Base Closure Bitchfest

Be prepared for an intense bi-partisan bitching session from the nation's politicos over the next few months. By early September, the panel who will finalise the base closure list, the BRACC, must make their decision and pass it to Bush and then Congress for signature.

Now the thing is, as I found out from John Cole, neither Bush not Congress can change the list one whit. All they can do is approve or refuse the entire list. So by September, that's it - the chance for lobbying by Senators, Governors and everyone else is gone and the list is finalised. Already, the wailing and gnashing of teeth has begun, even in states where the Pentagon list says there will be a net job gain like Texas. Maybe it's just as well for Texans, because the Texas politicos can't find their asses with both hands and a map on this - they are busy arguing about whoes schedule is most important and can't manage to all meet at the same time to discuss their plans. Why do Texans continue to support these prima-dona clowns with their votes?

I have to say though, it looks like the only states that really gain jobs are Texas, Georgia and Florida - tell me THAT isn't a political decision.

The areas that look like they lose most are the North East and California. Is it a coincidence that these are the "Blue State" parts of the country?

So although improving the military's efficiency and ability to deploy quickly is something I am all in favour of, I have to wonder if there was any political interference in the selection and reporting process. I'm a bit of a cynic about these things...

I also think there are things we aren't being told that we should be - like never mind the number of jobs lost or gained, can we have a list of estimated wageroll loss or gains for each community where bases are being closed, downsized or even upsized (or Texas-sized as it may be better to call it)? Wageroll, after all, is the really important figure. Maybe some Democrat on one of the relevant Senate comittees could ask the Pentagon to provide that chart, and quickly.

And why do there have to be cuts at all? Why not just reorganise and save the money the Pentagon want to make through closures by paying a bit less of a premium to the arms companies? As I reported the other day, they are sitting on about $10 billion cash-in-hand right now that they don't know what to do with. That amount of money would save communities from base closures for the next two years.

Would it be too much to suggest the arms companies do the patriotic thing and return it to the nation?