Base Closure List

Various | 13 May 05 | Self

[SLB]

Sa far Ft Monmouth, NJ; Grotton, CT, Portsmouth Navy, Brunswick Navy and Ellsworth, SD.

[anniegetyourgun]

Agreed....the N/W is a beautiful part of the world.

[Severa]

Man I don't get them closing NSB New London at ALL. There ain't a whole lot of places in the US that you can park a sub...

Admiral Rickover's gotta be spinning in his grave on this news...

[NautiNurse]

Thanks for the NC info. Looks like Ft. Bragg is a big winner. Fayetteville will be dancing in the streets tonight.

Florida did very well too.

[Smartaleck]

It won't be easy, but'll be interesting to see who is willing to cut the deficit and who will lobby against.

[Doohickey]

Having had a couple of hours to think about it, I think it's probably the Lower Base that's on the block. SUBSCOL may not be on the list.

Can you imagine going to SUBSCOL where there aren't any submarines, except the Nautilus?

[PogySailor]

Pretty sad that the fleet has shrunk to the point that all the East coast SSNs can be stationed in Norfolk.

[Doohickey]

Yeah, you're right. The other sad part is that I got out in '97 and every boat I've been stationed on is decommed...

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

"gridlock", are you nuts?

The ONLY way to look at spending over time is % of total spending. That is the ONLY fair way to compare one period to another since it has a built in inflation adjustment. Real dollar spending on any one category means nothing.

You lack basic math skills to make such a blunder. For example, even if military spending in actual dollars went up, but total spending for all agencies went up at a faster rate, that tells you that the military is actually shrinking in REAL inflation adjusted dollars.

This is such a fundamental concept that it is shocking you do not understand this.

B4Ranch, re the chart, Howlin never wants to look at the whole picture.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Is that Portsmouth, VA., or ME.?

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

Stupid manipulative graphs?

"Gridlock", if you don't like the truth about the chart, then go crunch the raw numbers yourself and look at it from a pure numbers angle.

Guess what? You will get the same answer. There is nothing "manipulative" about this. The FACT is that the military has shrunk steadily as a percent of total spending since the JFK days.

[commish]

Well, I am being directly hit by the BRAC here in Montgomery, AL. The Unit i work for - Standard Systems Group - is being moved to Hanscom AFB, MA. This will cost MAxwell AFB almost 40% of it's workforce, will put over 3200 people out of work and will devestata the local economy.

OUR Wing HQ - Electronic Systems Center - is at Hanscom. So they are moving us and Another unit our size from Wright Pat to Hanscom.

Here is the kicker -- Wrigh Pat just finished a brand new $100 million facility, we just broke ground on a new $140 Million facility (WHICH WILL BE BUILT AND NEVER OCCUPIED!!!!) -- Hanscom MUST BUILD NEW FACILITIES to house the 5000-6000 people coming thier way. HOW STUPID IS THAT!!!

Anyway, as a contractor I am just ass out and without a job if this goes through.

[Bottom_Gun]

I hear ya on that one..I think they took a bean counters outlook on this, not looking at tactical value. Even Duncan Hunter, chairman of the Armed Forces Services Comm is against closing NSB. It really has to make you wonder huh?

[kms61]

Go easy with that line of reasoning. It can also be used on the likes of Thune.

[gridlock]

I stand by "stupid" and "manipulative"...

The first manipulation is that the Y-Axis is truncated arbitrarily at 14.0. A visual scan of the graph would lead the unwary reader to conclude that spending in '04 as percentage of total outlays is a twentieth of outlays in '62. Of course the actual figure is closer to a third, as a careful reading would show. This is manipulative, because the graph has been intentionally configured to give the casual reader incorrect information.

The second manipulation is looking at defense expenditures as a percentage of total outlays. This is a completely meaningless figure. It has far more to do with the increasing size and scope of non-defense governmental spending than anything else. It certainly has nothing to do with correcting for inflation. A casual reader will look at this graph and conclude that actual defense spending has declined by two thirds since 1962. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. But the information has been presented in such a way to create this mistaken impression. This is manipulative.

An unbiased way to present this information would be to show defense outlays adjusted for inflation. However, that would not have the desired political effect, because actual outlays adjusted for inflation have increased, year after year.

It is true that the out-of-control increase in non-defense spending has outstripped the more modest increases in defense spending. This is a legitimate point, but there are a lot better ways to present this information in order to give the reader an accurate picture.

But the person who created this graph intentionally presented information in a manner to deceive. It shows very little regard for the intelligence of the reader, and reveals the author is trying to "pull a fast one". It makes those who advocate a greater emphasis on the military (and I count myself in that group) look like liars, and I find that annoying.

The debate over the proper role of government is an important one. In my opinion, defense spending should be increase and other government spending should be decreased. But lying with numbers is not a way to promote intelligent debate.

[O Neill]

Anyway, as a contractor I am just ass out and without a job if this goes through.

I am truly sorry, man. Friday the 13th, too! This is something I'd expect from Clinton, he stuck it to 1000s of us...and Carter before him. One engineer I knew said to hell with all the layoffs! He went to some artist colony & got in the business! He was the smart one.

Helping defend American just doesn't pay. Next they're gonna cut your Social Security...then inflation over 10-20 years will decimate your pension. Forget any plans to Triple-Dip...they outlawed that decades ago. And you'll be OLD, too...lucky to get a job riding the mower at the local public golf course...

You might think about plastics...just like the guy said in "The Graduate". There's no end to what you can innovate with petroleum distallates & sell to these schmucks.

What'll happen when America needs help & nobody shows up?

I dunno, man...I just don't know...

[slightlyovertaxed]

I think in general that it's a bad idea to remove bases along the Canadian border, even in the NE. If you check out this article (http://www.wrgb.com/news/regional/regional.asp?selection=article_33601), it's mostly focusing on a man who was behind a string of ATM-related frauds. They caught him, though, smuggling Pakistanis in through Vermont. The border crossings up there are scenic and porous. Keep the illegals out by keeping the bases up.

What a waste on all fronts.

[DugwayDuke]

"Well, I am being directly hit by the BRAC here in Montgomery, AL. The Unit i work for - Standard Systems Group - is being moved to Hanscom AFB, MA. This will cost MAxwell AFB almost 40% of it's workforce, will put over 3200 people out of work and will devestata the local economy."

Sorry to hear that.

The full list is at:

http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/pdf/Appendix_C_FinalUpdated.pdf

According to this, only 1251 jobs lost at Maxwell and 740 of those are military. Are you sure it's that bad?

BTW, Huntsville is picking up 1874 civilian and over a thousand contractor jobs. Interested in re-locating? Huntsville is a good place to live.

[Half Vast Conspiracy]

Does this make sense to you? It sure doesn't make sense to me!

Yes. We have too many bases. That is wasteful. It takes huge numbers of people just to keep a base open. That takes them away from the core job of the military. If we close bases and consolidate personnel, we can cut out the waste.

[commish]

According to this, only 1251 jobs lost at Maxwell and 740 of those are military. Are you sure it's that bad?

THose are just the raw numbers. What it does not show is the 900 contractors that work at OSSG who will lose thier jobs and the 1000 family members whose jobs will be lost to the local community because they have to relocate.

Read the full BRAC report and it indicates the local economic impact to be 3274 jobs and 1.6% of the local economy.