Military Base Closings.......

[aloft]

Just in case anyone believes the selections were based on a purely objective basis, free of politics:
[ QUOTE ]
President Bush's home state of Texas could gain more than 9,000 military jobs even while losing four major installations and several smaller ones, and Florida, where the president's brother is governor, would add 2,575 jobs overall while losing none of its bases.

[/ QUOTE ]

 

[kellwolf]

While I agree with you, it could be spun in a "border protection" way. Ya know protecting TX and it's oil from the Mexicans and FL and Disney from the Cubans.....

 

[Sean_S]

[ QUOTE ]
Just in case anyone believes the selections were based on a purely objective basis, free of politics:
[ QUOTE ]
President Bush's home state of Texas could gain more than 9,000 military jobs even while losing four major installations and several smaller ones, and Florida, where the president's brother is governor, would add 2,575 jobs overall while losing none of its bases.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Wonder if his cousins or some other relatives live in the other states that will be adding jobs? Maybe his neighbor’s dog groomer’s sisters live in OK, CO, KS, and the list goes on…..

Sure is easy to be selective with facts to make your point. It also helps to provide accurate facts for your arguments! You might want to change that 9k gain in TX to 6k. Maybe you should look at some more info before you make a statement like that, you might notice that most of the base closures and job losses are in areas that not only have a high cost of living but a high cost of ownership for the government. You think it is cheaper to have a base in the North East or the Midwest?

 

[tonyw]

Hmmm.....no, no politics at all here. Not whatsoever. Politics NEVER plays a role in base closings. I'm amazed that anyone would think that.

And I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell you, as well as some swampland in the Everglades.

 

[Sean_S]

Sure, politics play a role but too many people have a say in base closings to allow it to be strictly political. I am sure Bush like any other politician would love to keep as many jobs in their home state as they can (wouldn't you). I don’t care how politically motivated the decisions are but I do care that they make sense, I want the most made of my tax money. I just find it funny that the first people to bash Bush for wasting money are also the first to bash his administration for saving money. Hell I hate the Bush Administration but to insinuate that his political agenda supersedes common sense is just ignorant!

 

[flyover]

[ QUOTE ]
I just find it funny that the first people to bash Bush for wasting money are also the first to bash his administration for saving money.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a two-fer. You get to hit him going both ways, feels good, requires no critical thinking.

 

[kellwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
Hell I hate the Bush Administration but to insinuate that his political agenda supersedes common sense is just ignorant!

[/ QUOTE ]

The two are not mutually exclusive. He can have a politcal agenda that is common sense AND helps his buddies out. Instead of closing bases in TX or FL to save money, his admin closes them somewhere else and moves the equipment to TX and FL.

 

[Mike Lewis]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/19/base.closings.ap/index.html

Looks like they may add another 12 or so bases to the list...

 

[BCTAv8r]

Fl is so lucky. We're getting a bunch of aircraft. Homestead is getting a bunch of F-16s and I think Eglin AFB is getting Grand Fork's KCs.

 

[GatorFC]

I was surprised to see in another article that NAS Oceana had been added to the list since it is basically the Navy's principal East Coast fighter base. It is Virginia Beach's largest employer, and I remember fondly watching Hornets and Tomcats practicing approaches as I drove down Oceana Blvd. when I was stationed at Dam Neck.

It was also maddening to hear the complaints from the NIMBY types up there when, as is usually the case, they were the ones that started to encroach upon what was once an airfield in the middle of nowhere.

 

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
I was surprised to see in another article that NAS Oceana had been added to the list since it is basically the Navy's principal East Coast fighter base. It is Virginia Beach's largest employer, and I remember fondly watching Hornets and Tomcats practicing approaches as I drove down Oceana Blvd. when I was stationed at Dam Neck.

It was also maddening to hear the complaints from the NIMBY types up there when, as is usually the case, they were the ones that started to encroach upon what was once an airfield in the middle of nowhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Encroachment is a huge problem for Oceana, as well as Fentress auxilary field where they practice carrier work. Too much cultural lighting around there, noise and use restrictions, and training is becoming unrealistic, hence unsafe, for the crews.

 

[Mike Lewis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was surprised to see in another article that NAS Oceana had been added to the list since it is basically the Navy's principal East Coast fighter base. It is Virginia Beach's largest employer, and I remember fondly watching Hornets and Tomcats practicing approaches as I drove down Oceana Blvd. when I was stationed at Dam Neck.

It was also maddening to hear the complaints from the NIMBY types up there when, as is usually the case, they were the ones that started to encroach upon what was once an airfield in the middle of nowhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Encroachment is a huge problem for Oceana, as well as Fentress auxilary field where they practice carrier work. Too much cultural lighting around there, noise and use restrictions, and training is becoming unrealistic, hence unsafe, for the crews.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like we could always implement my solution to base closings AND encroachment: just close all of the existing bases and move everyone to a super-base in the middle of nowhere in North Dakota. After all, then you would only need one support unit (one exchange, one hospital, one MPF, one MWR, etc) for the entire AF...

 

[BCTAv8r]

Either that or combine all services and make four large bases around the US.

 

[derg]

[ QUOTE ]
just close all of the existing bases and move everyone to a super-base in the middle of nowhere in North Dakota. After all, then you would only need one support unit (one exchange, one hospital, one MPF, one MWR, etc) for the entire AF...

[/ QUOTE ]

...and one Soviet ICBM!

 

[Mike Lewis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
just close all of the existing bases and move everyone to a super-base in the middle of nowhere in North Dakota. After all, then you would only need one support unit (one exchange, one hospital, one MPF, one MWR, etc) for the entire AF...

[/ QUOTE ]

...and one Soviet ICBM!

[/ QUOTE ]

What's a Soviet?

 

[applepwnz]

All I can say is I'm glad that Otis isn't getting shut down, maybe those guys at the 101st FS actually DO have a chance of getting their F-16s this year... or next... or someday (probably when everyone else is flying JSFs and F-22s then they'll get F-16s.)

 

[Mike Lewis]

[ QUOTE ]
All I can say is I'm glad that Otis isn't getting shut down, maybe those guys at the 101st FS actually DO have a chance of getting their F-16s this year... or next... or someday (probably when everyone else is flying JSFs and F-22s then they'll get F-16s.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it saved? Last I heard, it was still on the chopping block.

It makes sense to keep it open, though - where were the first planes on the scene on Sept 11th from? Otis...

I heard that Pennsylvania is suing over the BRAC process, saying that ANG bases are the domain of the state and NOT the domain of the Federal government. That could be good for the ANG bases and bad for the AD bases, as if they can't get the savings from the ANG bases, it will mean more AD bases will be cut to make up the difference.

 

[Windchill]

[ QUOTE ]
I heard that Pennsylvania is suing over the BRAC process, saying that ANG bases are the domain of the state and NOT the domain of the Federal government. That could be good for the ANG bases and bad for the AD bases, as if they can't get the savings from the ANG bases, it will mean more AD bases will be cut to make up the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe for the most part, ANG bases or "units" are federally funded though. The pay checks everyone receives is federally funded, as most of the costs going toward infrastructure.

 

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]

I heard that Pennsylvania is suing over the BRAC process, saying that ANG bases are the domain of the state and NOT the domain of the Federal government. That could be good for the ANG bases and bad for the AD bases, as if they can't get the savings from the ANG bases, it will mean more AD bases will be cut to make up the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Problem is, the Feds own the equipment. So they can take the equipment, leave the unit and the installation with the State to do whatever they want to do with. Question is, will the feds reimburse the state for the mods the state has paid for on the aircraft they were using.....in the sense of that ANG F-16s and A-10s are far more capable than the active duty ones due to these state-funded upgrades.

 

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
All I can say is I'm glad that Otis isn't getting shut down, maybe those guys at the 101st FS actually DO have a chance of getting their F-16s this year...

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would they want them? Theye already fly Eagles.