And Republicans love their military and farm welfare
http://www.nola.com/military/index.ssf/2013/09/military_bases_defense_contrac.html
Military bases, defense contracts, retirees bring $8.7 billion to Louisiana economy, study says
The Naval Air Station-Joint Reserve Base's main entrance in Belle Chasse. The air station is one of the region's economic engines and plays a key role in the $527 million that military installations' payroll and contracts contribute to southeast Louisiana.
(U.S. Navy)
By Paul Purpura, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune
Follow on Twitter
on September 11, 2013 at 6:21 PM, updated September 12, 2013 at 10:19 AM
The military presence and defense contracts pumped more than $8.7 billion into the Louisiana economy during the 2012 fiscal year, with almost one third of the money tied to bases and activities in the New Orleans area, according to a summary of a long-sought economic impact analysis commissioned by the state. About 82,700 Louisiana jobs -- or about 4.35 percent of the state’s employment -- are tied to the military, and the workforce generated $287 million in state and local taxes in fiscal 2012, according to the study.
The military presence alone accounted for $5.2 billion during the year, an amount that includes payroll for troops and civilians who work for the Department of Defense, U.S. Coast Guard or Louisiana Military Department, plus contracts associated with those installations. The balance includes defense contracts held by private companies in petroleum, shipbuilding and other industries, totaling $2.8 billion. Also, $637 million in pension checks was paid to the almost 24,000 military retirees living in Louisiana, according to the study.
"We strongly support our military men and women in Louisiana as well as the installations at which they are based," Louisiana Economic Development Secretary Stephen Moret said Wednesday. "Accordingly, we have committed a great deal of staff time to developing and maintaining strong relationships with military installation leaders here as well as their superiors at the Pentagon."
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/...Don-t-Even-Think-About-Closing-Military-Bases
Congress to Pentagon: Don’t Even Think About Closing Military Bases
December 18, 2015
The Defense Department has been pressing for years to close unneeded bases in the U.S., which would save billions and help gradually downsize and reconfigure the military. But that campaign has been mostly greeted with hostility on Capitol Hill.
Last March, for example, Pentagon officials argued before a Senate panel that a new Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round would pay off handsomely, producing $2 billion a year in savings by shrinking the infrastructure by only five percent, according to the Military Times.
But influential Republicans including Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, chair of the Armed Services readiness subcommittee, lashed back, noting that the last BRAC in 2005 cost the government $35 billion and yet produced little in the way of savings. “Now is not the time to spend billions of up-front dollars on another BRAC round, especially as costs for the last one have dramatically exceeded expectations,” she said
Just in case the Defense Department and the White House didn’t get the message, the GOP-controlled Congress inserted unmistakable language in the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill for fiscal 2016 barring DOD from planning another massive shutdown of military bases. “None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to propose, plan for, or execute a new additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round,” states the legislation, which is awaiting final approval by the House and Senate.
“Normally, Congress just tells an agency that they can’t spend money to do this or that,” said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. “But telling the Pentagon that they can’t spend money to propose a BRAC is the legislative equivalent of ‘don’t even think about it.’ The Administration can’t even put it in their Fiscal Year 2017 budget request next year.”
It has been a full decade since Congress last authorized a major downsizing of the military’s U.S. footprint. More than 350 installations have been closed in five BRAC rounds dating back to 1988. In an effort to insulate the decision making from politics, Congress in the past has left the nitty gritty of deciding which bases to preserve and which to close to an independent commission, and then voted to approve or reject the overall recommendations.
Related: $55 to $75 Billion--Guess How Much the New Stealth Bomber Will Cost
Given the steady decline in the number of troops and civilian workers, there is less and less of a need to maintain many sprawling and costly bases and military installations in the country. The Defense Department at one time estimated its excess or surplus infrastructure at between 18 percent and 30 percent, according to The Fiscal Times. The Pentagon’s vast real estate portfolio includes more than 562,000 buildings and structures on 523 bases, posts and centers.
At a time when Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are pressing to streamline the military and reorganize combat commands, administration officials, defense budget analysts and others are dismayed by the staunch congressional resistance to downsizing the infrastructure. This is especially alarming when the Pentagon is being showered with so much money -- $572.6 billion alone in fiscal 2016 – while little is being done to crack down on waste or adequately audit spending.
However, lawmakers argue that the timing is wrong for another BRAC amid widespread public concern about defense and the threat of ISIS terrorists. And they say that the last downsizing during the administration of Republican President George W. Bush in 2005 provided a cautionary note about the limits to savings that can be achieved by closing bases.
Mostly, House and Senate members don’t like base-closures because they are politically divisive – pitting one state against another – and they can lead to the loss of jobs and economic opportunity in their states that could become an issue during an election. Ayotte, for example, is facing a tough challenge next year from Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan and can’t afford to appear willing to risk a base closing in New Hampshire.
Related: U.S. Weapons Worth $500 Million Vanish in Yemen
“Congressmen don’t want bases closed in their districts, it’s as simple as that,” said Gordon Adams, a professor emeritus at American University and an authority on defense spending and strategy. “And that’s almost entirely what it is. The military brass would love to close bases; they would love to get the savings from consolidating infrastructure for things that they really want. They know they have too much infrastructure.”
However, the controversy isn’t cut and dried. When the last BRAC was considered and approved in 2005, the Pentagon estimated similar excess capacity to what it is claiming now, according to reports. Congress ultimately approved reducing military infrastructure by less than 3.5 percent, but at a cost of a startling $35 billion to achieve. The annual savings from that huge investment turned out to be roughly $4 billion.
Ever since then, opponents of more base closures cite the Bush administration’s costly experiment. Yet Adams said that the 2005 BRAC was different from earlier efforts because “they did more realignment than they did closure.”
Related: Army’s Plans to Cut 60,000 Could Be a Major Blow to the Economy
“What that means is taking forces from point A and grouping with them with forces at point B, consolidating bombers, consolidating fighter aircraft,” he said. “They didn’t close very many bases. But they had to do a lot of spending to reconfigure bases so that they could receive the incoming material and people.”
“Members of Congress hide behind that cost to oppose any future base closure rounds,” he added.
https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2016/september/military.php
Military Installations Worth Billions for Texas
Comptroller Study Weighs Economic Impacts
by Bruce Wright
Texans have a long and proud military tradition, and have distinguished themselves in every conflict since there was a Texas. But for many communities throughout the state, the military isn't just a focus for pride.
B-1 flight prep: Flight preparation begins for a B-1B Lancer at Dyess Air Force Base.
Photo courtesy of the U.S. Air Force
Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar recently visited a number of Texas military installations to announce the results of a new study that quantifies the economic benefits Texas derives from the presence of these facilities in our state.
The Comptroller study found that the 15 major military installations located in Texas generate more than $136.6 billion in economic activity here each year, and add $81.4 billion to our gross state product (Exhibit 1). They also generate $48.1 billion in annual personal income and support, directly and indirectly, nearly 806,000 Texas jobs.
Military bases provide a powerful seed for economic growth in a area, just like prisons, colleges, and Government centers. Care should be taken when deciding what is absolutely necessary for a given range of scenarios. Government must always try to maximize taxpayer money. Payments to foreign countries or military hardware, among other things, should always be scrutinized by truly unconflicted entities. The is no shortage of military bases in Blue states such as California and Washington State, however.
The problem we are facing in the United States is rampant corruption brought on by unethical politicians and businesses. Look at how much is spent on campaigning: Millions for a Congressional race and about a billion on the Presidency. As a potential representative, most will not have the money to run for office unless they make some unsavory promises. Save a serious financial mistake, all of these politicians retire as multimillionaires. Not bad, given their, by some standards, modest salaries. Big or connected businesses, the ones who can pay for lobbying or those who are affiliated in some way to a politician get preferential treatment versus non participating businesses. This can create a situation where cronyism is a competitive advantage over innovation, thereby reducing long term technological and business development while reducing the willing participation of others into a rigged system.
Corrupt politician specialties include renovating public schools, whether the school needs it or not, calling it money for education, for kickbacks. Transportation infrastructure is another popular method for politicians of all types to line their pockets at taxpayer’s expense. Another is “Regulation support” businesses that provide a required service for complying with Government regulations. These politician affiliated regulation support businesses also support the Party cause by making favorable statements supporting the party’s narrative. Another popular infrastructure project is stadiums. Running at a billion dollars, plus or minus, it does not take long for politicians to get rich. Democratic Seattle, WA Mayor Ron Sims ordered the teardown and replacement of a perfectly good stadium against the votes of the citizens. He resigned wealthy and as far as I know, he was never prosecuted. Last common avenue for corruption is major disasters in other countries. If there was one thing Bush, Sr. and Bill Clinton could agree on, foreign charity work was very worthwhile. Very little of US donations actually ended up in the hands of the poor people who needed the money the most. Can anyone offer a theory where the donations, which included US individual contributions, went?
Our political process needs a major overhaul. Both parties are complicit. The penalty for US citizens not acting quickly and decisively is continued loss of our rights and economic options. Look at the enslavement power of high college tuition and healthcare premiums. The cost of college and healthcare are not regulated by a truly free market. For decades, healthcare and tuition costs have far outstripped the rate of inflation with an arguable reduction in quality. The third party payment system is certainly a part of this. The other part may be a systemic effort by the Globalists to enforce higher productivity on those people who want a higher standard of living than subsidies can provide, but are not well connected politically or do not have exceptional talent or money to begin with.
Organize by talking to others and sharing ideas, gathering petitions, and making politicians hear our unified voice, regardless of race, sex, political affiliation, etc. We could offer the corrupt politicians amnesty for their quick departure. In the alternative, we could resort to selective boycotts of politically favored companies and civic “disobedience”, where we no longer recognize those who are frequently seen in DC as our representatives.
