Re: [CPEO-MEF] Boxer Opposes Closure Proposal

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

(from Ian Ray <Ihray@aol.com>)

What's with a U.S. Senator opposing closure of surplus bases?  Surplus
is 
surplus.  Un-needed expenditures are un-needed expenditures.  Boxer's
data to 
show unfair treatment of California does not cut it.  What is the 
proportionate share of the nation's bases for California?  How is that 
relevant?  How is proportionality measured - by land area, by money
spent, by 
number of employees, etc?

And proportionality is not the only criterion for deciding closure.

Nope. California's 29 closed bases are not cleaned up.  Yep. It'll cost
a lot 
of money - maybe 200 million per year for 20 years will not be enough. 
How 
about stopping the expense and pollution of surplus bases and applying
the 
money to the closed bases?  But that doesn't get votes at home.

The reason for a closure-commission separate from congress is to take
the 
partisan political vote-getting out of the picture, and serve the
nation's 
needs.

The reference to "painful round of military base closures" is more of
current 
thinking that necessary actions should be put off because we would have
to 
think about and manage new situations and smaller government.  I say tough.

Ian Ray, Vancouver, WA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~