8:52 pm, May 29, 2015

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 3

  • Ho hum
    The usual reaction from Congress was to be expected, given its anxiety over the dreaded NIMCD/S (Not in My Congressional District/State) syndrome. The first reaction of Congressmen/women to any hint of or an actual proposal for another BRAC round of base closures has always been fear and loathing in anticpation of job losses back in their home turf. This attitude tends to reflect their dominant perception that military infrastructure exists mainly as a means of providing constituents with Federal jobs rather than one of directly supporting the defense mission of the military - which comes in at least as a distant second. This "business as usual" approach is seen in many other program areas where any Federal spending reductions are viewed almost exclusively from the same perspective. This attitude heavily contributes to our out-of-control spending problem, but the immediate short-term self-interest of our elected "leaders" (and, let's be honest, their constituents) has always been given the highest priority, with the national welfare being accorded but vague lip service support. The hypocrisy represented in this scenario is blatant and about what could be expected in any event. The Defense Department knows full well, and has frequently so stated, that its present base infrastructure is bloated and wasteful, and should be pruned back to reflect true operational needs and which would also better align existing funding resources to meet these same needs. However, don't hold your breath waiting for this paradigm to change.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Agree
    I agree but it will change due to a currency default that occurs while trying to pay for everything. You'd think they would at least close some U.S. bases in foreign lands like Germany, etc.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • BRAC saves money? Maybe. What about the contractor army?
    Honest Broker
    BRAC gives property, buildings and equipment to local politicians for pennies and then their buddies make out big. The shipyard in Charleston SC is an example where now it services Navy ships again but at a premium going to a prime contractor. Our politicians grew a giant army of contractors to HELP with the war(s) effort. Is it not time to cut them loose? What happened to all those savings promised by outsourcing? Oh yeah, POGO found out that even counting in all the Govt benefits out to 83 years old those contractors still cost 2 times to 5 times more than if we stuck with Government personnel. Wish we could say the employees make more, but actually they make less than if they were Govt. Oh that is right, the politicians and their buddies cannot make bundles of money that way. I am not so sure I share Jeremiah's assessment that a BRAC is necessary. I think the contractor army needs to go first, and then let us look at the accounting books.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }