posted on May 15, 2005 10:39:39 AM new
Wash- So, are you agreeing with all of my other statements other than the military bases. You managed to pick the only non-candidate topic of the bunch.
Ok, let's look at this a bit closer. You're saying it is ok to close bases during a time of war, where we have over 150,000 troops in two countries, tons of experts say we are spread too thin, military recruitment is way down, and the President used National Security as his primary platform this past election? Remember how you said, that our elected officials should be representing their constituents? Shouldn't Bush be using the available resources to truly secure our country against terrorist threats? I think this is the wrong message to give to the majority of Americans who want to feel secure and safe. Perhaps we should be using those military resources to do a better job of of securing our borders, our ports, and our airspace.
posted on May 15, 2005 11:03:09 AM new
NeartheSea: "And Helen, there an none, zero, nada, base closings in WA state."
NOT true...
I pulled this from a news story (link below):
"According to a list sent to members of Congress by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld early Friday, no major bases in the state would be closed and several would gain personnel.
The biggest gainers would be Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, which would gain 1,400 personnel, and Fort Lewis, which would gain 230 employees. McChord Air Force Base, which adjoins Fort Lewis south of Tacoma, would lose 567 employees, and several smaller National Guard bases would be closed.
posted on May 15, 2005 11:11:27 AM new
rustygumbo, no major bases closing. Some national guard bases are, and those are not that economically important (as a lot have been complaining about, the economic loss)
Fort Lewis and McChord are 'combining'.
Our major bases are some of the few that are absolutely needed.
posted on May 15, 2005 11:46:08 AM new
"none, zero, nada, base closings in WA state" does not mean "no major base closings". When they close a base, that counts as one base being closed, whether it is small or not. It still counts as a base closing. I'm sure you don't like to have words manipulated, so don't manipulate them yourself.
posted on May 15, 2005 12:12:18 PM new
woaw, sorry for the word 'manipulation'
If you watch your local news up here in WA State, when they first announced base closures, they reported that WA State was not on the list of closures.
But then if want to take a further view on the overall closures, then you would find some national guard bases being closed. Like I said, the national guard bases closures are not going to have an economic impact that a major base would.
Whidbey, Bremerton, Lewis and McChord, all are open, and as you mentioned earlier, gaining personnel.
posted on May 15, 2005 12:30:58 PM new
"[i]Isn't it funny that it took 3 counts to get Gregoire in[i]?"
Good point, Ron.
So, what does that have to do with it?
It shows a pattern with the dem party. Keep counting and recounting and recounting...until MAYBE the numbers come up the way you want them to. Perfect example - just like the gore campaign did in the 2000 elections.
And it's funny to listen to the lefties HOWL at the SUGGESTED base closings. Especially when they rarely support our military anyway. Cut..cut...cut the military was clinton's choices....and he did, by 40%. But let Rumsfeld PROPOSE which bases COULD be closed AND eliminate WASTE....they'll go nuts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 15, 2005 12:38:24 PM new
From The Associated Press:
May 14, 3:46 PM EDT
Summary: Pentagon Plans to Alter Military
IMPACT: The Pentagon's proposal to close and shrink hundreds of bases would affect surrounding communities and all service branches, shifting troops and jobs to the South and West and consolidating Reserve and Guard sites.
GAINS: Bases in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Alabama would add thousands of troops.
LOSSES: The Pentagon projects that closing bases in Groton, Conn., and Kittery, Maine, and several smaller sites in those states would mean the loss of nearly 30,000 jobs.
----
And I'll try and find the report that also says that the PROJECTIONS [again] are that 35,000 jobs will be CREATED...against those 30,000 lost. They'll just be at different bases.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 15, 2005 12:43:24 PM new
DoD Expects to Save Nearly $50 Billion
WASHINGTON, May 13, 2005 –
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld announced today that the department's recommendations to close or realign military facilities in the United States will better position U.S. forces to confront this century's threats.
Press Release•
Closure and Realignment Impacts by State
(PDF 107KB)
Services Use BRAC to Realign Forces
WASHINGTON, May 13, 2005
– The services have used the base realignment and closure process to realign active duty and reserve forces to better face the threats of the 21st century, Pentagon officials said today.
posted on May 15, 2005 12:55:56 PM new
Adding jobs in some states does little to comfort those other states which have lost more jobs than they can economically handle. So, you'll have some states that will prosper while other states go broke. Wonder if they're blue or red? BTW, northern Ohio where the impact will be felt the most is BLUE.
posted on May 15, 2005 01:04:46 PM new
From The Associated Press:
May 15, 6:40 AM EDT
Base Plan Would Alter Military Landscape
By LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) --
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is proposing to close and shrink hundreds of bases to create a leaner, more cost-effective force. If accepted, the plan would alter the domestic military landscape and greatly affect the four services branches and communities that are home to the installations.
The plan promises to shift troops and jobs from the Northeast to the Sunbelt and the West, and it would consoldiate scores of Reserve and Guard sites across the map.
Mergers throughout the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps would create super-sized multipurpose bases.
Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are to testify Monday before a congressionally chartered commission that will review the base closing proposal before sending it to President Bush this fall.
The plan recommends[b] closing or reducing forces at 62 major bases and reconfiguring hundreds of others - 775 "minor closures and realignments" to be exact - to save billions of dollars a year.
Seeking to free up money to improve warfighting capabilities, the Pentagon wants to eliminate inefficient bases, streamline services and promote "jointness" among the military branches. At the same time, the military is trying to reposition troops - in the United States and abroad - to face current threats.
"The president charged the secretary with moving our military into the 21st century and moving us beyond the Cold War. This is a significant part of that," said Powell Moore, an assistant defense secretary during Bush's first term.
On the chopping block are two major New England bases - the submarine base at Groton, Conn., and the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine - that supporters say are economic engines of the Northeast. Analysts say the bases were essential decades ago to defend against threats, mainly from the Soviets, that no longer are prevalent.
The Pentagon projects that closing the two major bases and several smaller military sites in Connecticut and Maine would mean the loss of nearly 30,000 jobs - on and off the bases. Work would shift to facilities in Norfolk, Va. and Kings Bay, Ga., defense officials say, which already provide enough fleet coverage for the Eastern seaboard.
to be continued
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 15, 2005 01:12:25 PM new
continued from above:
Under the plan, bases in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Alabama would add thousands of troops, with affected communities gaining at least 35,000 total new jobs - and an economic shot in the arm. The Pentagon estimates job creation or loss on bases by changes in the number of uniformed, civilian and contractor jobs. For jobs off base, the calculation is made on the basis of changes in the military presence.
Bases in Colorado, Nevada, Oklahoma and Texas - where land is cheaper and plentiful - would see increases, too.
Both regions would absorb troops from other domestic bases set to be closed or reduced, and from Europe and Asia, where about 170,000 U.S. troops and their families are stationed. They will be returning home as the Pentagon adjusts its worldwide presence.
In the United States, "the military is moving south, it's moving west," said Loren Thompson, a military analyst with the Lexington Institute, a think tank in Arlington, Va.
Also, military missions spread throughout the United States to defend against a Soviet nuclear attack would merge, sometimes at super-sized installations, according to Rumsfeld's plan.
For example, the F-16 fighter planes at Cannon Air Force Base in Clovis, N.M., would be used to bolster F-16 bases elsewhere and the B-1 strategic bombers at Ellsworth Air Force Base in Rapid City, S.D., would move to the other B-1 base, Dyess, near Abilene, Texas.
Many tiny Reserve and National Guard facilities also would be centralized.
Rumsfeld proposed more cost-effective operations by combining medical buildings, accounting offices, training installations, education facilities, and bases focused on technology initiatives.
"You're seeing consolidation both on the administrative side and at the war-fighting level," said David Berteau, a former acting assistant secretary of defense who oversaw base closings for the Pentagon in 1991 and 1993.
Analysts say that means all four service branches would have to change the way they now operate. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps troops would have to learn how to do their jobs differently and in concert with each other.
Steve Grundman, a former deputy undersecretary of defense during the Clinton administration, said the Pentagon has taken bold moves.
But, he said, "One of the consequences of this very impressive churn - not closing things but shuffling things around in a really precise way - is it's expensive because the receiving installations typically have to invest in the infrastructure and other costs involved." That, he said, could mean fewer upfront savings.
The Pentagon estimates the closures would save $48 billion over 20 years.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 15, 2005 01:15:21 PM new
Sigh. The entire point has been lost. It's not about jobs being created in other parts of the country. It's about taking jobs away from those states that are already in a fiscal emergency. It's about the small mom and pop stores surrounding the bases that will be forced to close up shop. It's about the hotels, restaurants and night spots in the area where the bases are located being forced to close up shop. It's about hundreds of people being pushed out of a job and no jobs there to replace them. It's about a large tax base being eliminated from states that cannot afford to have that base eliminated.
Edited to add: It's also about thousands of children who will go to bed hungry because their parents suddenly find themselves out of work. But, I guess until it hits some of you directly in your own pocketbook, you could hardly care.
Cheryl
[ edited by CBlev65252 on May 15, 2005 01:18 PM ]
posted on May 15, 2005 01:17:52 PM new
I didn't miss any point rustygumbo, may I ask why you seem to be anti-republican as to seem to be blinded by hatred?
Nearthesea they have Vancouver Barracks on the closure list, yep there is a terrorist stopping post if there ever was one. Have you ever been there rustygumbo? No gates, fences or security.
Also, just because they are on the list does not mean they are going to be closed.
Why did I bring up Oregon's governor? I work in Oregon, drive there every day, living in Vancouver, Oregon politics affect us also.
Why would I care about civil lawsuits against a mayor of city on the opposite side of the state? He should be removed from office as far as I am concerned.
Nearthesea, you are correct, 9.5 cent gas tax with 3 cents coming in this year. She is proving to be quite the non-governor. Must be why she is on the bottom of the list.
edited to add: rustygumbo do you really believe the majority of Americans support abortion? I don't recall having a vote on that. Could it be that anti-abortionists are more vocal?
Ron
[ edited by WashingtoneBayer on May 15, 2005 01:21 PM ]
posted on May 15, 2005 01:25:06 PM newAdding jobs in some states does little to comfort those other states which have lost more jobs than they can economically handle.
FIRST we didn't establish where our military bases were build based on who needed the most employment increases.
Secondly, as I have mentioned...when other bases have been closed the surrounding areas/their government have done better economically than they did when the bases were there. MORE employment than they previously had.
So, you'll have some states that will prosper while other states go broke.
LOL....SHOULD your base in OHIO be one that IS in the cuts.....how many jobs will be lost cheryl? It CAN'T be that many as there will only be -30,000 vs +30,000 for the whole US.
AND when speaking of numbers...I have to laugh because when I mention that our job employment rate grew at 267,000....the lefties here kiss that off as being no where NEAR what's needed. But here we're talking about a small loss to all BUT the two bases that will be hit the hardests....and all of a sudden those 'job numbers' gain so much more importance.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 15, 2005 01:33:32 PM new
1,000 federal jobs in one city is hardly a small number. The towns in Ohio where the bases are located are small towns that have other employers that rely on the bases for income. Even a small number in those towns is devastating. It's a domino effect. So, it's not just the small number of people at the bases that will be affected.
posted on May 15, 2005 01:42:10 PM newSigh. The entire point has been lost.
sighing now cheryl??? Your point WASN'T LOST....it was disagreed with. It's NOT going to change much in OHIO. The 30,000 that will loose their jobs aren't ALL going to be from OHIO, cheryl. That's the point. AND I've also pointed out to you that base closings don't automatically mean the civil population who previously depended on those bases for jobs are not going to have more jobs...when the land is changed into use for a different purpose.
Plus it's the same in the private sector. Say...some car maker in OHIO loses his job because a factory is shut down....yes that affects that Ohio worker...but the fact that his job WAS TRANSFERED [to say Kentucky] means the business is trying to keep afloat....save money...lower costs. Just like you do on your ebay business. AND if they wanted to move...they could move to Kentucky and still retain their job. If they CHOOSE not to move....their choice.
On the rest of your post....Ohio's just going to have to get it's act together and figure out what it needs to do if things are as bad as you say they are. Other states seem to be able to keep up with the times.
It's also about thousands of children who will go to bed hungry because their parents suddenly find themselves out of work.
LOL....more drama. If their parents KNOW the base that they work at is being closed and do nothing about finding another job....don't blame the fact their children might go hungry on anyone other than themselves....for not acting pro-actively instead of waiting until the day the base shuts it's doors. [as they have plenty of time]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 15, 2005 01:50:23 PM new
Cheryl, now I forgot what the blue and red states mean
WA state is definitly a Democratically controlled state, so I guess it is a blue state? And it is gaining on the major bases.
Ron, yeah, I watch the local news everynight, and there she is, signing yet another tax hike.
That mayor in Spokane? I could care less, unless he is molesting children
Eastern WA wants to split from Western WA. I don't blame them. Eastern Wa is not represented as much as W. WA is. Why should they care about King Co or Seattles propostions??? Some people in Eastern WA never even cross the mtns to come here, why should they care about I5 and its constructions going on, and have to pay for them with their taxes?
If I could, I'd move to Chelan county
(thats in Eastern WA, sorta the high desert of WA, I think its beautiful over there)
posted on May 15, 2005 02:04:13 PM new
Wash- see what i mean... Linda posts, "And it's funny to listen to the lefties HOWL at the SUGGESTED base closings. Especially when they rarely support our military anyway. Cut..cut...cut the military was clinton's choices....and he did, by 40%. But let Rumsfeld PROPOSE which bases COULD be closed AND eliminate WASTE....they'll go nuts." She couldn't have made my point any more clearer.
Also, I have been to Vancouver, WA. In fact, we drove right by the base yesterday on our way to some Estate Sales. What a haul that was too! We spent less than $200 and walked away with probably $1500 in ebay money.
Back to the base closings, the problem with the base closings is that it puts the US in that much more of a vunerable position to defend and/or react to an attack. Closing bases in rural areas is a bad idea because it removes the backup for an attack. How quick can a National Guard unit move from Vancouver, WA into the Columbia River if there was a problem in the ports vs. sending down troops from Puget Sound? Which group of National Guardsmen were there to respond when that airplane pilot in Scapoose claimed he was going to fly his plane into a building in Portland? It wasn't Puget Sound's base that responded. It would have taken them 20-30 minutes to get planes down here quick enough and by then.... it would be too late. The Pentagon has already proven their worthiness to plan an attack on Iraq. How many American soldiers died so far? Spreading this countries military too thin on our homeland is stupid.
posted on May 15, 2005 02:31:51 PM newShe couldn't have made my point any more clearer.
Not sure what/which 'point' you were trying to make....but as for ME personally....I believe the Pentagon has a lot better knowledge of where our bases need to be than you do.
And clinton reduced our military to pay off the deficit VS this being to put our military bases where they're MOST needed. clinton took the military to small enough numbers that now other democrats have argued...we're stretched too thin. THIS administration has been working to INCREASE the number of our military since President Bush took office.
Most American's are quite aware of which party they count on to protect this Nation...and it's NOT the democratic one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 15, 2005 03:07:23 PM new
Linda- "She couldn't have made my point any more clearer." and "Not sure what/which 'point' you were trying to make....but as for ME personally...."
Washington posted earlier "I support base closures, takes people off the government teat. I guess saving 50 Billion is not allowed."
My response: "Yeah, funny how that works... It is a matter of convenience when Bush is President. Republicans closing bases are ok because falls under "budget cuts", but when a Democrat is in office, Republicans cry foul claiming Dems are "anti military". Bush is putting this country on a dangerous path of self destruction. Closing bases will only create further problems. Where are all those servicemen going to go when they come back from Iraq and Afghanistan? How will this compromise that 'National Security' that Bush touted?"
Linda- "I believe the Pentagon has a lot better knowledge of where our bases need to be than you do."
LOL!!!!!!!! Since the first indication that Bush and his Pentagon were going to attack Iraq I've been screaming my head off that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. I would say that should qualify me more of an expert than the Pentagon when it comes to military strategy. Hell, I even predicted six months before the attack that they would attack in March 2003. Luck? Not entirely. The US military is just too predictable, especially under Cheney's puppet.
"Most American's are quite aware of which party they count on to protect this Nation...and it's NOT the democratic one."
I'm sure that explains why we were attacked during the Bush Presidency right? How about the Bush plan in Iraq? That insurgency over there sure is laying down their arms. Give me a break Linda.
posted on May 15, 2005 04:46:29 PM new
rusty - when a Democrat is in office, Republicans cry foul claiming Dems are "anti military".
Because it's true. One only has to review the request for cuts and military expendutures to see which party supports a strong military. Proof is there.
Bush is putting this country on a dangerous path of self destruction.
I guess enough American's disagreed with your view on that issue....they re-elected him even though kerry [in one of his many reversals] said he'd be pulling our troops out of Iraq. Changed his tune again...and just recently voted FOR the war funding.
Closing bases will only create further problems. Where are all those servicemen going to go when they come back from Iraq and Afghanistan?
Why don't you read the website from the DoD that I posted. You questions will be answered there.
How will this compromise that 'National Security' that Bush touted?"
This is what I mean rusty. The dems won't ever want war...won't do what it takes to protect this country...expect do as clinton did and drop a few bombs over Iraq...or as Carter did...almost nothing. But let the party the American's truly believe IS willing to do what it takes to defend this country...and the dems just complain more. Where were/are their plans to protect us. Haven't read any. Heck clinton wouldn't even order binladen taken out when he had the chance.
No guts. No willingness to protect this Nation. No suggestions of their on...only critizism of what is being/has been done. And that's exactly why American's voted this President back into office.
When, I should say IF, your party ever gains control again of both the House and the Senate and the WH...then you can make the decisions that our elected officials will making in regard to which bases remain open....and which are not necessary to fight our 21st century war with the terrorists.
Until then...it will be their decision.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 15, 2005 04:58:23 PM new
Previous base closings....1988, 1991 & 1993.
Military Bases: Update on the Status of Bases Closed in 1988, 1991, and 1993 (Letter Report, 08/06/96, GAO/NSIAD-96-149).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
Department of Defense's (DOD) base realignment and closure (BRAC)
process, focusing on: (1) the status and extent of land sales at closing
bases; (2) whether private parties are excluded from purchasing surplus
property; and (3) the amount of federal assistance provided to
communities to promote economic conversion of closing bases.
GAO found that: (1) as of March 1996, land sales for the first three
BRAC rounds totalled $179.2 million; (2) private parties rarely bid on
the purchase of base properties because communities often request these
properties under public benefit transfers, economic development
conveyances, and noncompetitive negotiated sale authorities; (3) the
federal government plans to retain approximately 16 percent of the land
from the 23 bases reviewed; (4) although most of the land from these
bases will be requested by local reuse authorities, reuse of 15 percent
of the land remains undetermined; (5) communities plan to use the land
for industrial and office complexes, parks and recreational facilities,
residential housing, and correctional facilities; (6) although some
bases have been able to generate jobs and revenue by leasing base
properties during the conversion process, development and implementation
of reuse and disposal plans can be a lengthy process; (7) readily
marketable properties require resources for their protection and upkeep;
(8) [b]during past BRAC closure rounds, the federal government has provided
over $780 million in planning assistance, training[, and infrastructure
grants to help communities implement their redevelopment objectives; and
(9) 21 percent of the 88,433 DOD civilian jobs that were lost as a
result of the first three BRAC closure rounds have been replaced[/b]
edited to add brackets.
_________________
[ edited by Libra63 on May 15, 2005 08:57 PM ]
[ edited by Libra63 on May 15, 2005 08:59 PM ]
posted on May 15, 2005 06:57:30 PM newI've been screaming my head off that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Well...just who ARE you? Are you one of our election Congresspeople? I don't think so. And since our Nation had listened to and believe the clinton WH and it's same statements of womd....then when the Bush WH said the SAME THING....they were able to see a continuing pattern. THUS giving this President war powers. Gosh...even all those dems who also thought there were womd in Iraq.
I would say that should qualify me more of an expert than the Pentagon when it comes to military strategy.
Well....you certainly have no problem with your self-esteem. But you must remember....that means you believe you were also more qualitied that the clinton administration advisors....sec. of war...etc. too.
Hell, I even predicted six months before the attack that they would attack in March 2003. Luck? Not entirely. The US military is just too predictable lol...couldn't be because you, just like everyother American, was getting daily reports that IF saddam didn't comply we'd be going to war. Everybody knew saddam wasn't going to comply....and knew we'd be going to war.
"Most American's are quite aware of which party they count on to protect this Nation...and it's NOT the democratic one."
I'm sure that explains why we were attacked during the Bush Presidency right?
Sure does....because when AQ attacked our interests THREE times during the clinton administration he did nothing/very little about it. AQ took that as a sign of weakness....and felt confident that as bin laden said: 'American's are paper tigers'....he thought BECAUSE of clinton's actions we were all talk. President Bush proved him wrong.
How about the Bush plan in Iraq? That insurgency over there sure is laying down their arms.
Well...thank heaven your NOT a member of our Congress...because most of them have stated we're doing well in Iraq....we're being successful in many areas....and they are FREE. Something the democratic party of JFK and prior dems USED to think was pretty important for world peace. But the anti-war dems of today....would like us to lay-down for those who wish to destroy our nation. They're afraid to take any action other than talking. Well...if we hadn't had such a GREAT man in office when 9-11 came down....we'd probably STILL be SCOULDING and BARGAINING with the AQ in Afghanistan...rather than having freed them too. And Iraq would still be under saddam's rule IF you anti-war folks had your way.
But you didn't...thank heaven...and now both contries are free....both countries have and will become even more safe for the world....and many Europeans have now changed their tune about our invasion.
President Bush will go down in our History books as one of the GREAT Presidents.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on May 15, 2005 07:01 PM ]
posted on May 15, 2005 09:56:51 PM new
Gosh Linda, you are really delusional. Just curious, but how much time do you take to come up with your biased responses? Really, do you have any other life other than Vendio's RT? The fact remains, that you do one of 4 things. Lie, provide us with biased opinions, or cut and paste biased articles from newspapers and fake organizations such as, "The Constipated Conservative". Take some Pepto and get a clue that your Neonazi Fascist agenda will soon be over.
posted on May 15, 2005 10:56:29 PM new
Just saw your post, rusty. LOL....how funny. One again can't dispute the facts...so the insults start.
Guess you're the one's that delusional, rusty...MY GUY WAS RE-ELECTED....and WE have control of both Houses in Congress...must be doing something right.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
Perfect example - just like the gore campaign did in the 2000 elections. 
