The journey from there to here

Well, I hate to do a "spinoff" thread, but being blacklisted by the blogger because I didn't devote my blog to trashing LW for reporting death threats, and dared question his omniscience, I have no choice in the matter.

There was a recent article posted questioning whether the BRAC closings are politically motivated. The numbers were compelling on the surface, showing a large net loss of military personnel in "blue" states and a large net gain in red states.

Not knowing much about the process, I'd like to hear from people who DO know something about it. Is the BRAC list politically motivated, or, as its supporters contend, does it have safeguards against that sort of political posturing? If the latter, how is the discrepancy explained?


Comments
on May 24, 2005
I think you'll find that the politics start after the list is announced.
on May 24, 2005

I think Evorg is right.

I can't speak for many other bases, but I can tell you about one base that's on the list.

Ellsworth is a single mission base.  It's only function is to house B-1 bombers.  After the cold war ended, the MinuteMan missles were removed from Ellsworth, leaving it with just the B-1's.  Strategically, there isn't a reason to have a base there anymore; the planes and personnel could easly be moved to Dyess AFB.  It just makes financial sense to close Ellsworth. 

As ofr the political motivation...well, Tom Daschle would like us to believe that had he still been in office the base wouldn't have made the BRAC list.  I find that highly improbable, and to be honest, somewhat laughable. I think that Ellsworth made the list simply because the money keeping it open could be better spent elsewhere.

on May 24, 2005
The Whole Purpose of the BRAC was to take politics and responsibiility out of Congress' hands.  That is not to say there is no politics involved, but what is more amusing is the 'blue staters' crying fowl when they take every opportunity to trash the military anyway!
on May 24, 2005
I had posted this on the other thread too:

Here is my two cents:

1) Most military heavy areas vote Republican. The Pentagon/Bush/Rumsfeld (who ever you want to blame) are closing small bases and consolidating to larger bases. Since as I stated above, large bases are usually in Red States because of the heavy red military votes.

2) Check out the cost of living in the Blue States. New York, CA, DC, MA, HA .... All of which have the highest cost of living in the nation, compare that to GA, OK..... Just try and buy a home in CA for less then a half million now days. Most likely the only thing you will find is a trailer home in Eureka, far from any military postings.

3) Unions drive up the cost of labor and Blue states are usually Union states. So moving personnel and contracts to right to work States make good financial sense.

4) But finally the old saying "To the Victor, comes the spoils". It don't matter who is in office, the Victor's States will benefit. For the years that Sen. Harry Reid was the Senate Majority Whip and head of the Senate Budget Committee the local Air National Guard here got millions of Dollars pumped into new facilities, but now it is being closed because it cost to much to maintain those expensive facilities. Kind of ironic isn't it?

Personally I think South Dakota got jipped. But I believe this list had been made way back before the last election, when the state was still blue and hosted a thorn in the side.


I beleive that the closings are 95% based on money and 5% on politics.