• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Base Realignment and Closure

WOuld you support another round of BRAC?

  • Yes

    Votes: 9 90.0%

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other/maybe/my answer is too complex to give a yes or no answer

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • Total voters
    10
Redress

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,982
Reaction score
60,536
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Source for this: White House lists issues with Senate defense policy bill | TheHill

The part I am asking about:

One of the issues the Trump administration has with the Senate's version of an annual defense policy bill is that it prohibits military base closures. Trump has requested a new round of BRAC, Base Realignment and Closure. You can read a bit about the history of BRAC here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Realignment_and_Closure

The Trump administration, plus some in the senate, argue that BRAC is needed to close down and stop spending on unneeded facilities and infrastructure. Congress resists BRAC efforts largely out of fear of the economic impact in areas with a base that gets closed.

And so, the question: Would you support or oppose another round of BRAC?
 
Redress said:
And so, the question: Would you support or oppose another round of BRAC?
Click to expand...

I suppose it would depend on whether the facilities are really unneeded or not and how much money would be saved.

Probably should close a bunch of our international bases first though. Wonder how much we spend on that.
 
It's a subject that needs to be addressed from time to time. Quite simply, there are bases out there that no longer serve a logistical or strategic purpose. If functions at those bases can be reassigned to another base then it's time for a closure.

We're dealing with that issue here in Tucson. Davis-Monthan is a A-10 training base and if the A-10s go away so does that mission for the base. Granted, we're in a different situation down here because AMARG (the "aircraft boneyard") won't go away but a lot of the military functions will disappear. That also presents a problem for a lot of the retirees in the area who generally use base medical and commissary services.
 
Redress said:
Source for this: White House lists issues with Senate defense policy bill | TheHill

The part I am asking about:

One of the issues the Trump administration has with the Senate's version of an annual defense policy bill is that it prohibits military base closures. Trump has requested a new round of BRAC, Base Realignment and Closure. You can read a bit about the history of BRAC here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Realignment_and_Closure

The Trump administration, plus some in the senate, argue that BRAC is needed to close down and stop spending on unneeded facilities and infrastructure. Congress resists BRAC efforts largely out of fear of the economic impact in areas with a base that gets closed.

And so, the question: Would you support or oppose another round of BRAC?
Click to expand...

In principal? Sure. In Detail? You'd have to check each case.
 
Redress said:
Source for this: White House lists issues with Senate defense policy bill | TheHill

The part I am asking about:

One of the issues the Trump administration has with the Senate's version of an annual defense policy bill is that it prohibits military base closures. Trump has requested a new round of BRAC, Base Realignment and Closure. You can read a bit about the history of BRAC here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Realignment_and_Closure

The Trump administration, plus some in the senate, argue that BRAC is needed to close down and stop spending on unneeded facilities and infrastructure. Congress resists BRAC efforts largely out of fear of the economic impact in areas with a base that gets closed.

And so, the question: Would you support or oppose another round of BRAC?
Click to expand...


many within Trump's so called base won't like it if he starts whittling away at the military & its' facilities

that could be bad news for Donnie .........
 
Redress said:
Source for this: White House lists issues with Senate defense policy bill | TheHill

The part I am asking about:

One of the issues the Trump administration has with the Senate's version of an annual defense policy bill is that it prohibits military base closures. Trump has requested a new round of BRAC, Base Realignment and Closure. You can read a bit about the history of BRAC here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Realignment_and_Closure

The Trump administration, plus some in the senate, argue that BRAC is needed to close down and stop spending on unneeded facilities and infrastructure. Congress resists BRAC efforts largely out of fear of the economic impact in areas with a base that gets closed.

And so, the question: Would you support or oppose another round of BRAC?
Click to expand...

I have an issue with government policy based on how it affects some Congresscritters quest for votes.

We don't need the bases, we close the bases. Simple as that.
 
Lutherf said:
Granted, we're in a different situation down here because AMARG (the "aircraft boneyard") won't go away but a lot of the military functions will disappear. That also presents a problem for a lot of the retirees in the area who generally use base medical and commissary services.
Click to expand...

I was stationed at Cecil Fields Fla which has been closed. However, there are two facilities run in that place now, though for alot less money than keeping the whole airbase open.
 
joG said:
In principal? Sure. In Detail? You'd have to check each case.
Click to expand...

Done as in the past, there is a commission made up mostly(entirely?) of military people who examine details and decide which bases can be closed. Each community can then make the case that the economic harm would be too great and the base should be kept open. How well the system has worked, I cannot say for sure, but there is a system to try and make the right decisions.
 
cuban smokes said:
many within Trump's so called base won't like it if he starts whittling away at the military & its' facilities

that could be bad news for Donnie .........
Click to expand...

That's nonsense. Neither party has much interest in saving taxpayers money. Especially if it means a layoff and possibly a vote lost.
 
Redress said:
Done as in the past, there is a commission made up mostly(entirely?) of military people who examine details and decide which bases can be closed. Each community can then make the case that the economic harm would be too great and the base should be kept open. How well the system has worked, I cannot say for sure, but there is a system to try and make the right decisions.
Click to expand...

It sounds like a good way to go. We would also save a lot of money by moving most of our NATO assets to less wealthy members in East Europe. That would also help the countries over there. Moving headquarters from Brussels to Bucharest or Rammstein to Poland would mean a panacea to those areas and stabilize the Eastern borders.
 
Redress said:
Source for this: White House lists issues with Senate defense policy bill | TheHill

The part I am asking about:

One of the issues the Trump administration has with the Senate's version of an annual defense policy bill is that it prohibits military base closures. Trump has requested a new round of BRAC, Base Realignment and Closure. You can read a bit about the history of BRAC here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Realignment_and_Closure

The Trump administration, plus some in the senate, argue that BRAC is needed to close down and stop spending on unneeded facilities and infrastructure. Congress resists BRAC efforts largely out of fear of the economic impact in areas with a base that gets closed.

And so, the question: Would you support or oppose another round of BRAC?
Click to expand...

I've been through a couple of these. BRAC in the end is politically motivated and the results are purely political. If your congressman or senator has a lot of clout, no bases get closed in your area. Don't have enough clout, bases go. Or have a congressman of another party than the president, chances are his base gets closed than a congressman of the same party.

2010 led to the closures of Ft. McPherson, Ft. Gillem, home to FORSCOM, 3rd Army or ARCENT, and 1st Army. All three were moved to different bases. Also Ft. McPherson was home to DISA's Southeast communications hub. That too needed to be moved. All told, brand new buildings at Ft. Bragg, Shaw AFB and Rock Island were built with all the bells and whistles to house those units. Since communications can't be shut down to make a move, all brand new communications equipment had to be bought and installed at DISA's new location before the old was shut down.

I don't know the exact price for all of this, but it had to be in the hundreds of millions just to close two bases. Then too employees of those units received hefty bonuses to move with the unit and all sorts of benefits at the new locations. I know, I moved from Ft. McPherson to Ft. Bragg just for the money. It was estimated that the cost savings for closing those two bases, wouldn't break even until at least 20 years and maybe 30 or more. Then there was the cost of cleanup at Ft. Gillem since before being renamed Ft. Gillem it was the old Atlanta Army Depot which burred a lot of material back in the day. WWII before the environment was even thought of.

Why close them down? A switch of parties for the congressman whose district both Forts were in. Remember BRAC was done during Bush and a Democratic congressman from Atlanta representing those Forts, well you get the picture. Originally Ft. Gordon was scheduled to be close, but wasn't A Republican won that seat and saved that fort.

When we had Sam Nunn as a senator, no post were ever closed in Georgia. He retired which left Georgia open to base closures. Politics and not necessarily the needs of the military is taken into consideration. It is exactly like congress using the military for a civilian jobs creation and maintaining rather than national defense and security.
 
Perotista said:
I've been through a couple of these. BRAC in the end is politically motivated and the results are purely political. If your congressman or senator has a lot of clout, no bases get closed in your area. Don't have enough clout, bases go. Or have a congressman of another party than the president, chances are his base gets closed than a congressman of the same party.

2010 led to the closures of Ft. McPherson, Ft. Gillem, home to FORSCOM, 3rd Army or ARCENT, and 1st Army. All three were moved to different bases. Also Ft. McPherson was home to DISA's Southeast communications hub. That too needed to be moved. All told, brand new buildings at Ft. Bragg, Shaw AFB and Rock Island were built with all the bells and whistles to house those units. Since communications can't be shut down to make a move, all brand new communications equipment had to be bought and installed at DISA's new location before the old was shut down.

I don't know the exact price for all of this, but it had to be in the hundreds of millions just to close two bases. Then too employees of those units received hefty bonuses to move with the unit and all sorts of benefits at the new locations. I know, I moved from Ft. McPherson to Ft. Bragg just for the money. It was estimated that the cost savings for closing those two bases, wouldn't break even until at least 20 years and maybe 30 or more. Then there was the cost of cleanup at Ft. Gillem since before being renamed Ft. Gillem it was the old Atlanta Army Depot which burred a lot of material back in the day. WWII before the environment was even thought of.

Why close them down? A switch of parties for the congressman whose district both Forts were in. Remember BRAC was done during Bush and a Democratic congressman from Atlanta representing those Forts, well you get the picture. Originally Ft. Gordon was scheduled to be close, but wasn't A Republican won that seat and saved that fort.

When we had Sam Nunn as a senator, no post were ever closed in Georgia. He retired which left Georgia open to base closures. Politics and not necessarily the needs of the military is taken into consideration. It is exactly like congress using the military for a civilian jobs creation and maintaining rather than national defense and security.
Click to expand...

What I was told was that the cost to close a base, which as you state is really high, is recovered after 10 years of not having to pay the cost of the base(which is also really high) operating expenses. Now, I cannot verify that but I trust the source. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the base I was stationed at, NAS Cecil Fields was closed. The announcement of the decision happened when I was in. When I attended separation class(I forget what it was called), one person also taking the class was the base XO(who was fighting a losing battle with the body fat standard and decided the time was right to get out). He is my source for that claim, so take it for what it is worth.
 
Redress said:
What I was told was that the cost to close a base, which as you state is really high, is recovered after 10 years of not having to pay the cost of the base(which is also really high) operating expenses. Now, I cannot verify that but I trust the source. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the base I was stationed at, NAS Cecil Fields was closed. The announcement of the decision happened when I was in. When I attended separation class(I forget what it was called), one person also taking the class was the base XO(who was fighting a losing battle with the body fat standard and decided the time was right to get out). He is my source for that claim, so take it for what it is worth.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are plenty of smaller bases that it is really cost effective to close. Even some bigger ones. It is probably on a base for base basis.. I have no doubt your XO was right on his base. I do have to laugh that FORSCOM built a new Headquarters building, along with USARC around 10 years prior to the closing. Both were very secure buildings with the basement cleared for Top Secret which DISA southeast hub was located among with many other things. The cost with the bells and whistles was in the millions.

Replace them with new headquarters buildings with more bells and whistles at other places. No need to get into it all. But the closing was more political than based on the needs of the military.
 
Depends on the base, but I'm sure there are tons out there that are unnecessary and we pay way too much for. So sure, get rid of the dead weight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom