Saturday, November 27, 2004

Nah, It's Cool. We Didn't Need Those Jobs Anyway.

So, current Administration - you're fighting a war (or is that two? what was that other place farther North again?), gearing up for another in Iran, dealing with personnel shortages that require recalling 1000s of troops who thought they had served their time already. What's the best thing to do?

Close some more bases.

But not just any bases. The smartest bases to close would definitely be those on th edges of the country - the ones close to borders or on the edge of the country closest to countries like, say, North Korea.

Yeah, that's the ticket:

Across the nation, state and local governments are gearing up, both to protect local bases and to grab jobs that will be lost in other states. Though California is widely seen as the most vulnerable state, it has been slow to react and made only a modest effort to influence the outcome.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld aims to eliminate nearly a quarter of the military's infrastructure, which is considered surplus to the Defense Department's long-term mission of fighting terrorists and limited wars. The closures could equal all the reductions in the four previous rounds of consolidation combined.
The article discusses, realistically, the role of politics (bases at risk in CA, with hard lobbying coming from Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, and Maryland. Three out of four of those performed quite well in 2004).

Hopefully, of course, these closures will enable the government to refund more tax money - maybe as much as the average $300 of the last refund. Families, of course, will be free to invest that in their own anti-terrorism measures like duct tape, gas masks, and cipro.

Is anyone else concerned with this kind of planning?

No comments: