Stardate 20010628.1500 (On Screen): There are military bases all over the country, and the Pentagon and the top military brass don't want most of them. For decades they've been trying to close the majority of them, and every time they do, invariably the congressman whose district the base is in will make a speech about how much damage that will do because it will "take away jobs". Well, yes. That's true. And your point is?
Military spending should not be a form of welfare. It is unfortunate that this is what it has become. Make-work jobs are a drain on the economy. And the record of base closings is interesting: in nearly every case employment in the area has risen afterwards, because it turns out that the land gets used for other things afterwards. Sometimes they become commercial airports, or office parks, or real parks, but whatever they are it usually turns out that the closing was a good thing overall for the community. But even if that were not true, the argument that people will lose their jobs should not be a factor in the decision. Bases should exist if and only if they really benefit the military.
In the 1980's this got so scummy, with attempts to close bases constantly being derailed, that Congress created a bi-partisan commission to recommend base closings and adopted rules which made it so that the resulting report could only be accepted or rejected in total, with no amendments. This did indeed result in the closing of some bases, but not enough. It's too bad that this is what it takes. (discuss)
