Comments about ‘Protect Hill’

I disagree with Mr. Smith's comments about the Utah Delegation. The threat of cuts or base closures affecting Hill AFB are mostly due to the Obama Administration's spending priorities. The delegation has fought against the almost Trillion dollar cuts in defense spending by Obama over the past three years, but the Democratic Senate under Harry Reid's leadership have made protecting defense impossible in budget fights. It's all about spending priorities. Obama has no trouble spending our tax dollars on bailouts and handouts... trillions with nothing to show except bankrupt Solyndra, and billions going to Obama's union political base at Government Motors.

Utahn have to stand up and say they will be honest and consistent. You can't say "cut government" and expect the cuts to be made for everyone else but you. If the military, looking at the big picture, decides Hill needs to go, you may not like it, but Utahns will get exactly what they asked for. I laugh when people say government doesn't create jobs. That is utter nonsense. Tell it to the people who will lose their jobs, both on the base and off. The funny thing is, who gets hurt? The middle class, not the wealthy who pay a disproportionate share of taxes and have their economic activity shifted somewhere else. No big deal. The average Hill employee or the off-base small business owner who will be impacted won't have that luxury.

In these times of decreasing dollars, the mission of every military installation needs to be scrutinized. The bases with the most efficient workers, the most important mission, and the most "bang for the buck" need to be maintained, not simply the ones in political boundaries that meet with your approval. If Hill's mission isn't deemed important enough by a non-partisan commission, then it should be closed down.

A military installation is not just a job-placement service, but a vital link in the defense of this country. Keeping a base open just to appease the constituents in that area is foolish and smacks of hypocrisy.

BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) is the process that the government uses to determine which bases stay open and which close. The list submitted to the President is to be accepted or rejected in its entirety.

Hill is an excellent example of a cost effective base that exceeds expectations. As long as it continues to exceed expectations, the BRAC people will continue to keep it off the closure list.

Of course, Mr. Obama has never been know to favor efficiency over union contracts, so he may change the rules - if given a chance. The best and most effective way to keep Hill open is to see that Obama is a one-term President.

@Mike Richards

"...Of course, Mr. Obama has never been know to favor efficiency over union contracts,"

If you don't think that the employees at HAFB are not union members, then you are sorely mistaken or just naive. The civilian employees at HAFB have a very strong union membership and a very strong union presence - as much as any other military base in the US.

If you're going to blame a group of people for something at least spell the name correctly. It's "Tea Part" not Tae Party"

If we are really serious about cutting government spending, then we ALL need to be ready to accept the sacrifices that will be required.

Anything else is hypocrisy.

CHS 85,

Utah is a "right to work" State. If you don't think that Mr. Obama hates "right to work" States, then Google Boeing and South Carolina. If he supported "right to work", all he would have to do is make a telephone call to tell the NLRB to back off.

When Mr. Obama "gave" Chrysler and G.M. to the unions without compensation to the legal bond holders, do you think for even an instant that he would not shut down every Federal Government project in "right to work" REPUBLICAN Utah?

Why?

For years all I've heard from the right is to make cuts.

Now, that we might be making cuts, they complain?

sigh.... So do you folks want them to be made? Or were you all "just kidding" and just wanted attention?

If the President shuts down Hill AFB, I will personally thank him. We're making cuts, cutting the fat, and all those working there can then be hired by Utah's private sector. According to the right, the private sector does everything bigger and better. So those being laid off by Hill, would actually be blessed.

For me, it's about personal accountability.

The repubs, have talked and talked and made promises to "make cuts."

I want to hold them to their promises. Shut down Hill and lets see how Utahns react.....

Everyone is always for "making cuts." Except, for the cuts that mean something for them.

The purpose of Hill is national defense, not the economic health of Utah. If the base is excess - get rid of it. And while I'm at it let's point out the U.S. is a garrison state, a new Roman Empire. As the world becomes more equal, at least I hope it does, the empire must contract. Why not start with Hill if it is excess.

The Federal Government is charged with maintaining the military. HOW it does that is up to Congress. We have Representatives who represent the people, proportionately, and we have Senators who represent the States equally. Each of us has a voice in the government that is as nearly equal to every other citizen as current districting allows.

As Mike said, BRAC handles the evaluation of all military bases, which keeps populous States from running rough-shod over little States like Utah.

Each base is evaluated based on its merits, not on its representation in Congress.

As long as the process is honest without politicians playing games with their personal power, the best bases will stay open. As long as Utah keeps its strong work ethic and as long as the mission assigned to Hill remains vital, Hill will stay open.

Just in case you're wondering, defense is specifically enumerated SIX times in Article 1, Section 8, seven times if the preamble to Section 8 is counted. Personal welfare is not mentioned at all.

Also, I find it more than a little amusing that you conservatives who think Keynes was a crackpot, immediately become Hill AFB Keynesians when the base is threatened, believing that stimulus works with defense expenditures. You're sort of military Keynesians.

'We are all wondering what will happen to Hill Air Force Base now that the tea party and the Republicans are getting what they have been demanding.' - article

The Republican party has never cared about national security.

To support this, I present:

***'Senate Republicans Block Defense Bill, 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' Repeal' - By MATTHEW JAFFE and DEVIN DWYER - ABC News - 09/21/10

That's right.

Senate Republicans voted against the ENTIRE Defense bill (Hill AFB included)...

rather than allow openly gay military servicemembers.

We lost 14,000 people to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'.

Do you feel safer?

We also SPENT $1.3 billion of your tax dollars on that policy. Source? Former Congressmen Patrick J. Murphy, PA.

Do you, fell safer?

Knowing that we spent over 1 BILLION dollars...

investigating what our service members did, on their off time.

In, their bedroom.

And today, our military is 'so important' to the Republican party. (Sarcasm)

Double.

Standard.

@Mike Richards

So is that why President Obama just unilaterally closed Shaw AFB, Fort Jackson, and Joint Base Charleston? Because South Carolina is a right-to-work state? Is that why he is going to close Hill AFB? Really?

Is that just fear-mongering, or based on some sort of inside knowledge that you have?

Oh wait - you mean he didn't close them down? You mean to close them would require a non-partisan BRAC to do so which has nothing to do with right-to-work, union membership, or other boogey-men? If you look at previous BRAC closures, you'll see a pretty long list of bases in many states, both right-to-work and non-right-to-work, by BRACs made of of members of both parties.

Why do we need to protect hill? Military personal, Gov. employed cops etc. they all have an incentive to maintain the status quo- to maintain the economic scale of crime/war. It's like saying let's go to war so these guys can continue to have their jobs.

Orrin Hatch failed to protect ATK- we need to get him out before he supports more things like the NDAA

Mr. Thompson says: "Do you agree with his taking the assets of the owners of Chrysler and G.M. without compensation, in direct violation of the 5th Amendment"

Wait a minute. Don't I remember that somewhere along the line Obama literally saved G.M. and Chrysler from the chopping block?

Mike Richards - if Obama hates right to work states so much, and is anti business and pro union, why did the very same group that was involved with the Boeing case take Delta Airlines side in their dispute with their union? I know, that one didn't make the conservative web chain list... but look it up. Same time. State next door.

Grabbing hold of one example and then reasoning that a person must be anti this or pro that is simple mindedness at best. We should no more judge the entire Obama administration based off one example any more than we should reason Mit has no clue about business because 33 percent of his projects failed and the companies went under.

Base closures didn't start with Obama, they have been going on for a really long time. To presume this is an Obama scheme to get back at the tea party peeps grossly shows a lack of knowledge about the powers the president really has. Presidents get far too much credit when things go good, and way too much blame when things go bad. This include the last two years of Bush.

Bases will close in the interest of fiscal conservatism. It can't always be someone elses' base.