Posted on 02/22/2005 7:46:21 PM PST by FairOpinion
REDONDO BEACH, Calif. Governor Schwarzenegger is taking the image that once sold movie tickets and using it to try to save California's military bases.
The governor will turn his skills of persuasion on federal budget-cutters preparing to close down as many as 100 bases nationwide, with 62 potential targets in California.
The governor told employees at defense contractor Northrop Grumman today that he would do everything possible to save California's military bases.
California lost 29 bases in the last round of closures from 1988 to 1995, losses some blamed on state infighting.
The governor has been organizing a united front to fight off more cutbacks that could cost the state thousands of jobs and hundreds of (m) millions of dollars in economic activity.
I didn't read it that way. You sure?
we've already lost our fair share.......what is up with this crap....is this the thanks we get seeing as UC is in charge of the 3 main nuclear weapons labs and design or invent most of them......we want some fair treatment guys. I hated seeing the Alameda Navel Air Station leave
"as many as 100 bases nationwide, with 62 potential targets in California. "
Well, it's either a total of 100 nationwide, 62 of which are in CA,
OR: a total of 162, with 62 in CA, and the remaining 100 in the other 49 states, for an average of 2 per state for the other states.
Either way, CA is being hit significantly, if this article's numbers are correct, with either interpretation.
I am sure the administration is just so excited to meet with the two Senators from California and maybe even Nancy Pelosi.... NOT.
THE HISTORY OF CLOSURES
Facts and figures about past rounds of base closings:
Four rounds of closings - 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995. The first was the work of a one-time commission; the others were set up by a 1990 law.
97 major bases were closed: 16 in the 1988 round, 26 in 1991, 28 in 1993, and 27 in 1995.
28 states and Guam have had major base closures. California, which has the most bases, also has lost the most, 24. Texas lost seven; Pennsylvania six; Illinois and New York five each; and Florida, Indiana, Maryland and Virginia four apiece.
The 22 states that did not lose any major base during the four rounds: Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
After each round of base closings was ordered, the targeted bases had six years to close.
http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/02222005/news/65817.htm
How does one determine a fair share? I would think that bases that can be eliminated with cost savings and no loss in security should be closed down, wherever they happen to be. Sounds like some of them might be there just to provide income to states...kind of like welfare on a grand scale.
Seems to me that the ChiCom's are at our door, in Long Beach and the Panama Canal.
If Pelosi can get a slight troubled furrow in her Bo-toxed forehead, even she may come to realize that the rest of the US needs some significant troops in Kalifornia, so it's not going to be about saving jobs, it's going to be about long term survival!
that is soooo true but you know it is all political in nature too or why would Senators and Congressman, Governors etc go ape sh** when this stuff happens.....they want to protect their constituents as they should......I really do think some states get punished more than others for political reasons........just a gut hunch
It is not quite so straightforward.
For example, there is the Los Angeles Airforce Base, which is nothing but half a dozen or so office buildings.
If they close it down, they will have to provide the same amount of office place to the Air Force officers somewhere else, so where is the savings?
Lets see ... El Toro marine corps air station just sold last week for a Billion....... With real estate prices in california as they are It wont hurt us a bit.
Here in San Diego, the navy owns some nice real estate. They could fix the deficit and ease our overcrowding.
So why do they need a "Base"? If they have a need for office space somewhere, why can't they lease it from the private sector?
Our Military does not exist to provide jobs and corporate welfare, contrary to the belief of many. The military itself has been saying for years that there is too many bases. If there is an overcapacity, cut off the excess and save the money for where it is needed.
If a lot of these bases meet that description, then "62 bases closing" doesn't sound so drastic. Maybe an air base that consists of a dozen or so office buildings should be consolidated with a bigger base, you know, with planes and stuff.
You know, if the military says that they have too many bases it must REALLY be true. These are the folks with the $800 hammers, as I recall.
There is a great deal of spending on defense that the military says it does not need. Stealth bombers is one of the best examples. But there are many, many, many, more.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.