| Author |
Message |
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
 Tue Apr 26, 2005 3:38 pm Base closures have enormous political ramifications |
|
| Quote: |
Republicans have as much to lose as Democrats
Monday, April 25, 2005 Posted: 6:48 PM EDT (2248 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The upcoming round of military base closings must be "untarnished by political influence," Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole declared. Then she put in a plug for her own state.
North Carolina "supports a unique military infrastructure," prime for expansion not closure, Dole told the head of the commission that will review Pentagon proposals for which bases to shut.
Base closures have enormous political ramifications. No matter the political party, House and Senate members have a lot to lose if hometown bases shut down and voters blame the lawmakers for disappearing jobs.
In February, a New Hampshire group visiting Washington sent a clear message to potential presidential candidates during private meetings with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, GOP Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John McCain of Arizona, and Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.
Officials with the Greater Portsmouth Chamber of Commerce stressed the importance of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard to New Hampshire's economy. The implied point: The facility's closure could hurt the chances of anyone who runs for president in 2008.
"It was innocent. We didn't make any threats or anything like that," said Dick Ingram, the group's director. "But the reality is that we do have the first-in-the-nation primary and folks that want to be running for president take a special interest in what matters around here. So, we'd be fools not to use the moment."
The Pentagon originally estimated that it had up to 25 percent more space than it needed at its more than 400 domestic facilities, though Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld recently suggested the surplus probably will be less given that 70,000 troops from overseas are returning soon to the United States. Previous closure rounds eliminated or realigned 451 installations, including 97 major ones.
In an effort to limit political influence on the process, a nine-member commission -- chosen by the White House and congressional leaders -- works independently to vet the Pentagon list.
Still, Chris Kelley Cimko, who worked on base-closing commissions in the 1990s, said, "It's very, very hard to divorce yourself from the politics. You have to be very strong."
Commission Chairman Anthony Principi has pledged that his panel will be independent, fair and free of political influence.
"National security will be our highest priority," he told lawmakers last month. "I believe that if we politicize this process, we will only increase the level of cynicism around the country and really doom it to failure."
He acknowledged in a written questionnaire to the Senate Armed Services Committee that one of his challenges will be ensuring "all commissioners and staff remain impartial and avoid political pressure and conflicts of interest."
Administration aides say President Bush has been clear that national security -- not politics -- should dictate which bases are closed.
Lobbyists working to save bases note, though, that most commission members have ties to the Bush administration, raising the question of just how independent it will be. Principi, for one, was the head of the Veterans' Affairs Department during Bush's first term.
Vice President Dick Cheney, a former defense secretary during previous closures, wanted Principi as chairman. Some lobbyists say they suspect Cheney is intimately involved in the process and could influence the commissioners -- a fear administration aides say is unfounded.
The Pentagon also has more power than before over which bases to shut. The Senate voted in 2003 make it more difficult for the commission to change the list.
Last year, Congress reluctantly authorized the closures under a veto threat by the White House. Now, Republicans and Democrats alike can be heard grumbling about them.
Privately, Democrats worry that the closures may be used as a political weapon aimed at hurting vulnerable members of their party seeking re-election. But publicly, they brush aside the suggestion, mindful that the Pentagon hasn't finalized its list.
"I can't understand why this wouldn't be a fair process," said Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate's Democratic leader. "It's not a political issue."
Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, a Democrat expected to have a tough 2006 race, acknowledged "it's always possible" that the closures could be politically motivated. "But at this point," she said, "I trust the process."
Republicans have as much to lose as Democrats.
At the congressional hearing last month, Sen. John Thune of South Dakota -- a Republican in his first term -- followed Dole's lead.
"One of the qualities I think that you bring to this is that you are a fair-minded person," he told Principi. Then, he added: "I know that any fair-minded person will see the value of Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/25/base.closings.ap/index.html
|
Just because people in an Area near a military base wants to expand doens't mean they should close a base. The military should tell people to not expanding community or business near military bases. This way people won't be complaning about F-16 flying over their houses. No base has to be closed.
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Tue Apr 26, 2005 3:42 pm |
|
Lol, totally agree. We need army bases. I love living on army base, much nicer and safer than civilian world. To close base down just cause people off base wants to expand pfft. not right.
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:34 pm |
|
The U.S. has too many military bases anyway, and too much federal funding going to the military. Good riddance to the bases, and may the money going into them now be funneled into places it's needed much more.
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:39 pm |
|
I disagree. What happens if they up and decide they gonna close all the military bases? Who gonna protect your butt?   Just because the civilian people are complaining. Whatever
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:44 pm |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | The U.S. has too many military bases anyway, and too much federal funding going to the military. Good riddance to the bases, and may the money going into them now be funneled into places it's needed much more. |
No, we don't. This is bad, and we need to stop closing military bases unless it's ABSOLUTELY necessary.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:45 pm |
|
who's protecting out butt now? most of our military is in Iraq.
Zeke's correct on this. There are just one too many military bases where there dont need to be. Just up here in upper New York we have 3 with only 1 being used (Fort Drum). The others are all for storage.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:48 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | who's protecting out butt now? most of our military is in Iraq.
Zeke's correct on this. There are just one too many military bases where there dont need to be. Just up here in upper New York we have 3 with only 1 being used (Fort Drum). The others are all for storage. |
We need as much security as possible, especially in these times of need. I hate the Liberal ideology that we should close down and lessen the military. Kerry tried to do it, and now others are with things like this.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:53 pm |
|
Security is more important than money.
So I don't like base closures.
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:58 pm |
|
And Money is root of all evil anyway People are just greedy. I don't like military base closures either
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:59 pm |
|
We lost two bases here, and they are now trying to close Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. BIA has one of the longest runways on the Eastern seaboard. You do realize that's a target in war, yes? We're up *beep* creek w/out a paddle.
There may be too many in one area, but there aren't too many.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Tue Apr 26, 2005 6:32 pm |
|
| Rbgirl wrote: | | And Money is root of all evil anyway People are just greedy. I don't like military base closures either |
The love of money, 
I agree that some bases shouldn't be closed, but there needs to be money going into the military to make new technologies to deal wih terrorists. In these days when the politicians take the easy option and cut military spending then it's a matter of what is important.
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Tue Apr 26, 2005 7:34 pm |
|
The government needs to cut other things besides military.
I'm talking useless things like fixing roads that are not broken is pointless and a waste of money.
However they should keep the bases running but lets say just cut down on those $1000 toilets.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Tue Apr 26, 2005 7:40 pm |
|
Ha, talk about fixing roads. This is the Gods honest truth.
The city will know that a road needs new pipes and to be repaved. What will they do? Pave the street. Dig it up, put in the new pipes, and pave the street again. And we call military spending a waste...
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Apr 26, 2005 7:49 pm |
|
| Theresa wrote: | Ha, talk about fixing roads. This is the Gods honest truth.
The city will know that a road needs new pipes and to be repaved. What will they do? Pave the street. Dig it up, put in the new pipes, and pave the street again. And we call military spending a waste... |
Right. Talk about how we can relocate money. And did you know that $87 BILLION goes to ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS for medical and school coverage? At least I think that's what it's for, but either way, that's PER YEAR.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Tue Apr 26, 2005 9:51 pm |
|
Great. You work on reducing that, we'll work on shutting down large sections of our unnecessarily-enormous military. Together we'll be able to give billions of dollars back to the people! And by people, I don't mean the rich people. In fact, people making more than $50 grand a year can't have any.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:44 pm |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | Great. You work on reducing that, we'll work on shutting down large sections of our unnecessarily-enormous military. Together we'll be able to give billions of dollars back to the people! And by people, I don't mean the rich people. In fact, people making more than $50 grand a year can't have any. |
The military needs all the funding we can get. $87 BILLION on Illegal immigrants (federal funds), PLUS $700 PER HOUSEHOLD in Arizona alone, plus over $10 BILLION in California alone...THAT'S what we need to cut back on. Not the military.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Wed Apr 27, 2005 3:02 pm |
|
The military gets too much money. That's my opinion. Illegal immigration is not the debate here, but for the record I agree that we need to cut down on it somehow.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Wed Apr 27, 2005 3:13 pm |
|
Give specifics, please.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Wed Apr 27, 2005 7:10 pm |
|
Who, me? On what?
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Wed Apr 27, 2005 7:15 pm |
|
I would like a specific example on a specific program that receives too much money.
It's easy to run around and say, but think about what's involved. Paying personnel, food, clothing, lodging, vehicles, basic weapons, and that doesn't even scratch the surface. If anything, (when you ask a soldier), the military is underfunded.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Wed Apr 27, 2005 7:38 pm |
|
I think the whole operation needs cuts, except perhaps the research and development departments. If they're underfunded it's because they're fielding too many troops in too many places. We're not obligated to be the world's police force. Stop putting troops in all these other countries, then lay off the troops. Build fewer new ships and planes. Shrink the operation so they don't need the money. I think our military is too big. Period.
Last edited by Zeke Zabertini on Wed Apr 27, 2005 7:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Wed Apr 27, 2005 7:48 pm |
|
Hmmm....
I see.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Wed Apr 27, 2005 8:16 pm |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | I think the whole operation needs cuts, except perhaps the research and development departments. If they're underfunded it's because they're fielding too many troops in too many places. We're not obligated to be the world's police force. Stop putting troops in all these other countries, then lay off the troops. Build fewer new ships and planes. Shrink the operation so they don't need the money. I think our military is too big. Period. |
Your idea is basically lowering security by removing troops and not adding new units for better security.
The U.S. needs to build more ships, more planes, and add more troops to better its security and protect America.
Cutting things down just makes this country weaker military wise.
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Wed Apr 27, 2005 8:22 pm |
|
We're already the strongest by an order of magnitude. There's simply no need to continue putting that kind of funding into the armed forces in the name of protection. If our military is supposed to be protecting us, why aren't they here? Why are they protecting us from the other side of the world? Our military isn't being used to defend us, it's being used to further our interests in the world at large. I don't like that, especially since my taxes pay for it.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Apr 28, 2005 12:05 am |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | We're already the strongest by an order of magnitude. There's simply no need to continue putting that kind of funding into the armed forces in the name of protection. If our military is supposed to be protecting us, why aren't they here? Why are they protecting us from the other side of the world? Our military isn't being used to defend us, it's being used to further our interests in the world at large. I don't like that, especially since my taxes pay for it. |
You are just plain WRONG They ARE defending us. Sure, it's not simply at our homeland, but it doesn't have to be. They are defending our country OVERSEES from those who would kill us here. The best defense is a good offense, and the best offense is a good defense.
But borgslayer is right. We should INCREASE our military (like Reagan did), not bring it down.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
