Military Pork: Every American’s Right?

Guest Post by Morbo

During the 2004 elections, Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist stood outside Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota and promised residents that they had nothing to fear by tossing Tom Daschle out of office and replacing him with John Thune. Frist said he would see to it that Ellsworth remained open.

The Pentagon has just released a long list of military bases to be closed. Ellsworth is on the list. As Nelson Muntz from “The Simpsons” is fond of saying, “Ha, ha!”

Of course Ellsworth is a long way from closing. As soon as the list was released, senators and House members began vowing to fight the closures. Several more steps must occur before any moth-balling takes place. Frist might save Ellsworth (and Thune’s job) yet.

That’s too bad. It seems obvious that decisions like base closures should be based on the needs of the military, not political pressure campaigns emanating from communities that have grown accustomed to riding the federal gravy train. The Armed Services are not a welfare program for depressed farm-belt states.

Judging by the way some Americans act, you would think military pork was a God-given right. The fact is, the needs of the military do change. Old problems fade away, and new challenges arise. Our military exists to defend America, not provide jobs in the middle of nowhere in South Dakota.

For a White House as partisan as this one, it’s no surprise that some have charged that some of the closings are motivated by politics. A recent New York Times article mentioned a report that noted that blue states stand to lose more than 24,000 military and civilian jobs while red states gain nearly 12,000.

Yet there are some surprising red state targets on the list. States don’t come any redder than Mississippi, yet that state is slated to lose Pascagoula Naval Station.

The base closings will hit affected communities hard, but they’re probably necessary. The Times put it well in a recent editorial:

By closing and consolidating facilities it no longer requires, the Pentagon would free about $5 billion a year for the additional personnel and equipment it needs very badly…. [T]he Pentagon deserves credit anytime it musters the courage to redirect money from areas that are politically popular but militarily redundant.

Of all forms of pork, the military type is the worst because it’s ruinously expensive. When a member of Congress slips a rider into an appropriations bill to earmark $400 million to build yet another bridge in Peoria, that is at least a one-time expenditure. By contrast, military pork is like Niagara Falls: It just keeps flowing. As The Times noted, the Pentagon has spent $2 billion to build the C-130J transport aircraft, even though the vehicle “cannot airlift troops and equipment into combat areas, cannot be used in search-and-rescue missions and does not operate well in bad weather.” Too many members of Congress, it seems, represent districts that have a stake in this piece of aircraft, so we keep cranking them out. (Reading this description, would you let your son or daughter ride in one?)

Red state folks in the heartland seem to believe they are more patriotic than the rest of us French-loving, anti-war peaceniks. Here’s their chance to prove it by looking beyond narrow parochial interests and accepting what’s right for the country. Using political pressure to force the Pentagon to keep an obsolete military base open just because it provides an economic boost to an otherwise desolate area of your state isn’t patriotic. In fact, it’s the exact opposite. After all, the Pentagon might be able to use the money saved by closing the base to do something really radical — like buy proper armor for our troops in Iraq.

Residents of red Midwestern farm states are also prone to lecturing the rest of us on the value of hard work and good old-fashioned ingenuity. Given that the red states win overall with this closing plan, I have a simple message to South Dakotans: Let Ellsworth go, and pick yourself up by your boot-straps. Quit demanding that the federal government subsidize an outmoded Air Force base. Stand on your own two feet. Stop your carping. You sound a lot like welfare queens with tractors.

hahahahah this was hilarious. Specially the ending.

  • I think alot of these bases were put on the list to be ‘saved’ in time for the midterms. Valiant repubs will fight against all odds and win triumphant victories at the last minute. Something about this has the distinct aroma of fish.

    I’m thinking of recommended closings in PA, and Santorum, who is in deep trouble, and desparately needs help with non-theocrats.

    We need to keep an eye on where the targetted bases do NOT close.

  • Enlighten me. Isn’t this an all-or-nothing list? I thought Congress’ only role was to vote acceptance or non-acceptance of the whole list.

  • Actually, the base-closing list is all-or-nothing. Under the authorizing legislation for the commission (passed back in the late ’80s), Congress has to accept or reject its recommendations en bloc, and can’t single out particular bases to be spared. On the other hand, neither house of the 109th Congress has demonstrated much respect for long-established procedural rules thus far…

  • Congress may have to vote yea or nay to the entire list, but it can also let it be known where it is likely and unlikely to vote yea. This is especially true if they vote nay and a new list needs to be generated. Again, lets keep an eye on which bases on the original list remain open.

  • Sadly enough, I work hard on the Daschle campaign and the closing list came with an “I told you so” on my part. The sad thing is, Ellsworth outscored Dyess (where all the bombers are going) on most everything in the point system except weather, location, and some other pointless things.

    It’s a shame that South Dakota will once again be ignored due to a bunch of Republican one-issue (abortion) voters. Just because I voted for Daschle I am not a baby killer!

  • Our military exists to defend America, not provide jobs in the middle of nowhere …

    i wish. our military exists to “grow” the economy.

  • First, a little math. the BRAC closures are slated to ‘save’ $49 billion over 20 years. That’s not $49 billion a year, that’s $49/20… The last time I looked at the DoD’s budget (without extra $85 billion supplementals, etc…), it was somewhere around $460 billion, PER YEAR!!! Folks, these closures are bullshit pocket-change. It doesn’t cost the military very much to keep them running, and the REAL costs are elsewhere…
    Besides, in a post 9/11 era, do you really want to have all of your eggs in one basket? This BRAC round promises to put, for example, all of the U.S.’s long-range bombers on only TWO bases… should save some money (i.e. on maintenance, storage, etc.), but think about it for a moment… They keep telling us that a terrorist could get ahold of a nuclear device. What would happen, for example, if a terrorist managed to blow up a nuke on a base holding half of our long-range bombers??? Wouldn’t that be rather crippling to our military’s ability to respond to threats? Or what if they hit Ft. Hood, or one of the other ‘mega’ bases, which under BRAC would hold a significant percentage of our military strength?
    In this time, we would be much better advised to spread out our strength, so that any individual strike would not compromise the whole. This BRAC list would shut down one of three facilities which can handle nuclear submarines… Isn’t that significant? Now any opponent has a 30% reduced target area to affect our ability to service our submarines…
    This BRAC list should be killed. Its benefits are insignificant, and its cost may be far more than we are aware of.

  • Comments are closed.