Shocked! I say I am shocked! We finance campaigns with bribery and then our solons fail to act in our interests? What an outrageous idea! What are you guys thinking? This just could not be.
6
We need a BRAC every 4 years. But keeping the useless bases open is the one place Dems and GOP will work together. "If you keep my base open in my state, I'll vote to keep your base open in your state". At least there is one spot of bipartisan cooperation. sigh
10
And to think that after the loss of millions of jobs with millions of Americans thrown out of houses after enduring 8 years of incompetence, fiscal irresponsibility, the theft of perhaps a TRILLION dollars by bush's cronies and the near bankruptcy of our country, republiCONs still tried to obstruct a "stimulus" that was smaller than the defense budget for 1 year. Then again, I never heard one complain about the 80 BILLION per month that we GAVE the same criminals that collapsed our economy, for 6 years as part of QE. And they actually think they have the mental capacity to "govern"? They should ALL be thrown in prison as traitors.
9
This is an issue where the NYT and WSJ are likely in agreement - which also means that the appropriate actions will likely never happen.
Even the most ardent liberals flinch when defense cutbacks mean the loss of jobs in their district. Sherrod Brown, (Democratic Senator, Ohio) whom no one would confuse with a defense hawk, argued vehemently against a proposal that would have shut down an air national guard base in Mansfield, OH. (Do you have any idea where Mansfield is, and did you know there was a DOD base there?)
So if you think the DOD budget is too big, liberals in Congress are significantly responsible for the problem.
Even the most ardent liberals flinch when defense cutbacks mean the loss of jobs in their district. Sherrod Brown, (Democratic Senator, Ohio) whom no one would confuse with a defense hawk, argued vehemently against a proposal that would have shut down an air national guard base in Mansfield, OH. (Do you have any idea where Mansfield is, and did you know there was a DOD base there?)
So if you think the DOD budget is too big, liberals in Congress are significantly responsible for the problem.
6
Does anyone remember the last BRAC? The one when President Clinton overrode the BRAC and kept Bases open in Texas and California prior to his last campaign.
7
"The Pentagon has some 562,000 facilities worldwide..." I am so hoping that that number is a typographical error!
19
Pretty amazing! We spend virtually as much on defense as the rest of the world COMBINED! As this editorial points out, even the Pentagon recognizes that we are wasting billions & billions on obsolete facilities & futuristic weapons systems that are hugely expensive, frequently don't work & are designed to fight whom?
Until we as a country devise some sort of a system to provide public funding for elections to seats in Congress & prohibit candidates from accepting bribes, oops campaign contributions, this disgraceful waste of our tax dollars and many others will continue.
Until we as a country devise some sort of a system to provide public funding for elections to seats in Congress & prohibit candidates from accepting bribes, oops campaign contributions, this disgraceful waste of our tax dollars and many others will continue.
25
So the same hypocritical clowns screeching for fiscal reform...ah, never mind.
16
They should put good stewardship of public money ahead of their selfish political interests....?!? Buwhahahahaha.....! Oh, that's funny.....good one....
7
‘“We all have our interests, but one ought to be what’s in the best interest of the Department of Defense.”’
It goes far deeper and wider than this. How about what is in the best interest of the NATION.
Washington is up to its ears in the business of keeping our military-industrial-political complex on steroids. Add in our mega sized federal police conglomerate, the sprawling Department of Homeland Security, and you have the largest enterprise on the planet. This while our nation’s worn out infrastructure begs for renewal and myriad other lojng standing core issues are deferred by our dysfunctional Congress.
It goes far deeper and wider than this. How about what is in the best interest of the NATION.
Washington is up to its ears in the business of keeping our military-industrial-political complex on steroids. Add in our mega sized federal police conglomerate, the sprawling Department of Homeland Security, and you have the largest enterprise on the planet. This while our nation’s worn out infrastructure begs for renewal and myriad other lojng standing core issues are deferred by our dysfunctional Congress.
37
“BRAC is the single biggest way to achieve efficiencies in the Department of Defense,” said Robert Hale, who served as the Pentagon comptroller until last year. “Congress has been unwilling to provide the necessary authorization, and it is in the interest of the taxpayer that they do.” - Herein lies the issue: Since when has Congress acted in the best interest of the Taxpayer? It acts in the best interest of it's biggest campaign donors.
34
The way to get this done is to have the DoD rent or sell the properties, at a profit of course, to private contractors. I'm certain the Corrections Corp. of America could use some of those 500 empty buildings that Army official talked about. Amazon, FedEx and UPS all would like to have more strategically placed distribution centers, especially if they have runways, control towers, maybe even missile silos. All those call centers in Bangalore, Mumbai, Viet Nam and dog knows where else could be consolidated, and the lost jobs brought back home. As a bonus, we'd actually be able to understand what those folks are saying as they deny our claims, or sell us products and services we neither need nor want. An even more efficient cost cutting move would be to relocate congress to that base in North Dakota, unimproved of course, and rent out the capital building. Since they are already largely a collosal echo chamber, it seems appropriate they meet in some abandoned missile silo. I'd love to see them in those hard hats with headlights that miners wear. If it were up to me, I'd arrange their seating in an ascending double helix along the perimeter, with the speakers podium at the bottom. They could pass notes with drones. Maybe we could lock them in until they get something done?
I live near the largest aviation boneyard in the country, though it's by no means the only one. I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting a Huey or A-10 in my backyard. See where this is going?
I live near the largest aviation boneyard in the country, though it's by no means the only one. I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting a Huey or A-10 in my backyard. See where this is going?
14
On the plus side, useless, obsolete DOD facilities will not be the subject of "aid to the moderates" and be used against us as has been our experience with weaponry.
7
DoD has allowed the distribution of defense $ throughout the nation because it gave DoD leverage to manipulate legislators, now they've discovered that that tiger is hard to let go of and the public has become just as addicted. There can be no end to this under a Democrat. It's a Nixon going to China type of problem, the political lead must be taken by the right.
5
Us Air Force reached the ultimate Defense Authority.
The old joke is, how do you turn a left-wing Democratic congressman into a right-wing conservative Republican? Answer - threaten to shut down a defense base or eliminate a military contract in his or her district.
9
Before corruption can be fought it must be defined. Sadly, no party is running against corruption.
3
Base closings should be a priority. Start with Guantanamo.
24
There is no need for military bases in the center of the country, but that is where the Republicans are. Do we need two army bases in Kentucky where Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell are? Of course not. Good luck getting eith of them shut down. But the same thing is true on the civilian side of government. There are too many government offices that are in poor repair. But the building has somebody's name on it and GSA can't sell it or tear it down. They need a BRAC for the civilian side or a BRAC for the entire federal government.
6
According to our Congress:
Money used to keep unnecessary bases open is "good waste." Those tax dollars must be kept flowing.
Money used for infrastructure,education and jobs,to assist children and the disabled is "bad waste" and must be eliminated forthwith.
I hope that the NYT continues to push on this issue. Put the spotlight on specific cases.
Identify those installations like the one in Grand Forks, ND. Also look at the local results of previous BRACs and show what has replaced the military installations. What benefits came to the communities? What facilities are there now?
I swear I could walk the streets of the USA and pick 535 people at random who would do a better job of leading the country than our current Congress. At least we would TRY!
Money used to keep unnecessary bases open is "good waste." Those tax dollars must be kept flowing.
Money used for infrastructure,education and jobs,to assist children and the disabled is "bad waste" and must be eliminated forthwith.
I hope that the NYT continues to push on this issue. Put the spotlight on specific cases.
Identify those installations like the one in Grand Forks, ND. Also look at the local results of previous BRACs and show what has replaced the military installations. What benefits came to the communities? What facilities are there now?
I swear I could walk the streets of the USA and pick 535 people at random who would do a better job of leading the country than our current Congress. At least we would TRY!
19
We may as well face it, we're addicted to war.
With apologies to the late Robert Palmer.
With apologies to the late Robert Palmer.
8
A few weeks after I got back from overseas in 1953 and was discharged from the army my father asked me "What did you see over there?" And I replied "waste".
19
Eisenhower's words have never been more true.
30
Not only empty buildings, but obsolete ordinance. John Boehner protects the Lima (Ohio) Tank Plant long after the Army determined the tanks are unnecessary. A few hundred jobs.
All those people can be retrained, or the plant can be refitted to build wind turbines or.... Clearly, Congress and Defense have different priorities.
All those people can be retrained, or the plant can be refitted to build wind turbines or.... Clearly, Congress and Defense have different priorities.
16
"We need a new definition of “defense” that takes into account the quality of our education, the health of our people, the preservation of the environment, the strength of our transportation, the development of alternative fuels, the vigor of our democracy. These were the concerns expressed by the people who stood in Cairo’s Tahrir Square holding up their signs for more than two weeks this winter. Without guns, knives, or the use of their fists, they brought down the dictator who had exploited them for nearly thirty years."
Thank You George McGovern. for these words.
Do I need to say more!
Thank You George McGovern. for these words.
Do I need to say more!
1
Fort McPherson, an Army base south of Atlanta was closed through the BRAC program in 2011. It is now being developed by Tyler Perry as a very large production studio for the growing film/tv industry in Georgia, benefiting the state through jobs and revenue.
Jobs don't have to leave with the closing of bases. Creative and thoughtful uses for the space, as Perry's project demonstrates, could happen anywhere.
Jobs don't have to leave with the closing of bases. Creative and thoughtful uses for the space, as Perry's project demonstrates, could happen anywhere.
1
The federal government can solve this by looking at the big picture and replacing these sites with incentives to transform the land into new opportunities. Just closing them without a plan is also a waste. Americans have a bad habit of not looking far enough into the future. This *is* the job of legislators.
One issue that could be gumming things up is that there are all kinds of toxic wastes dumped that will rear their ugly heads. Take the air base near Finland Minnesota, for example. The wells there were contaminated and are unusable now.
One issue that could be gumming things up is that there are all kinds of toxic wastes dumped that will rear their ugly heads. Take the air base near Finland Minnesota, for example. The wells there were contaminated and are unusable now.
1
Dwight Eisenhower told us to beware of the military industrial complex. You can add a new phrase "the congressional military industrial complex" to the discussion. We need adults in every sector of our public life that place the interests of all of us over the interests of a few. Those that do put their own self interests ahead of everyone else should be called out by the press, the public and right minded individuals in the military and the government.
3
The interstate highway system is in need of major repair from potholes to bridge collapse. Yet the benighted Republicans in the Congress in the name of fiscal responsibility won't raise gas taxes to contribute to the Highway Trust Fund. Obama's advisors like the Secy of a Transportation are too timid to take a stand on this for opaque political reasons.
This utter vapidity of leadership in not taking money away from where it's obviously not needed I.e. The Pentagon and putting it where it is I.e. Infrastructure is one of the major problems facing our country's economic vitality and security.
I think the U.S. motto should be changed from e pluribus unum to penny wise pound foolish.
This utter vapidity of leadership in not taking money away from where it's obviously not needed I.e. The Pentagon and putting it where it is I.e. Infrastructure is one of the major problems facing our country's economic vitality and security.
I think the U.S. motto should be changed from e pluribus unum to penny wise pound foolish.
4
And this is news how? Maybe this is news to those who still think we are a nation, not a corporate enterprise. We elect a board of directors, not a real government. The only newsworthy question is: How much longer are we going to be able to make ourselves believe that free enterprise capitalism is sustainable and that it works as advertised?
6
Great article, but I would like to see more details in a follow up article.
How about the base locations by Congressional district, the names of the districts' Representative and the actions they have taken to prevent this problem from being corrected.
Lets start with publishing in the NYT the bill which bars "the Pentagon from carrying out a detailed assessment of its properties, because closing useless bases would mean lost jobs and revenue in home districts" and how each representative voted?
How about the base locations by Congressional district, the names of the districts' Representative and the actions they have taken to prevent this problem from being corrected.
Lets start with publishing in the NYT the bill which bars "the Pentagon from carrying out a detailed assessment of its properties, because closing useless bases would mean lost jobs and revenue in home districts" and how each representative voted?
4
The U.S. Congress is a private club, with dues for its members being paid by the American taxpayer. Once in, the club's members run the nation so as to maximize their chances of remaining in the club. It's a self-serving system with vast perquisites that the average citizen can barely imagine.
6
This is a "DUH" moment...Not to criticize the Message (which is spot on) but to point to the absolute futility of it. The vast sprawling Military Complex (the "industrial" part too) is like a parasite which has entwined itself into all the organs of the country and cloaks itself in the honest bravery and dedication of our "boots on the ground" sprawled all over the world. A successful parasite is one that has made itself invulnerable by attaching itself in such a way that its removal will apparently destroy the organs themselves. The Military Complex has achieved such status...the organs being financial, industrial,political, diplomatic.
The absence of real examination of the Military may be seem in the response of Congress at the State of the Union address on mention of our military. They came out of their seats as though rocket propelled to applaud--like automons--all those stern looking short-haired immobile chaps in the front row with bright colored salad slathered on their chests.
Only a protracted campaign by NYT and other media could have the slightest effect. Not an occasional editorial stating the obvious to an overall sophisicated readership. The will have already read the Fallows article, Stephen Walt in Foreign Policy and the stream of writings by Ricks.
Do shine the light on this...but don't think there will be an effect unless you keep focusing on it!!!
The absence of real examination of the Military may be seem in the response of Congress at the State of the Union address on mention of our military. They came out of their seats as though rocket propelled to applaud--like automons--all those stern looking short-haired immobile chaps in the front row with bright colored salad slathered on their chests.
Only a protracted campaign by NYT and other media could have the slightest effect. Not an occasional editorial stating the obvious to an overall sophisicated readership. The will have already read the Fallows article, Stephen Walt in Foreign Policy and the stream of writings by Ricks.
Do shine the light on this...but don't think there will be an effect unless you keep focusing on it!!!
4
The US is owned by the fossil fuels business,Wall Street, and the war business. Until we have serious campaign finance reform this ownership will continue. And the thousands of unaccompanied children who fled the drug gangs in Central America are now being cared for by the for-profit Corrections Corporation of America which, naturally will want to encourage more people, not fewer, in their detention facilities. The nail holding all these useless facilities in place is the profits made by the war business..and the funding the war profiteers provide for the campaign war chests of our elected people..who care about their funders and not their constituents.
7
Too many regions in our country rely on wasteful military spending as a way to redistribute wealth from prosperous regions to regions with populations who are neither prepared nor motivated to succeed. Why is it that the very regions who rely most on government handouts from unneeded and unwanted military spending are also the regions who most actively condemn the notions of subsidies for anywhere else? Close the bases.
7
Eisenhower left out one thing, when he correctly brought up the major challenge America would face from the military-industrial complex: pork.
While the military and weapons corporations certainly will fight to maximize their size and power, they have no inherent interest in specific locations and number of facilities beyond functional ones. It is the pork quid pro quo that creates the current situation of unneeded, expensive facilities. The military and weapons makers get their votes to satisfy their appropriations requests, as long as they agree to support placing facilities in every Congressman's district, especially those of the more powerful Congressmen. The easiest way to observe the dynamic is to look at situations where Congress adds weapons systems that the Defense Department does not even request and even has said it does not want.
Interestingly, it was President Reagan who (perhaps unconsciously) added the appropriate corollary to President Eisenhower's admonition, when he said we needed to look out for large government bureaucracies, because they becane self-serving, power aggrandizing, money hoarding, inefficient, and counter-productive. This not only applies to the Department of Defense, but to Congress itself.
While the military and weapons corporations certainly will fight to maximize their size and power, they have no inherent interest in specific locations and number of facilities beyond functional ones. It is the pork quid pro quo that creates the current situation of unneeded, expensive facilities. The military and weapons makers get their votes to satisfy their appropriations requests, as long as they agree to support placing facilities in every Congressman's district, especially those of the more powerful Congressmen. The easiest way to observe the dynamic is to look at situations where Congress adds weapons systems that the Defense Department does not even request and even has said it does not want.
Interestingly, it was President Reagan who (perhaps unconsciously) added the appropriate corollary to President Eisenhower's admonition, when he said we needed to look out for large government bureaucracies, because they becane self-serving, power aggrandizing, money hoarding, inefficient, and counter-productive. This not only applies to the Department of Defense, but to Congress itself.
6
"Yet, year after year, the nearly unanimous response from lawmakers has been: Don’t even think about it. They have barred the Pentagon from carrying out a detailed assessment of its properties, because closing useless bases would mean lost jobs and revenue in home districts."
This says it all.
There are military installations and defines related plants in all 50 states plus hundreds of useless bases in over 100 countries all over the world.
It's not all about Defence.
Pork and campaign financing come to mind. What a gigantic waste.
This says it all.
There are military installations and defines related plants in all 50 states plus hundreds of useless bases in over 100 countries all over the world.
It's not all about Defence.
Pork and campaign financing come to mind. What a gigantic waste.
6
It makes no sense for the military not to divest of unneeded real estate. Many closed bases have found new lives and enhanced the towns they are in. Pease Air Base in Portsmouth, NH, Camp Evans and Fort Monmouth in New Jersey, Grenier Field in NH just to name a few. They have been put to good use by the states and towns that were able to take them over. Base closings have a brief negative economic impact, but strengthen and enhance the economy in the long run. It’s time for the Republican congress to get on the stick and start taking a close look at some of these wasteful, and wasted, facilities.
7
The "public policy" of the United States is the private preserve of vested interest who put office and self first and Country a poor third.
9
If it is true that military bases in the United States that are no longer essential are maintained to provide local employment and economic support, then simply closing the bases will result in an outcry from the disadvantaged region and protection from area representatives and senators.
This suggests that base closures should be paired with economic development incentives. Examples could include conversion to educational and training facilities such as community colleges and technical/vocational programs, recreational facilities, expanded housing, regional airports, coastal restoration.
There are probably many other productive possibilities.
If the affected communities had the offer of a future that would enhance their futures, and not just an abandoned space, then the prospects of base closures might seem more hopeful, less dire.
This suggests that base closures should be paired with economic development incentives. Examples could include conversion to educational and training facilities such as community colleges and technical/vocational programs, recreational facilities, expanded housing, regional airports, coastal restoration.
There are probably many other productive possibilities.
If the affected communities had the offer of a future that would enhance their futures, and not just an abandoned space, then the prospects of base closures might seem more hopeful, less dire.
73
I agree, and not only that, your suggestion might be one rare issue that finds support from both liberals and conservatives. We need to start thinking outside the box to solve the huge problems this country faces, to make solutions more politically palatable. Maybe Obama could take the money he wants to throw away to special interests and use it for something productive, like what you describe.
At the Pentagon, encouraged by their Congressional enablers, wasting money is Job #1.
7
Perhaps Republicans can show leadership by approving a new round of base closings, not only in the US but in Europe as well.
7
Republicans can also reduce poverty and bring peace on earth. Can't wait.
3
The article focuses on existing hardware. A check on proposed programs such as F-35 and the ow defunct DD2100 Zumwalt class destroyer would reveal waste of taxpayer funds beyond comprehension. The DD2100 destroyer grew from a $750 million/ship with 42 shipd being acquired over 21 years to termination cost of $9.7 billion/first ship with 3 being acquired in 2012. The CVN-77 aircraft procurement was modified but cost had increased by 1000% from 1998 to 2012 with reduced capabalities.
7
If our columnists cared about their county, they could say everything important in a single sentence: Our politicians care more about their party than about their county!
7
Maybe we need to add a new responsibility to the military, our countries infrastructure needs... That way Congress can keep shoveling billions to the military and we could get our roads fixed.
9
Hmmm. Spending to keep open non-functional facilities because otherwise jobs and income will be reduced? What was that about welfare queens?
21
We have an election coming up. Media should demand specific answers re: BRAC from the horde running for president. i.e. What is your position on base closures? What percentage of closures do you favor? I know these are simple questions and easily deflected,but I also know they will not be part of the 2016 election campaign. The media has lost it's legitimacy, for the most part.
9
Come to El Paso, see what 3 Billion dollars gets you. A bunch of unmanned Vehicle Maintenance Shops, barracks, and the like. About a Billion of that is for a new Army Medical center that is sinking into the desert.
the fact that no one seems to notice or care leaves some El Pasoans wondering "where exactly is New York anyway, I can't seem to find it on any map?" Seems the reverse is true as well.
Let me ask ALL readers: "If this tiny outpost is raking in that 3 Billion dollars, just imagine what D.C. is raking?" Ever go to a "State Dinner" anywhere around the world? - caviar for every man woman and child. Average price per person $3,000.00+. Army White House Band, Herald Trumpets, and Security not part of that figure. Do we really need the Herald Trumpets? And all those other bands? Caveat caviar? God save the Kings and Queens.
the fact that no one seems to notice or care leaves some El Pasoans wondering "where exactly is New York anyway, I can't seem to find it on any map?" Seems the reverse is true as well.
Let me ask ALL readers: "If this tiny outpost is raking in that 3 Billion dollars, just imagine what D.C. is raking?" Ever go to a "State Dinner" anywhere around the world? - caviar for every man woman and child. Average price per person $3,000.00+. Army White House Band, Herald Trumpets, and Security not part of that figure. Do we really need the Herald Trumpets? And all those other bands? Caveat caviar? God save the Kings and Queens.
10
When they closed the air force base in Plattsburgh, NY, they made it into a shopping and industrial park. It has fueled the upstate economy ever since.
20
If it is just about the political pork how about we buy these people out. Close down your unnecessary military facilities and for the next 10 years we provide the same money to build roads and schools.
12
I was just visiting a relative whose husband managed the budget for his ship in the navy. When there were surpluses, they were ordered to spend the money on new sunglasses for everyone or other frivolous equipment so the higher ups would think they needed all the money they were given. That goes on at every level. I was an air force doctor, and we had to spend every cent we were given so as to keep getting at least that amount every month/year, whether we needed to do things or not. The BRACs were hard, and the locals fought and fought to keep ours and other bases off the list, but we cannot afford it anymore. When people talk about defense spending cuts now, they really only mean smaller increases. We NEED decreases.
17
Indeed, the entire defense contractor establishment a/k/a military-industrial complex has acted for decades in a way inimical to the national interests of the United States. Making money and more money throughout the ugly sequence of unofficially-declared and contrived conflicts since 1960: Vietnam, our forays into Central America, Iraq I and Iraq II, Afghanistan...none of these involvements has helped further American interests except those of the plutocratic war machine. And the electorate is too busy texting and playing video games to be involved with anything like effective protest on the basis of deep or even superficial interest and awareness.
23
How about a BRAC that provides for keeping bases and facilities in all states with remaining economic value apportioned according to population? The pain of closings and lost jobs would be equally shared. Some of the billions in savings could be channeled into job training and relocation help for those displaced.
Since our politicians can't make decisions that might hurt people in their home district, this seems like a way to get the job done that everyone could swallow.
Since our politicians can't make decisions that might hurt people in their home district, this seems like a way to get the job done that everyone could swallow.
1
Other than which installations are excess this is an old story. The Pentagon has authority to close any base it wants but the political fallout is too much. That is why they have a BRAC, an up or down vote on a large number of installations so deflect the political damage. Where the politicking gets done is putting pressure on the BRAC Commission to build up one's base at the expense of bases in different districts and states.
Congress buys weapon systems the Pentagon doesn't want and the savvy contractors make sure the work touches as many Congressional districts as possible to gain maximum support.
The DOD workforce gets smaller, but the work does not go away. Government employees lose their jobs and are replaced by contractors who hire many of the displaced government employees for the obvious reason they know best how to perform the work.
I worked my entire civilian career for DOD and have seen all of this many times. I do not expect anything to change except at the margins here and there.
Congress buys weapon systems the Pentagon doesn't want and the savvy contractors make sure the work touches as many Congressional districts as possible to gain maximum support.
The DOD workforce gets smaller, but the work does not go away. Government employees lose their jobs and are replaced by contractors who hire many of the displaced government employees for the obvious reason they know best how to perform the work.
I worked my entire civilian career for DOD and have seen all of this many times. I do not expect anything to change except at the margins here and there.
50
Even in the Roosevelt-Taft-Wilson progressive era, while many humanitarian advances for workers were achieved, the wealthy oligarchs influence waned only slightly. The basis for this country's culture has always been the pursuit of money and power.
We will continue as the word's largest 3rd world country until we choose to make our citizens more important than pursuing money and power.
We will continue as the word's largest 3rd world country until we choose to make our citizens more important than pursuing money and power.
5
They need a lesson from the initiative to close and consolidate Federal Data centers. These things are not easy and take more time than we want. The process is slow, so the job loss would be gradual. There will be plenty of time for our esteemed congressmen and women to work on creating jobs to replace those lost during this process.
1
The fact that legislators on both sides do not want to entertain cost containment if it may affect their constituencies proves that they are blind to the bigger picture and what is best for the country. Don't talk to me about waste , boys.
2
As detailed in The Atlantic, the US War Department needs to account for the monstrous costs of its many failures. It burned trillions in just Iraq and what did those trillions procure? A destroyed country. An armored division burns 600,000 gallons a day. An F-22 gets 0.4 mpg. The B-2 would cost no less if it had been made of gold. All this money doesn't win wars. It does tempt us into invading and occupying and certainly recruits a terrorist or two for every person we murder.
8
What we need is to declare universal preschool and childcare as a national security issue and then give the Pentagon the flexibility to spend accordingly. For each district with excess real estate, use the bases as day care centers, when feasible, or local training centers for the many new jobs these programs could create. Turn the rest of the land into conservation land; many bases, having land that has been undisturbed for decades, harbor some endangered species that have all but disappeared elsewhere. Have the Federal government pay in-kind local real estate taxes and nobody loses. $35 Billion in pre-K education will pay back a lot more than a few extra planes and tanks or a slew of unoccupied buildings.
2
It's odd that congress feels only government can create jobs. By turning the properties over to private interests it opens the possibility of private sector jobs. Even in rural areas conversion to agricultural and industrial uses would boost jobs and spur construction becoming a much more sustainable long term economic presence for these communities.
1
God forbid Congress should think about redirecting those funds away from the Pentagon and toward education and other key aspects of infrastructure. Such a reallocation might not, in theory, eliminate jobs, but rather simply realign spending in a way that might be better for the future of our nation.
11
I am totally confused. The big spending liberals no longer hold either house of Congress. How come the conservatives haven't done what they say that love so much to do: Cut government spending? What gives?
9
With the republicans in charge of both houses in congress, don't expect any waste to be addressed in the military budget.
Republicans need as many military bases as possible to support the war they hope to get if they win the 2016 presidency.
Republicans need as many military bases as possible to support the war they hope to get if they win the 2016 presidency.
14
Time for a new political party. While the GOP views continue to be outdated (conservativism is nearly dead) and Democrats are equally unable to view the country in realistic terms, the serious issues before us keep evolving. Let's start us a party ready and able to confront the tyranny of the current system that has run amok.
Its obvious we don't need the military bases/weapons/personnel we needed in 1970s. Do something beneficial with the old military base land....build some parks, build some factories there, hell make some golf courses.....just take it off my tax base.
Its obvious we don't need the military bases/weapons/personnel we needed in 1970s. Do something beneficial with the old military base land....build some parks, build some factories there, hell make some golf courses.....just take it off my tax base.
4
I have been a reader to NYT for 50 years and rarely do I agree with the Editorials. There is significant waste in the military and throughout government. Bases and real estate that are expendable should be closed and sold. We are constantly told the government needs more revenue and additional taxation is the answer. Additional reduction in expenses could accomplish a great deal but why do so when they can just tax the successful to pay their fair share of the wasteful spending. Start by reducing the number of generals and Admirals and their aids. We can be better if we only try.
6
The U S must be prepared to fight not only terrorism, but also strategic challenges re Russia and China and in future other state actors.
The DOD cannot base its needs only on current requirements, but also on future requirements. Training the military, from basic and advanced schools to war games and storage depots requires a lot of land, and once that land is gone and mixed use development (or any other use) put on it, re acquiring that land for original purpose if need arose would be impossible. (And based on use from artillery practice to storage of hazardous material how much of this land / facilities is it practical to shed to new use?)
The Pentagon must figure out a way to cost effectively manage these less then capacity facilities for potential up tempo use in future.
The DOD cannot base its needs only on current requirements, but also on future requirements. Training the military, from basic and advanced schools to war games and storage depots requires a lot of land, and once that land is gone and mixed use development (or any other use) put on it, re acquiring that land for original purpose if need arose would be impossible. (And based on use from artillery practice to storage of hazardous material how much of this land / facilities is it practical to shed to new use?)
The Pentagon must figure out a way to cost effectively manage these less then capacity facilities for potential up tempo use in future.
1
Our challenges will more likely involve cyber crimes and the power grid..than tanks and guns. Defense contractors want us to keep the money coming to the tanks and the guns and probably we should pay more attention to our power grids and our banking security systems.
1
The U.S. has enjoyed relative safety from attacks on our country in the last 100 years due to our natural isolation from potential enemies. With the next battleground being in cyberspace, the playing field is now more level; we are as vulnerable to attack as anyone else connected to the global internet. We must shift our investments in defense more towards cyber security by closing some of the physical plant that we use to project our power overseas.
9
"Barred from assessing whether current capital assets are still needed?" Really? This is not the most effective use of tax dollars. There should be an ongoing assessment of all government holdings to ascertain whether they are still needed or would have future value. If there are questionable properties lease them so they at least provide income. If there is no further need for real estate turn it over to the states or local governments "clean"; don't saddle local governments with environmental cleanups. Time should be better spent on issues like this then passing another bill to overturn ACA. Start doing your jobs Congress!
7
Remember, one man's waste is another man's profit. When Robert Gates was making his final rounds as Secretary of Defense he stopped by to address his fellow staffers at a military base. Besides saying good-bye he told them that the "gravy train" was over. Everyone there knew exactly what he was referring to. Seems like many in Congress don't want to know or believe that.
21
Gate's words are in the mold of "Ike's" parting comment about the military industrial complex. Is anyone listening?
It is insane that we cannot reduce our military not one little bit, much less the actual amount that needs to be cut. It is the ultimate pork, an uberswine, that no body wants to trim because of political backlash. Too big government refers to the military as well as everything else. Politicians need to get the courage to do the right thing, even when it costs them their job. Doing what is best for everyone in the country is the best form of term limits. Go to Washington, actually do your job and not worry about the election, then go home to your real job.
25
So we're advocating to eliminate government jobs in flyover states, because military is bad, even though these are well paying, high skilled jobs in an era where those are rare and getting rarer.
No, we're advocating closing useless facilities. Maybe we could get up enough money to fix our rotting infrastructure, thus creating thousands of well-paying, highly-skilled jobs that actually accomplish something.
32
John, don't you see the hypocrisy of keeping inefficient facilities open to preserve a few jobs and in the next breath claiming to support leaner budgets, legitimate national defense concerns, and flexibility for the military to meet its commitments?
I'm a veteran and a defense contractor. I've seen how many people are maintained on a government "dole" in the revolving military/industrial system.
It may be your ox that's gored, but it's still superfluous and perhaps it is time to get off the merry-go-round. You can't always win.
I'm a veteran and a defense contractor. I've seen how many people are maintained on a government "dole" in the revolving military/industrial system.
It may be your ox that's gored, but it's still superfluous and perhaps it is time to get off the merry-go-round. You can't always win.
11
Great retort comment! We need politicians and journalists with unusual courage to address the issue. Unfortunately, I believe that our country has more money than guts when it comes to this issue. How about the concept of being a great leader once again along with a powerful one? Hope springs eternal!
2
I urge this paper, and all the major newspapers in America, to continue to expose the waste associated with unneeded facilities.
71
Outrageous. Likely just the tip of the iceberg if one scrutinized military spending. See: Iraq.
Even the Pentagon wants to shrink/shutter the obsolete bases, and they usually get their way. What's up with that? Parochialism alone doesn't seem to fully explain such waste. Please keep on this & don't let up.
This is obscene in the recession most of us are still in, worried about Social Security getting slashed and pensions deleted.
Even the Pentagon wants to shrink/shutter the obsolete bases, and they usually get their way. What's up with that? Parochialism alone doesn't seem to fully explain such waste. Please keep on this & don't let up.
This is obscene in the recession most of us are still in, worried about Social Security getting slashed and pensions deleted.
34
Investigative journalism holds the key to reform. Politicians won't do it. Journalists have the responsibility to expose the corruption and money motivated waste. To accomplish this, a special kind of courage is needed. While many in the profession are risking and losing their lives in the Middle East, few , if any, are willing to address the political shame of our nation.
3
And you thought the Republicans wanted to cut government costs? They want to stop Democratic policy by "starving the beast," to borrow a phrase from David Stockman, Reagan's budget chief.
Add up excess government expenditure on the military and homeland defense and you've got a significant chunk of the budget deficit. But no, there won't be any action on this.
The militarist and culture warriors won't allow it. They'd rather you spend your time debating abortion and gay marriage. Wedge issue up the country, so that nothing meaningful gets done.
Add up excess government expenditure on the military and homeland defense and you've got a significant chunk of the budget deficit. But no, there won't be any action on this.
The militarist and culture warriors won't allow it. They'd rather you spend your time debating abortion and gay marriage. Wedge issue up the country, so that nothing meaningful gets done.
100
I doubt that you'll find very many Democratic congressmen in favor of closing bases in their districts.
1
We are a country that has over 5000 atomic bombs! For what? To keep other countries from attacking us? The use of 5 or 10 of those bombs would destroy the world as we know it. We're building more bombers and submarines when the danger is from terrorists.
Who and what is protecting us on our public transportation systems where you can travel all over the US and see nary a baggage screening device on any of our bus, train or subway systems, and hardly ever see police on any of our trains or subways. Yes, we have tons of surveillance at our major airports, but that horse has already left the barn.
Our wars in the future will not involve planes or ships, but tracking down small numbers of well trained terrorists who know our soft spots, like trains, buses and subways during morning and evening rush hours. Let's spend money on preparing for that kind of war and not the ones of the past.
We might have enough money in savings to give our low-wage citizens a raise that will allow them to have a chance at living a decent life!
Who and what is protecting us on our public transportation systems where you can travel all over the US and see nary a baggage screening device on any of our bus, train or subway systems, and hardly ever see police on any of our trains or subways. Yes, we have tons of surveillance at our major airports, but that horse has already left the barn.
Our wars in the future will not involve planes or ships, but tracking down small numbers of well trained terrorists who know our soft spots, like trains, buses and subways during morning and evening rush hours. Let's spend money on preparing for that kind of war and not the ones of the past.
We might have enough money in savings to give our low-wage citizens a raise that will allow them to have a chance at living a decent life!
43
"The use of 5 or 10 of those bombs would destroy the world as we know it."
NO, the best estimates that I have seen say that it would take at least 12 to 14 x 750kt W88 warheads to just destroy Iran. Hardly the end of the world.
NO, the best estimates that I have seen say that it would take at least 12 to 14 x 750kt W88 warheads to just destroy Iran. Hardly the end of the world.
5
Mike O--But that plan doesn't play with wealthy, corrupt congress, or the 1% Whatever bad thing happens, they will all escape, with our money, and leave the rest of us to die.
1
"The use of 5 or 10 of those bombs would destroy the world as we know it."
Your hyperbole and irrational fear call for a laxative and an enema. Deterrence depends on two things -- what your potential adversary believes are your capabilities and how your potential adversary assesses of your willingness to employ them. Saddam Hussein demonstrated the former; the Obamanation is squandering the latter.
Your hyperbole and irrational fear call for a laxative and an enema. Deterrence depends on two things -- what your potential adversary believes are your capabilities and how your potential adversary assesses of your willingness to employ them. Saddam Hussein demonstrated the former; the Obamanation is squandering the latter.
1
It was built assuming a takeover of government would occur by the military-industrial complex. They're almost there.
7
When Americans are polled about Congress, the approval rate is 7% to 10%. But when they are asked about *their* congress person(s) the approval rate soars into the 90% and above range.
Why? Because they believe that *their* person is doing a good job. And what does their person do? He/She has a hold of the end of a hose filled with Federal Dollars and can direct that hose's output to their own district, often landing on military "targets" which in turn produce revenue for jobs and economic activity in that district.
This is also an arena in which the richer, coastal Blue States, contributing mightily to the Federal trough, subsidize the less wealthy Red States that love their military bases and don't want any of them closed, thank you very much for the money and we'll use it for the most patriotic of purposes don't you know.
Why? Because they believe that *their* person is doing a good job. And what does their person do? He/She has a hold of the end of a hose filled with Federal Dollars and can direct that hose's output to their own district, often landing on military "targets" which in turn produce revenue for jobs and economic activity in that district.
This is also an arena in which the richer, coastal Blue States, contributing mightily to the Federal trough, subsidize the less wealthy Red States that love their military bases and don't want any of them closed, thank you very much for the money and we'll use it for the most patriotic of purposes don't you know.
16
One Senator could block a bill intended to reduce suicide among veterans, but no one can stop this wasteful spending. Can someone explain how that makes any sense?
14
If the politicians really wanted to do something to reduce the deficit - here it is, this "Sacred Cow" called the Department of Defense. Writing fat checks to feed our bloated military is the "welfare queen" in plain sight. Of course, we must have bogey man wars & so called hero's in order to satisfy the paranoid chicken hawks amongst us.
14
There is an ugly word that describes a person who willfully degrades the effectiveness of his own nation's defenses.
5
Extending your logic, we should be building new bases as that would make us more of the opposite word.
2
Military bases are like post offices. Many are kept open to bolster the local economy despite the fact that they may be wasteful. When you stop writing sad stories about the closing of post offices, I will join you in urging that we ignore local interests and close inefficient bases even though we will be destroying the towns and small cities where these bases are located.
3
Government in this country is so broken. When we really do run out of cash or inflation is 50% because we have printed so much money to pay our bills and fund our out of control debt in another 25 years then what? This is not a GOP or a Democrat problem, this is "special interest" or "not in my backyard" problem.
5
Even more hypocritical is the fact that when profitable corporations close facilities and lay off large numbers of workers, it's labelled "cutting the fat" & "maximizing shareholder value" by the GOP, but when it comes to bases it's "ruinous for the economy" & "leaving us defenseless".
32
Please, this is both democrats and republicans. They all want to bring home the bacon.
2
What would be the process for establishing a budget policy within the DOD that makes a BRAC decision automatic every 2 years to reduce costs or improve efficiencies ? It takes a long time to close a base. Eventually the area moves on. Take Fort Monmouth in NJ for example. Many of the jobs transfered. They didn't just go away.
4
In 1974 I was part of a group assigned to keep parts of an Air Force base running because tenants like the Coast Guard had to be kept running. Being Navy and so used to the Navy's ships first personnel last policy I was astounded at the Air Force facilities with a huge commissary and multiple clubs for enlisted personnel. 1200 housing units had just been painted and equipped with new appliances. The base was shut down on two months notice. Over the years I found Air Force facilities to be the most wasteful of all the services.
The Pentagon has increased the number of civilian personnel even as the services have shucked military members. Six years ago only 12 employees there earned over $12K a year. Today it is over a 1000. The civilian personnel employed by the Air Force are equal in number to the Active Air Force plus the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve. This is an outrageous waste of money. What could all these people be doing every day?
The Pentagon has increased the number of civilian personnel even as the services have shucked military members. Six years ago only 12 employees there earned over $12K a year. Today it is over a 1000. The civilian personnel employed by the Air Force are equal in number to the Active Air Force plus the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve. This is an outrageous waste of money. What could all these people be doing every day?
33
12K a year is not a living wage! Unless it included housing, meals, medical care and transportation.
1
NYHuguenot--Keep Talking! We need first-hand accounts of what is happening! Thanks!
1
While it is obvious to me that we desperately need to reduce DoD spending, it should be noted that simply making cuts anywhere risks further privatizing its functions (al a Mr. Cheney's idiocy) which not only makes them less accountable, is arguably counterproductive the goal of cost effectiveness. It would be a better first step to get the DoD to account with their spending for once, and then analyze which functions should be privatized before selling off more public assets.
4
NO privatization, more efficient government spending.
3
"The Pentagon has some 562,000 facilities worldwide, which collectively take up 24.7 million acres, or nearly the size of Virginia." I read this. Jaw drops. Based on 2011 figures for persons in uniform in our 5 armed services, each facility is populated by 2.5 uniformed personnel. That's two-point-five. Two and one-half.
To say that these folks are putting political interests ahead of good stewardship of public money is a kind understatement. How very revealing of the true motives of a group of elected officials who claim to want a smaller, cheaper government (or no government at all). Unless it costs them votes, that is. What a hypocritical, cynical bunch!
To say that these folks are putting political interests ahead of good stewardship of public money is a kind understatement. How very revealing of the true motives of a group of elected officials who claim to want a smaller, cheaper government (or no government at all). Unless it costs them votes, that is. What a hypocritical, cynical bunch!
41
Would it be possible to convert some of these bases to a WPA use, rather than so many unnecessary military uses? There would be jobs and those jobs would produce real value, i.e. infrastructure building and repair. The Congressmen/women would get credit for saving and/or adding new jobs.
55
I can't imagine a WPA in today's environment. After we relocated to TeXas, one of the many wonderful things we found were state parks that had been built by the CCC, back in the old days. These are indeed state treasures. However, we can't even get an overpass built because of some rare cave spiders found there. Everything needs an environmental assessment, the paperwork just to approve the living conditions would take at least a year. We live in a bureaucrat's heaven, where much gets done, but nothing accomplished.
3
It's quite ironic that Congress-people constantly cry out about waste in the Federal government; but faced with the most obvious of all, won't deal with it. Obviously getting reelected is more important than governing with common sense.
6
If DOD is not using the bases, then how would closing them "mean lost jobs and revenue"? Presumably there are security and maintenance staffs at the unused bases, but they can't be very significant.
Perhaps each base has a little activity; after all, the editorial board says that "under pressure from lawmakers, the Air Force has spread its fleet of aircraft across the country to justify keeping the lights on at bases that outlived their use years ago." However, it's not clear whether the other services are doing that too. It's also not clear why they can't just resist the lawmakers and consolidate activity to save money, even if the unused bases aren't technically "closed."
Perhaps each base has a little activity; after all, the editorial board says that "under pressure from lawmakers, the Air Force has spread its fleet of aircraft across the country to justify keeping the lights on at bases that outlived their use years ago." However, it's not clear whether the other services are doing that too. It's also not clear why they can't just resist the lawmakers and consolidate activity to save money, even if the unused bases aren't technically "closed."
1
Retask the unused space. Congress is right. Even if the jobs are obsolete and the space is not optimally used, our GDP of $17 Billion is growing rapidly.
We need to find new ways to use it.
We need to find new ways to use it.
1
The vicious cycle continues. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of corporate rule of our country. Votes can be bought. Politicians are being bought. We'll give to your campaign IF..." Even the "Hawk" Donald Rumsfeld presented a plan to cut military bases. We do not elect them to be traitors, but they are. It is insane that the Koch brothers can raise almost a billion dollars to use as bribes. We need a Constitutional amendment to repeal Citizens' United and prevent corporate takeover of our country - and put the Kochs and others in prison where they belong. .
7
About 30 miles from my house is a base they have been trying to close forever. Yet every time it is on the extinction list, they find a dozen or so military planes to station there and keep it open. Multiply this by many congressional districts and the dollars spent become astronomical. But are we, the people to blame for this? No member of Congress is going to risk re-election by closing an installation and cutting federal dollars to their area.
7
The bipartisan commitment to military spending, especially when unfunded or underfunded, gives the lie to all the pious comments about smaller government, efficiency of government, etc. The lure of those dollars is irresistible, especially with the explosion in the use of contractors since 9/11 (think especially of the Homeland Security empire).
Our local area is no doubt typical of BRAC. All the politicians, newspapers, and other forces gather to fight furiously against base closure. Maybe close someone else's, but never ours.
Our local area is no doubt typical of BRAC. All the politicians, newspapers, and other forces gather to fight furiously against base closure. Maybe close someone else's, but never ours.
4
Strange that Republicans are all in on shrinking government, but can't touch defense because it will cost jobs. Take the savings from defense cuts and improve the nations infrastructure. Such a disconnect and double standards when it comes to managing the economy.
2
Don't forget to include the ever increasing open lands and air space that the military has grabbed in this country for military training such as bombing runs. Since there are no facilities to list (yet), is this ownership of air and land and the loss of public access even being acknowledged, much less tracked as it continues to grow?
As with the Border Patrol now covering a 100 mile swath around the country which allows searches of fully 2/3 of our population, they grab what they want because National Security!
As with the Border Patrol now covering a 100 mile swath around the country which allows searches of fully 2/3 of our population, they grab what they want because National Security!
5
This is just another example of how our elected officials act only in the best of interest of their own re-election and NOT in the true interests of our nation. Will we ever see the day when these people star acting for the benefit of this wonderful nation instead of themselves? I really doubt it.
4
A problem is that the costs involved in closing the bases have tended to out weigh any savings the closure might bring. That includes clean ups, transfers of equipments, etc.
3
Don't stop with closing bases. The whole military needs reform. Merge the services. The Navy and Coast Guard, the Marines, controlling the Army and Air force. I know that the Army and Air force have great traditions, but enough is enough.
And while we are at it merge the spy agencies.
Enough is enough.
And while we are at it merge the spy agencies.
Enough is enough.
3
It continually amazes me that pro-business legislators continually prevent government agencies from engaging business-like activities such as resource optimization. From the post office to the DoD, short-sighted rules keep our country from be efficient with tax dollars from hard working citizens.
The sad part is that these legislators keep getting elected time and time again.
The sad part is that these legislators keep getting elected time and time again.
6
The Irony is that anyone who truly believes in the power of free market capitalism would have to think that these resources could be put to much better use if available for private sector development. I'm not sure how many jobs are generated by having eleven drones on a semi-abandoned airbase, but there's a certain lack of vision here if we think we can't possibly do better.
4
And the party that talks endlessly of the need to cut the cost of government so as to justify more tax breaks for the wealthy is unable to work with our military to responsibly bring expenditures in line with real needs.
This type of false patriot is an enemy our military cannot win against as they are just seem as money pots for the home district and the nation's defense is put in last place.
This type of false patriot is an enemy our military cannot win against as they are just seem as money pots for the home district and the nation's defense is put in last place.
7
I am so very sick to hear of yet another miscue at our expense by those worthless legislators of both ranks in Washington. So very much time to do something drastic: term limits, kill existing parties and start fresh, initiate a referendum to recall 'em all. Sure seems like it will require a revolution to do anything meaningful to get this country away from the hands of those in whose hands in should not be.
4
Used to be that we could easily see/comment about pork barrel spending, now it's buried in the "defense department". Easy to vote against spending for the poor (the "entitlement" programs many of these so called fiscally responsible individuals rail against), much easier to defend the almost unlimited spending for"defense", lest the boogey men from isis come into your neighborhood. .....what a scam. I do like the statewide election of representatives suggestion made in one of the comments, that really sounds interesting.
6
That so few readers have responded (N=6 as of this writing) indicates the folly of opposing military spending. It is the sacred cow of American politics. Even a would-be progressive such as President Obama advocates higher spending for an institution founded on paranoia and committed to excess.
The sequester is cowardly policy served up by tap dancers to the tune of the (rightly named) War Department. But is is better than pouring more money down the drain.
The sequester is cowardly policy served up by tap dancers to the tune of the (rightly named) War Department. But is is better than pouring more money down the drain.
2
Still another example of money corrupting our political system. In any district there are numerous businesses that depend on the nearby base for income. Close that base and they risk actually having to compete in the real world.
7
This is the real entitlement the Representative Ryan should be talking about. And the savings should be allocated to investing in infastructure and education of the American people.
15
Thank God the Republicans are now in charge of both houses of Congress! I'm sure they'll make closing all these excess bases a top priority given how committed they are to eliminating "fraud, waste, and abuse" in government programs (particularly those that serve the poor since they vote less often than wealthier recipients of public largesse). On second thought, I won't hold my breath.
13
With America as the sole superpower increasingly bogged down in ethnic sectarian civil wars involving non-government organizations a muscle-bound military-industrial complex combination Cold War and war on terror weaponry something must give. America spent more on it's military than the next eight nations combined including more than three times China and eight times Russia. The NGO's offer a less costly asymmetric threat than do nation states.
Because the new weapon systems are such expensive effective force magnifiers there are likely not much in the way of savings to be wrung from reducing weapons expenditures. Drones mark the demise of expensive manned fighters. New war ships are expensive but require less man power. One Ford Class Aircraft Carrier costs $13 billion. Weapons systems also tie the military-industrial complex and the political ruling class together.
Either man power must be reduced or bases closed or both. Base closings are tied to local politics. And politics are bipartisan in favor of many and more bases. That leaves the Comptroller General as the best option. But the times are not normal nor reasonable when it comes to governing in America.
Because the new weapon systems are such expensive effective force magnifiers there are likely not much in the way of savings to be wrung from reducing weapons expenditures. Drones mark the demise of expensive manned fighters. New war ships are expensive but require less man power. One Ford Class Aircraft Carrier costs $13 billion. Weapons systems also tie the military-industrial complex and the political ruling class together.
Either man power must be reduced or bases closed or both. Base closings are tied to local politics. And politics are bipartisan in favor of many and more bases. That leaves the Comptroller General as the best option. But the times are not normal nor reasonable when it comes to governing in America.
33
I'm confused about the argument that sequestration, the reduction in funds, is somehow incompatible with closing unneeded military bases. It would seem if the Defense Department had less money it would close those bases. I know politics is an Alice in Wonderland world of inverted logic, so perhaps I just don't see the Cheshire cat smiling at my ignorance.
1
Congress must act to close these bases, the Pentagon does not have the authority to do so.
2
If they are serious about closing bases then lets start with all those bases in Europe. WWII has been over since 1945, the Cold War ended with the Berlin Wall coming down and the end of communist rule in Russia in the 80's but we still have hundreds of military installations and thousands of US military personnel stationed in Europe providing security for the European community. Don't you think it's about time for the European community to provide it's own security.
14
I doubt its the need for protection that keeps US troops in Europe. Seems to me the continent can protect itself but US military really wants to keep troops here to have something for them to do. If all troops are sent home i would assume 200.000 of them would be kicked out as they have no function.
Even if European countries wants to keep US bases as they bring in money to the economy it would be wise for US to close the bases where the host country really dont want US troops to stay (Guantanamo, Okinawa and of course the occupied territory of Guam).
Even if European countries wants to keep US bases as they bring in money to the economy it would be wise for US to close the bases where the host country really dont want US troops to stay (Guantanamo, Okinawa and of course the occupied territory of Guam).
2
We've closed most of our bases in Europe and don't have much military personnel there anymore, especially at the height of the cold war. However, NATO is a joke, and they depend upon us for the real threat. Now that Putin is worrying Eastern Europe and the Baltic states, perhaps that will change as these countries know what it is to live under true tyranny. These countries are small and even if they had great defenses they would probably need help fighting off the Russian behemoth. I believe I read that we have sent some armored personnel carriers to Germany, just in case.
1
Closing US bases in Europe obviously makes economic sense but it would make it more difficult for Sen. Lindsey Graham and Dr. Strangelove to help Ukrainians kill Russians.
5
As with so many other problems regarding government oversight, or lack thereof, it's much easier to react with indignation and outrage to damaging practices, even to serve up sensible remedies, than to gauge the true extent of the forces arrayed against significant changes. Publicly expressed indignation may be the first step toward correcting a problem, but just as often it is a feckless means used by the powerless to vent their frustration with the venality and duplicity of the powerful.
2
Until we face the enormous waste of money our military drains from the budget, each and every year, progress will continue to be a slow and grinding process. The list of priorities that could be addressed, like re-building our infrastructure, or investing in alternative energy are obvious and mind-boggling.Investment in domestic needs that look to the future is the answer to the stagnent economic situation we are in. It might also curtail our use of the military as the foreign policy choice of default and help us engage in a world that welcomes our interest, instead of fearing our might. We will still have enough to defend ourselves, abundantly.
4
The editorial board again displays its detachment from reality and its 100% accurate crystal ball.
Sure, let's go ahead and concentrate all of these forces on a few bases. We can even line up the aircraft wingtip-to-wingtip. That worked out well at Hickam Field on December 7, 1941. Let's simplify the targeting and attack planning for our adversaries -- particularly now that the numbers of airframes and ships are small fractions of what they once were.
Let's abandon those interior northern bases and move stuff to coastal locations within short flight times for depressed trajectory submarine-launched missiles. Who needs more than five minutes of warning anyway? So what if those bases are closer to lots of places via polar routes? Let's eliminate these facilities because if we need dispersal or expanded capabilities at some time in the future, we'll have years to acquire them.
Most importantly, let's further concentrate our military personal into a very few locations, increasing their separation from the rest of our society and feelings of alienation.
Sure, let's go ahead and concentrate all of these forces on a few bases. We can even line up the aircraft wingtip-to-wingtip. That worked out well at Hickam Field on December 7, 1941. Let's simplify the targeting and attack planning for our adversaries -- particularly now that the numbers of airframes and ships are small fractions of what they once were.
Let's abandon those interior northern bases and move stuff to coastal locations within short flight times for depressed trajectory submarine-launched missiles. Who needs more than five minutes of warning anyway? So what if those bases are closer to lots of places via polar routes? Let's eliminate these facilities because if we need dispersal or expanded capabilities at some time in the future, we'll have years to acquire them.
Most importantly, let's further concentrate our military personal into a very few locations, increasing their separation from the rest of our society and feelings of alienation.
3
I don't think anyone's suggesting that this be done arbitrarily--clearly the concerns you're expressing would need to be taken into account. But I'm sure that you couldn't make a coherent argument for keeping each and every current base open forever, and some reductions would make sense and save money that could either reduce taxes or fund desperately needed infrastructure improvements.
6
The best criteria for defense spending in an era of no major ongoing or anticipated general war is "adequacy" or "sufficiency." Only with this benchmark can we afford the other necessary and sustained spending for infrastructure, education , technology, climate, and debt servicing advanced in the Preamble of our Constitution, to "provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
"The best criteria for defense spending in an era of no major ongoing or anticipated general war is "adequacy" or "sufficiency." "
Many are anticipating a coming WW II between radical islam and the west.
Many are anticipating a coming WW II between radical islam and the west.
1
This is déjà vu all over again.
Every twenty years or so, we get the urge to close military bases that we no longer need, and the pundit op-eds and editorials wax outraged that congressional preferiti won't let the services do so, for fear of losing jobs and spending in districts. It always ends up the same, a face-saving gesture is agreed to that closes a couple of small bases, and the pork just keeps on rooting around the pigpen.
What would be helpful is if those pundits and editors published a list of the bases that the military, given its druthers, would close, along with the financial cost of keeping them open; then, estimate the number of civilian jobs involved in the district and determine the average unnecessary cost to America of each civilian job.
We might break this eternal, twenty-year pyrrhic cycle by offering to PAY each of the affected districts, say, one-half of the value saved by closing the base in that district for ten years, that the district could use to incentivize real industry to come and establish facilities that would soak up the jobs lost by the base closure. America would save half of what we now waste (for ten years, then all of it), the military would become facilities-leaner, as it needs to, and we'd subsidize the creation of real, private sector jobs -- not a bad use for public money.
But, no. We'll just kvetch, come to some deal that will silence the nudges for ANOTHER twenty years, then do it all over again.
Every twenty years or so, we get the urge to close military bases that we no longer need, and the pundit op-eds and editorials wax outraged that congressional preferiti won't let the services do so, for fear of losing jobs and spending in districts. It always ends up the same, a face-saving gesture is agreed to that closes a couple of small bases, and the pork just keeps on rooting around the pigpen.
What would be helpful is if those pundits and editors published a list of the bases that the military, given its druthers, would close, along with the financial cost of keeping them open; then, estimate the number of civilian jobs involved in the district and determine the average unnecessary cost to America of each civilian job.
We might break this eternal, twenty-year pyrrhic cycle by offering to PAY each of the affected districts, say, one-half of the value saved by closing the base in that district for ten years, that the district could use to incentivize real industry to come and establish facilities that would soak up the jobs lost by the base closure. America would save half of what we now waste (for ten years, then all of it), the military would become facilities-leaner, as it needs to, and we'd subsidize the creation of real, private sector jobs -- not a bad use for public money.
But, no. We'll just kvetch, come to some deal that will silence the nudges for ANOTHER twenty years, then do it all over again.
9
I first became aware of a radical change in military "real estate" when an army buddy of mine reported his dad (retired army officer) had made a trip across the U.S. to visit installations where he'd been stationed. He found almost all had been closed and/or abandoned. This was in the 70s. It was readily apparent that, even as our "defense" expenditures were increasing, the money was going somewhere else, and most certainly not to training and housing of troops.
Recently, I watched a troubling (gross understatement!) documentary reporting on the absurdly sad state of our ICBM facilities across the Midwest and Northwest. Totally obsolete hardware (8" floppy drives!!) controlling our "first strike" nuclear weapons, decrepit and inexplicably non-maintained missile silos, incompetent commanders and support personnel, etc. This was/is obviously a disaster of inconceivable proportions just a hair's breadth from happening, yet it was/is getting NO attention from the command structure responsible for maintaining and controlling these facilities, no attention from the Pentagon, no attention from the congressional oversight committees responsible, and, most disgustingly, no attention from any "media".
It would appear most of our tax dollars are being channeled to the very "military-industrial complex" corporations President Eisenhower warned the country about so many years ago, to no avail.
If we can't fix anything else, we need to fix our nuclear weapons facilities.
Recently, I watched a troubling (gross understatement!) documentary reporting on the absurdly sad state of our ICBM facilities across the Midwest and Northwest. Totally obsolete hardware (8" floppy drives!!) controlling our "first strike" nuclear weapons, decrepit and inexplicably non-maintained missile silos, incompetent commanders and support personnel, etc. This was/is obviously a disaster of inconceivable proportions just a hair's breadth from happening, yet it was/is getting NO attention from the command structure responsible for maintaining and controlling these facilities, no attention from the Pentagon, no attention from the congressional oversight committees responsible, and, most disgustingly, no attention from any "media".
It would appear most of our tax dollars are being channeled to the very "military-industrial complex" corporations President Eisenhower warned the country about so many years ago, to no avail.
If we can't fix anything else, we need to fix our nuclear weapons facilities.
7
Refusing to close military bases that should be consolidated is an admission by Congress that federal money can and does provide economic stimulation to a community. As a nation we must provide funds to address many other national priorities. Compared to all other nations our military budget has reached an irrational level. The reduction of military expenses need to be reallocated for community and national needs that will also stimulate the economy – provide jobs to refurbish infrastructure, expand teaching positions, for example. We understand the importance of a well trained and well equipped military, but a failure to address infrastructure maintenance or education needs jeopardizes the nation as well.
7
It's always been like this. Military installations are the sacred cow of sacred cows. Many bases have small towns adjacent to them. These towns would not exist without the base. They are supported 100% by federal spending. I thought that was socialism? Perhaps there is good socialism and bad socialism. Good socialism gets you elected. Bad socialism gets the other candidate elected.
Here's a thought. The military is never comfortable with marginal systems. There never are enough tanks, ships and planes. We could always use a few more. The article states that the Pentagon wants to shed 20% of it's real estate. Since the Pentagon never cuts anything to the bone, that means they could most likely get rid of a lot more. Oh, it gets better. We have bases and installations all over the world. How many of those are unnecessary?
Regardless of the constant propaganda from the right, federal spending creates jobs and economic growth. If it didn't, then closing military installations would have no effect on local economies and politicians from both parties would have no difficulty shutting them down. But they do. All of them, including conservative deficit hawks. Vote getting socialism always rules.
Here's a thought. The military is never comfortable with marginal systems. There never are enough tanks, ships and planes. We could always use a few more. The article states that the Pentagon wants to shed 20% of it's real estate. Since the Pentagon never cuts anything to the bone, that means they could most likely get rid of a lot more. Oh, it gets better. We have bases and installations all over the world. How many of those are unnecessary?
Regardless of the constant propaganda from the right, federal spending creates jobs and economic growth. If it didn't, then closing military installations would have no effect on local economies and politicians from both parties would have no difficulty shutting them down. But they do. All of them, including conservative deficit hawks. Vote getting socialism always rules.
6
It is past time for the military industrial complex - not merely the Pentagon itself, but the private sector with which it is intertwined and to which it outsources and that it funds - to be thoroughly rationalised. In all likelihood, the overall military budget could be cut by a third and all genuine military commitments could still be maintained or expanded. The military industrial complex is the biggest make work program in the country, but it is far from socially responsible, nor does it improve our relations with other countries.
6
Just when General Motors was beginning to consolidate, but long before its needed bankruptcy, my firm was asked to conduct a "strategic facilities plan" for what was at the time, a company equal to the 12th largest economy in the world. The redundancy and the inefficiency was extraordinary, but the real advantage in the planning was understanding for the first time who was doing what - and how and where what getting done.
It isn't just that there is excess space at the Pentagon, it is, more importantly, that the space inefficiencies allow, and often drive, operational inefficiencies of greater significance, with enormous cost in money, effectiveness and morale.
Even if, in the end, the politics demands that some facilities stay open, at least this incredibly vast Department of Defense enterprise, will have had a chance to get it's monstrous house in order.
It isn't just that there is excess space at the Pentagon, it is, more importantly, that the space inefficiencies allow, and often drive, operational inefficiencies of greater significance, with enormous cost in money, effectiveness and morale.
Even if, in the end, the politics demands that some facilities stay open, at least this incredibly vast Department of Defense enterprise, will have had a chance to get it's monstrous house in order.
4
It is ironic that the agencies designed to protect the nation are increasingly used by politicians and the military industrial complex to enrich each other as our nation weakens.
The 534 billion budget mentioned here does not include the cost of Iraq & Afghanistan. Nor can the DoD argue it needs modernized. From 2000-2010, the Henry Stimson Center estimated 1 trillion was spent on procurements; a 97% increase. Add contractors, nuclear weapons budgeted under the DoE, a V.A. budget of 152 billion, and we're easily spending 2 billion+ a day while our schools, bridges, roads, and dreams literally crumble.
Isn't it a matter of national defense that more than 19 million of our children and 43 million households live in poverty? Whatever you wish to call it, it is certainly a disgrace. A recent study found it is now 'economically untenable' for many poor & middle-class H.S. graduates to consider college. Kids, do not bother dreaming about your potential because it has been stolen while your parents were asleep. Maybe you can ask your leaders why they feel war is more important. An absurd dichotomy? Not as absurd as it should be.
When politicians argue to cut Head Start, raise the retirement age, end health care, and reject affordable education, remember where your money is going; military spending and tax cuts for corporations & the rich. And, when the DOD does sell the land and buildings we paid for guess who will be able to buy these assets for pennies on the dollar...
The 534 billion budget mentioned here does not include the cost of Iraq & Afghanistan. Nor can the DoD argue it needs modernized. From 2000-2010, the Henry Stimson Center estimated 1 trillion was spent on procurements; a 97% increase. Add contractors, nuclear weapons budgeted under the DoE, a V.A. budget of 152 billion, and we're easily spending 2 billion+ a day while our schools, bridges, roads, and dreams literally crumble.
Isn't it a matter of national defense that more than 19 million of our children and 43 million households live in poverty? Whatever you wish to call it, it is certainly a disgrace. A recent study found it is now 'economically untenable' for many poor & middle-class H.S. graduates to consider college. Kids, do not bother dreaming about your potential because it has been stolen while your parents were asleep. Maybe you can ask your leaders why they feel war is more important. An absurd dichotomy? Not as absurd as it should be.
When politicians argue to cut Head Start, raise the retirement age, end health care, and reject affordable education, remember where your money is going; military spending and tax cuts for corporations & the rich. And, when the DOD does sell the land and buildings we paid for guess who will be able to buy these assets for pennies on the dollar...
39
Another study commission won't accomplish anything with regard to unneeded spending by the Defense Department. DOD funding is a national issue unlike many others. For example, a uniform minimum wage is a national issue but also a congressional district issue because costs of living are different in various districts. This demands that congress find a way to compromise to accomplish the national goal.
Defense spending, since Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex has been manipulated by congressional representatives since the '50 to primarily benefit their home districts. The arrangement didn't harm other districts, so they all did it. Present members of congress had nothing to do with it but will not under any circumstances agree to change without a significant fight.
The solution is to remove funding for the DOD from congress and turn it over to a non-partisan civilian commission with authority to provide a budget. And the budget should be for a period of 5 years so that the available funds can be used for improving the crumbling infrastructure of our country with some short and long range plans.
Keep in mind the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution because the founding fathers didn't even want a standing army.
Defense spending, since Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex has been manipulated by congressional representatives since the '50 to primarily benefit their home districts. The arrangement didn't harm other districts, so they all did it. Present members of congress had nothing to do with it but will not under any circumstances agree to change without a significant fight.
The solution is to remove funding for the DOD from congress and turn it over to a non-partisan civilian commission with authority to provide a budget. And the budget should be for a period of 5 years so that the available funds can be used for improving the crumbling infrastructure of our country with some short and long range plans.
Keep in mind the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution because the founding fathers didn't even want a standing army.
4
If we are to justify this excess, then let's put it to good use.
Reinstitute a draft that is sharply modified to allow for a broad range of educational and skill functions.
Mandate two years of service that combines discipline with real opportunities and real service. House, clothe, feed, train, teach, and utilize our vast army of underutilized and poorly educated... It is far better and, perhaps, less costly, than throwing so many under the bus of low wages, low skills, unemployment, and prison.
I can remember a time when people could declare the USA the 'greatest country' without being ironic.
Reinstitute a draft that is sharply modified to allow for a broad range of educational and skill functions.
Mandate two years of service that combines discipline with real opportunities and real service. House, clothe, feed, train, teach, and utilize our vast army of underutilized and poorly educated... It is far better and, perhaps, less costly, than throwing so many under the bus of low wages, low skills, unemployment, and prison.
I can remember a time when people could declare the USA the 'greatest country' without being ironic.
10
The military should not be used to fiX the problems of our public schools. The biggest waste of all would be a draft. Do you think the Army is full of riflemen, like WW2? Do you have any idea how we would have to eXpand the military if we reinstituted a draft? If you are so worried about it, why not work for a CCC or WPA. Don't ruin our military.
The Republicans are the worst offenders. They rant about the need to reduce spending but protect unneeded, obsolete and obsolescent military installations, some of which are simply car parks for old trucks and equipment, others not even this. In some cases, the Air Force divides up squadrons among several locations to keep installations open, raising costs due to the need have technicians spread out.
Estimates are that at least $6 billion in wasted each year in maintaining unneeded bases. That's almost half of the whole naval shipbuilding budget. If that $6 billion were simply turned over to the Navy’s Sea Systems Command, there wouldn’t be an ongoing debate about how to pay for the replacement of crucial Ohio-class submarines.
The military budget should not be a welfare program. Let's get rid of wasteful spending on unneeded military bases.
Estimates are that at least $6 billion in wasted each year in maintaining unneeded bases. That's almost half of the whole naval shipbuilding budget. If that $6 billion were simply turned over to the Navy’s Sea Systems Command, there wouldn’t be an ongoing debate about how to pay for the replacement of crucial Ohio-class submarines.
The military budget should not be a welfare program. Let's get rid of wasteful spending on unneeded military bases.
8
No the republicans are not the worst part of this, it is an equal opportunity offender. Democrats are just as bad.
3
President Eisenhower warned us about the power of the "military-industrial complex," and to my recollection he was neither a knee-jerk hater of the American military nor a left-wing radical.
I guess it's become the military-industrial-congressional complex now. To be sure: a member of the legislature who fights for his or her local economy is not always to be scorned. But national defense must transcend such concerns. And less money spent on unnecessary military installations can surely be apportioned in more productive ways. Legislators should fight for the redistributed funds, not maintaining the status quo.
I guess it's become the military-industrial-congressional complex now. To be sure: a member of the legislature who fights for his or her local economy is not always to be scorned. But national defense must transcend such concerns. And less money spent on unnecessary military installations can surely be apportioned in more productive ways. Legislators should fight for the redistributed funds, not maintaining the status quo.
7
Beginning in 1937, military spending as a percentage of government spending jumped to levels that have remained to today. What this piece clearly confirms is that our economy is largely supported by military spending - whether needed or not. Comparisons to addiction when someone keeps doing something that they know is bad for them and will or does have negative outcomees seem appropriate with military spending. I can't help but keep comparing what's happening with not only military spending but with the nation in general to the ways historians have reported how great empires declined - wasteful spending compounded by unattentive cltizens.
7
Perhaps it would be more palatable if the money saved by each base closing would be reappropriated for infrastructure projects in the same state where the closing occurred. Once those project were complete, the spending could end. The country would gain two-fold: permanent savings on the defense budget and improvements that would spur wider prosperity by investing in our communities. While we are at it, let's close many of those overseas bases, too.
The Defense budget has been a sacred cow. Schools are allowed to crumble, children allowed to be homeless, infant morality allowed to increase and the elderly allowed to be hungry so missile silos - well past their sell by date - continue to be funded. This speaks volumes about our values as a country.
The Defense budget has been a sacred cow. Schools are allowed to crumble, children allowed to be homeless, infant morality allowed to increase and the elderly allowed to be hungry so missile silos - well past their sell by date - continue to be funded. This speaks volumes about our values as a country.
69
The US needs to cut defense spending. We need to invest in people not hardware. Excess space is just a place to put more stuff.
If you think we don't have enough stuff already, use Google maps to view the military aircraft "boneyard" just outside Tucson, Arizona. There you will find acres upon acres of old aircraft -- and this is just the stuff that is useful for parts.
How many schools, training programs, hospitals and medical research facilities did we forego to fill this place with stuff?
If you think we don't have enough stuff already, use Google maps to view the military aircraft "boneyard" just outside Tucson, Arizona. There you will find acres upon acres of old aircraft -- and this is just the stuff that is useful for parts.
How many schools, training programs, hospitals and medical research facilities did we forego to fill this place with stuff?
53
This is a terrific piece, pointing out the obvious. It is very important that we trim our military and its holding. It is a vast drain on our society, when we need resources with which to rebuild our infrastructure of renewable energy, mass transit and up to date communication. Oil and gas still strangle us with unnecessary wars and a military defense complex that sucks up all of our time and money.
73
"a military defense complex that sucks up all of our time and money.'' All? A ready military force is a necessity for any country. That said, I agree that there is far too much waste. As a four year active duty member with 16 years in the Naval Reserve I've certainly seen much of it. It was especially galling that there was no way to stop it. One particularly disgusting episode angered me for months because it went against everything I'd been taught about doing one's best and not wasting time and materials as well as money. There is certainly room for cost savings but done carefully. Why do the number of civilian employees of the Air Force equal the number of active duty, Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve personnel? There's a good place to start cutting.
3
If a "ready military force [were] a necessity for any country," then all nations would have one. Your 20 years on the payroll is symptomatic of the problem. How many times in those 16 years was your unit in the Naval Reserve activated?
The high number of so-called civilian employees indicates that the reach of this network and its beneficiaries exceeds the military itself.
The high number of so-called civilian employees indicates that the reach of this network and its beneficiaries exceeds the military itself.
4
This is another instance in which any protestation regarding deficit spending by congressmen is an example of hypocrisy and a source of derision. Our political system is controlled by a handful of states with a minimum of population. These states that proclaim self-reliance are the first to obtain and defend governmental funding through military installations or subvention for agricultural or oil. They are also those who vote against measures that help the needy, on the basis of "governmental interference." Obviously, government should help only those who have money.
145
Dysfunctional Senate & House
And you think that you can arouse
Non social cost cutting
Those bases abutting
Places that house only a Mouse?
An Augean Stable we view
Vast structures with nothing to do
Despite all the yappin'
Still nothing will happen,
Supporters of cleanup are few.
And you think that you can arouse
Non social cost cutting
Those bases abutting
Places that house only a Mouse?
An Augean Stable we view
Vast structures with nothing to do
Despite all the yappin'
Still nothing will happen,
Supporters of cleanup are few.
38
This another example of the fundamental problems in America from having members of the House elected by congressional districts. If there was state-wide voting for a congressional delegation, and the seats were aportioned proportionately among the parties who contested the election, there would be less opposition to the closing of unneeded and financially wasteful military bases. It would also eliminate the entire issue of gerrymandering - as all members of the House would be elected on a state-wide basis. Parties would still have to run primaries to determine the composition of their list of candidates - and the candidates would have to run on a state-wide basis, rather than a narrow constituency. Extremeist candidates would not be at the top of their parties list, although they would likely appear further down.
Will proportionate representation of the House of Representatives ever happen? Not in my lifetime.
Will proportionate representation of the House of Representatives ever happen? Not in my lifetime.
78
Brad, you make a lot of good points. There are reasons for not having state wide representation in the House. For one thing, the cost to run a campaign would go up significantly. Talk about money in politics! Another reason for not having state wide representation is House members are actually suppose to serve the members of their district by helping them navigate the bureaucracy of government. If all representatives represented all citizens of a state, imagine the buck passing that would go on.
Maybe a hybrid system, one where the district count is reduced by half and each district has 2 representatives would be a workable alternative that would overcome the shortcomings you point out? This way each district would be roughly twice the size it is now.
To this, I would add that each representative should be elected to 4 year terms where elections occur every 2 years, with one representative in each district up for reelection. Keep this folks of the campaign treadmill for a while so they can get some work done.
Maybe a hybrid system, one where the district count is reduced by half and each district has 2 representatives would be a workable alternative that would overcome the shortcomings you point out? This way each district would be roughly twice the size it is now.
To this, I would add that each representative should be elected to 4 year terms where elections occur every 2 years, with one representative in each district up for reelection. Keep this folks of the campaign treadmill for a while so they can get some work done.
I think that dual seat constituency will better serve the democratic ends - one seat is awarded on the basis of a constituency plurality (and reinforces the local representative aspect) the other apportioned on the basis of a state wide vote (and reinforces the majority rule aspect of democracy). The devil is of course in the details of the specific apportioning process. Properly done the dual seat is a balancer motivation to the 'load the dice' party apparatchik types since what you win on the merry go round you lose on the swings .
Good point but doesn't go far enough. The states themselves are obsolete and gerrymandered. Why should Dakota have four Senators while California has only two. All Federal legislators should be elected nationwide at large.
1
Add tho all these obsolete bases:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/top-secret-america-the...
And then listen to these GOP legislators complain about how "the public's money" is being wasted with "entitlement programs' and other "liberal expenditures" and you can see the heights of hypocrisy.
California has lost several large military installations, including the Mare Island Shipyard, the Hunters Point shipyard. the Alameda Naval Air Station, Treasure Island Naval base, Long Beach Naval Shipyard, the Persidio, McClellan AFB, Fort Ord and many more.
We do not enough GOP legislators, but out taxes go to those states represented by them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/top-secret-america-the...
And then listen to these GOP legislators complain about how "the public's money" is being wasted with "entitlement programs' and other "liberal expenditures" and you can see the heights of hypocrisy.
California has lost several large military installations, including the Mare Island Shipyard, the Hunters Point shipyard. the Alameda Naval Air Station, Treasure Island Naval base, Long Beach Naval Shipyard, the Persidio, McClellan AFB, Fort Ord and many more.
We do not enough GOP legislators, but out taxes go to those states represented by them.
115
Typos: correction.
We do not have enough GOP legislators, but our taxes go to those red states.
We do not have enough GOP legislators, but our taxes go to those red states.
10
Bases have been expanded in the Red states because that's where they are welcomed. Most of us in the military came from those states while the Northeast and West Coast provided a far smaller number combined. Compare the number of college ROTC programs in the Northeastern and West Coast states with the South and Midwestern ones.
I don't know about the rest of those bases, but the Presidio was given back years ago.
2
"I tried hard to curb the powers of what Eisenhower in his farewell address as president referred to as the ‘military-industrial complex.’ Needless to say, all my efforts to reduce military spending were defeated. With the renaming of the War Department as the Defense Department in 1947, the military part of the government became sacred, virtually untouchable.
“All Americans want their country to have an adequate military defense. But under pressure from corporate lobbyists and legislators seeking military contracts or bases for their states, we are spending to excess while other sources of national defense, such as health care and education, are shortchanged and the national debt grows ever larger.”
George McGovern: A Letter to Barack Obama
http://harpers.org/archive/2011/09/a-letter-to-barack-obama/
The U.S. is spending more than any time during the Cold War or President Johnson spent at the height of the Vietnam War. We spend nearly as much as all other countries combined. The biggest military in the world cannot defend itself if its infrastructure is crumbling and its people are not healthy or educated.
The military sector is not labor intensive. We need to significantly reduce spending and use the revenue to invest in the productive economy. Infrastructure projects create 40 percent more jobs per dollar than spending on the military, health care creates 70 percent more jobs, and education creates 240 percent more jobs.
“All Americans want their country to have an adequate military defense. But under pressure from corporate lobbyists and legislators seeking military contracts or bases for their states, we are spending to excess while other sources of national defense, such as health care and education, are shortchanged and the national debt grows ever larger.”
George McGovern: A Letter to Barack Obama
http://harpers.org/archive/2011/09/a-letter-to-barack-obama/
The U.S. is spending more than any time during the Cold War or President Johnson spent at the height of the Vietnam War. We spend nearly as much as all other countries combined. The biggest military in the world cannot defend itself if its infrastructure is crumbling and its people are not healthy or educated.
The military sector is not labor intensive. We need to significantly reduce spending and use the revenue to invest in the productive economy. Infrastructure projects create 40 percent more jobs per dollar than spending on the military, health care creates 70 percent more jobs, and education creates 240 percent more jobs.
261
"We spend nearly as much as all other countries combined. The biggest military in the world cannot defend itself if its infrastructure is crumbling and its people are not healthy or educated."
The US military is no the "biggest in the world". In fact, it's the 7th largest in terms of personnel.
The primary reason the US spends more on our military than others is the same reason a factory costs much more to build and operate in the US than in China or Russia.
We don't pay our service members $50 a month like they do in China. We provide good benefits for them and their families. Likewise, safe and modern equipment is the norm, and is expensive.
The US military is no the "biggest in the world". In fact, it's the 7th largest in terms of personnel.
The primary reason the US spends more on our military than others is the same reason a factory costs much more to build and operate in the US than in China or Russia.
We don't pay our service members $50 a month like they do in China. We provide good benefits for them and their families. Likewise, safe and modern equipment is the norm, and is expensive.
4
While for many years I have complained about defense spending I did not even consider the excessive past expenses in real estate and in keeping unnecessary programs funded. This has opened my eyes to a truly sinful plight. With he state of our economy - we need help in housing, education, unemployment and this is just the tip of the enormous challenges that face us. I do not have answers but if we do not discuss resolutions today won't our problems just continue to escalate? At what point can we say, "Ok we need change now!" Please let us begin the process of consideration. It is time now to address our current and future needs. What are we Leaving the next generation? How. Are we going to answer our children and grand children? Let's think about these issues.
Any savings should be applied to making sure our troops have great equiptment, and especially health care. Then reducing the deficit or debt. No investment in infrastructure which should be paid for by the fuel tax.
God, if only NASA had this kind of power.
109
NASA does have this sort of power - there are two sorts of power available to legislators in Washington - the power of the pork barrel in your constituency (now almost totally used in the service of corporations with lip service to constituents) and the power of "secrets" about fellow legislators and everybody else. It used to be that the FBI under Hover most quickly grasped the nature of and way to use this power of "secrets" but now the private corporate contractors in the NSA and the CIA appear to be the most adept at using this power to further their interests - interests which are empirically obviously not the national interests of the United States of American nor are they the interests of the rest of the world.,
3
You think DoD has excess space? I heard NASA isn't even using 0.01% of the space in its jurisdiction!
Until some MBA's figure out how to outsource most of the civilian jobs that are linked to the Military Industrial Complex, it will be safe and sound.