Military Bases: Community Entitlements

The recommendations of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission are out, and naturally the communities that are losing bases are pitching fits. Bases aren't primarily for national defense, apparently, they're a source of taxpayer dollars to subsidize local economies. I'm always amazed by some of the communities that complain about losing bases.

Take Massachusetts, for example. The military for decades has tried to close bases in the Commonwealth because the cost of stationing servicemen there, and the cost of hiring the installation's civilian workforce, are high. And the left-leaning population of Massachusetts has not got a great track record on national defense. Like the most recent waffling ex-presidential candidate from that state, residents of Massachusetts have for years argued for defense cuts. Just don't cut our bases. Oh, and don't use the bases in a way that inconveniences us, either. We don't want any of those nasty, noisy airplanes cluttering the sky and disturbing our peace at Hanscom, Otis or So. Weymouth. And don't move those scary guns and tanks around the roads of our fair home during daylight hours, either. Find some nice, quiet units to put there instead, preferably ones that don't need weapons.

Within the Navy, the only real surprise seems to be that Groton is on the list. Pascagoula is largely in disuse, and Ingleside, besides being in the middle of nowhere, is high on the "I never want to go there" list. Groton has the obvious disadvantage of location - expensive, New England real estate and high cost of living. Since I'm not a Bubblehead, though, I don't really care....