we'll keep Ellsworth open!"

Flash foward to today...

Hopefully, this is a wake up call for red-state voters to look BEYOND the catchy headlines and soundbites.
 
Wonderful, they're closing the hospital I've been receiving treatment at for the last eight years and transferring everything to a hospital nearly 45 minutes away.
 
D

Deleted member 4784

Unconfirmed Member
This list is not yet final and they have already removed a number of bases from the listing.

Personally, I think that people are overlooking the fact that this has been government policy since the end of WWII. Most bases these days are a remnant from that era, which had far greater military needs than (we can only hope) will ever be necessary in our lifetimes. These bases were major employers at that time as well, but life still went on without them.

The problem with these towns that revolve around a military base or government facility is that job opportunities are actually MORE limited due to the military base being the only thing out there (and only real source of employment). These people will probably have better chances of employment elsewhere. If there is no longer a need for this facility, why should we (as tax payers) be required to shoulder the burden of continuing to employ it? That money would be better spent towards future facilities that are not only more updated, but will likely generate even more jobs.

We see the same thing every day whenever our state closes down an old penitentiary or power plant with plans to build a newer or larger facility elsewhere. Although it is regrettable that people will inevitably lose their jobs, this is a natural process and we only have further growth and more up-to-date facilities to look forward to as a result. Don't be so pessimistic.
 

Macam

Banned
Phoenix said:
Additionally MANY people across the board are saying that much of these closings will also serve a political purpose as well, weakening certain Democratic candidates moreso and making it harder for them to get reelection. While this is possible and I certainly wouldn't put it past them, hopefully that's not really going on.

Courtesy of Kos (http://www.dailykos.com):

This diary tallies the Red State versus Blue State numbers, and shows that Blue States are the big losers in terms of jobs.

And from the comments, by Senators up for reelection in 2006:

CT: Liberman (D) -6496
ME: Snowe (R) -6938 (many actually in NH)
MO: Talent (R) -3679
MS: Lott (R) -1678
ND Conrad (D) -2645
NM Bingaman (D) -2849
PA Santorum (R) -1878
VA Allen (R) -1574
 
Poor Liberman. Normally I'd blame the Republicans, but I think his fellow Democrats saddled him with those huge job losses because more often than not, whenever the President needs some help from the other side of the aisle, Joe is there to lend his help and his mouth for kissy photo-ops.

:lol :lol
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
I heard about this on NPR just a little while ago, and they had two Republican representatives who were livid about it. One was saying how it was stupid to close a base that did its role more efficiently than any other installation, and another was saying how it was stupid(ok, risky) to put all B-something long range bombers in one base.
 

Triumph

Banned
We don't need bases over here if all our soldiers are overseas killin' brown skinned folks LOL AM I RITE BUSH!!!
 

Macam

Banned
Incognito said:
Poor Liberman. Normally I'd blame the Republicans, but I think his fellow Democrats saddled him with those huge job losses because more often than not, whenever the President needs some help from the other side of the aisle, Joe is there to lend his help and his mouth for kissy photo-ops.

:lol :lol

Yeah, when NYT loaded up this morning I was surprised to see an unhappy Lieberman in front of a microphone in a side graphic, but then I promptly realized he wasn't actually doing anything other than contesting the base closures, most likely out of the potential loss for local businesses and prestige rather than with any actual consideration to whether it'd be good overall for the military.
 

AntoneM

Member
Lambtron said:
Being a reasident of North Dakota, I've heard lots on talk radio about the proposed base closings and the effects it would have on the communities invovled. The tiny air base here in Fargo is integral to the airport, for example. The Air Force operates the ambulance and fire crews on the airfield-- if they didn't have those, we couldn't have an airport.

I understand that you have to cut some fat, and I'm sure there are areas where there are a couple of bases that could be consolidated, but I don't think that closing 90-some bases is the answer. To be totally honest, I'm shocked that none in ND got the axe. Conrad is up for re-election in aught-six, and he's on the Republicans' shitlist.

I think you forgot that the first fighters in the DC airspace during 9/11 were from the Happy Hooligans. That, I'm sure had a huge impact on the decision making. For those that don't know Happy Hooligans is the name by which the Air Nat. Guard goes by in Fargo.
 
Hitokage said:
I heard about this on NPR just a little while ago, and they had two Republican representatives who were livid about it. One was saying how it was stupid to close a base that did its role more efficiently than any other installation, and another was saying how it was stupid(ok, risky) to put all B-something long range bombers in one base.

They're all going to USA SOUTH: TEXAS.
 

Phoenix

Member
An interesting question I have for the people who drafted up this thing. Atlanta International is one of the busiest airport hubs in the country and they are closing the Naval Air Station in Marietta, GA - the only place you can fast-scramble an aircraft to intercept wayward aircraft?

Huh?
 

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
It might have to do with the crowded airspace over Atlanta. I know that the main thing going for the base in my hometown, Columbus, MS, was that there is little other air traffic to intefere with training.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom