Is BRAC Political?

In 2005, we asked our military to tell us how we should restructure military bases to best serve the armed forces. This process is not new. It is a regular analysis of our military's infrastructure aimed at saving money and using resources more efficiently.

The review process was lengthy, and many agencies were involved. In the end, the recommendations of the Base Closure and Realignment Commission were signed into law by President Bush on September 15, 2005. A resolution challenging the recommendations was debated in the House a month later, but it failed to pass, thus enacting the process.

The Department of Defense is tasked with implementing those recommendations between now and 2011. The recommendations specific to Texas demonstrate that our state occupies a strategic military position within the United States geographically, economically, environmentally, and politically, and even in the War on Terror. Consequently, nothing about the BRAC Commission should be considered politically neutral.

The Commission operates under a somewhat delusional framework. According to the BRAC, "By law, and by Commission policy, the Commission's process was open, transparent, apolitical, and fair . . . Commissioners were accessible to communities, citizens, and to their advocates without regard to party or agenda."

Even before the 2005 BRAC process began, Texas politicians had already mobilized. Governor Perry and the Texas Legislature created the Texas Military Preparedness Commission (TMPC) to plan for the BRAC commission's visit to Texas. Included in the preparations were the creation of the Texas Military Value Fund, a $250 million loan fund for communities to upgrade their infrastructure; provisions to give education benefits to military families; discounts on electrical utility rates for all military installations; and directives to state agencies to give priority to military leaders on issues regarding roads, quality of life, and environmental issues.

In this preparation time, Governor Perry authorized $20.5 million to improve Fort Hood and $16.2 million to fix the roads around Fort Bliss. Why so much money? Simple: the military is a $49 billion industry for Texas.

The BRAC hearing in San Antonio did not appear to be an apolitical experience. There are those that may consider two U.S. Senators, countless Congressmen, one Governor, fourteen state agencies, boards, and commissions working on the BRAC Strike Force in Texas, and local community groups to be an apolitical gathering, but this author does not.

Congressman Randy Neuegebauer, a Republican representing the 19th Congressional District, went to the hearings to fight for Dyess Air Force Base, but he did not come alone. He brought several Abilene officials to the hearing and 12 bus loads of Big Country residents. San Antonio civic leaders were not to be outdone. They created a local military task force to coordinate the community's presentation to the BRAC commission.

The results were mixed. Brooks City Air Base, Naval Station Ingleside, and the Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant were all designated for closure. Red River Army Depot, Lackland Air Force Base, Fort Hood, Naval Air Station Corpus Christi and Sheppard Air Force Base saw major realignments. Dyess Air Force Base gained personnel at its facility (310 military personnel and 64 civilian workers). Fort Bliss in El Paso and Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio saw troop and civilian levels increase. Overall, Texas saw a total direct increase in troop and civilian personnel of 6,150 people. Some estimates have the total number of new jobs at 13,848.

The "new" jobs created will have a tremendous local impact in the areas that benefited. The flipside is that those communities adversely impacted could see major economic shifts. Is BRAC worth the changes in the local economies? The answer to that question is, it depends. It depends on the politics of the bases that are closed. We have seen great success stories after past rounds of BRAC, most notably in Bergstrom International Airport in Austin. Prior to BRAC, Austin was a world-class leader in high tech industry without a world-class airport. The base's conversion to an airport was costly, but in the long term it will prove to be a huge economic benefit to Austin. We have other examples at Reese AFB in Lubbock and Kelly AFB in San Antonio; both installations are being converted for high-end civilian use.

After the most current base closing in Texas, our politicians went on the offensive again. Senator Hutchinson, chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veteran Affairs, helped turn the closing of Naval Station Ingleside into a winning situation by passing legislation to hand over the keys to the base to the local community. "This is an extraordinary day for the residents of the Coastal Bend and the Port of Corpus Christi by this legislative mandate," said Ruben Bonilla, Chairman of the Port of Corpus Christi.

However, enacting BRAC at this time does not seem to make any economic sense when viewed against our current policy endeavors. The BRAC commission approved 119 of the Department of Defenses recommendations, amended 45, modified 13 and flatly rejected 13. The realignments and closures will allow the U.S. military to better fulfill its obligations to the American people, yet the cost savings are minimal. When properly adjusted, the realignments and closures will save $15 billion over 20 years, less than $1 billion a year. To put that into perspective, the 2007 Department of Defense Budget is $328 billion, excluding appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan.

The savings from the BRAC commission's recommendations in any given year will be around 1/3 of 1 percent. We would need the greatest Federal Reserve Chairman ever to make this savings meaningful against inflation. The savings represent a relatively minuscule number in US governmental budget terms. Conversely, the negative impact was incredibly big when Wichita Falls residents lost 4,360 jobs because of realignment.

If we include our current overseas efforts, the numbers look even more staggering. We are quickly approaching additional military spending of $500 billion for deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan over a four year period. Recently, former President Clinton advised us that a $500 billion outlay in wartime translates into a real cost of $1.5 trillion.

The loaded question surfaces: Is the fictionally apolitical process called BRAC worth it?