|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alaska governor seeks lobbyist to prevent US military reductions RelatedGov. Sean Parnell is preparing to ask the state Legislature, currently in session, to appropriate funds to lobby on behalf of Alaska's military bases as the federal government begins considering another round of base realignment and closure (BRAC). A statement from the governor's office Friday acknowledges recent announcements by President Obama and Department of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on military realignment over the next decade. The broad Pentagon strategy to reduce military spending is consistent with negotiations in Congress to sharply reduce the nation's budget deficit, which has recently grown as high as the U.S. gross domestic product, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Alaska's senior senator, notes here. Failure of the congressional 'supercommittee' to coalesce around national budget reduction policies last year triggered future, across-the-board U.S. military spending cuts to the tune of about a half-trillion dollars. But even with these cuts, as an in-depth Vanity Fair analysis notes, U.S. military spending will only "shrink" to 2007 levels -- near the apex of the so-called War on Terror. In the statement, Parnell announced he'd request $300,000 from state lawmakers to hire a consulting firm, which would lobby Congress and the Pentagon against any future troop reductions or base realignments impacting Alaska. Federal deficits aside, the military's presence in Alaska accounts for about 10 percent of the state's economy, according to the statement. Whether Alaska would be in serious consideration of losing a base or significant troop numbers is far from clear. Pentagon bureaucracy points to Asia as presenting the most serious threats to U.S. national security in the coming decades. Few states are better positioned to defend the homeland from Asian threats, Parnell notes, than Alaska. Arne Foglvog, who was Murkowski's fisheries Aide, will probably be getting out of jail in about 3.5 months (a reduced sentence). I am sure he will need employment by then and heh he knows the Senators who can be bought, so why not use him? Might as well hire Arne. By then he will have met some of the best crooks in the business. Looking ahead 30 - 50 years one has to wonder if the United States will be able to defend Alaska. Parnell must not want to talk with Lisa, Mark and Don. In my opinion, this seems like a waste of state funds. France is pulling out of Afghanistan while we're stuck there. Ironically at the same time the United States is defending Europe. Hey thanks France. Closer to home it may have been a mistake to shut down Alaska's Naval Station Adak while international shipping traffic through the Bering Strait intensifies. And Eielson (perhaps next on the chopping block) has unique airspace assets. Eielson may not be as vital as Elmendorf/ Richardson, but there are probably other bases around the U.S. that don't make nearly as much strategic sense-- apparently they would just make more political sense. And It would be a bad idea to shut down Wainwright. Wainwright (and Greely) have unique cold weather training assets. But should the State of Alaska hire a lobbyist? No. I doubt a lobbyist would make any difference. If the federal government doesn't want to use common sense in developing our military's budget or our country's strategic planning, that's our federal government's problem. We shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking hiring a lobbyist would have any tangible impact on our screwed up federal government. Jim, EDIT: OK, -1 but no rebuttal, am I missing something obvious? Should France actually have a military presence in Afghanistan? I am asking. -TomClark Don't we already have 3 lobbyists in Lisa, Mark and Don? Aren't paid lobbyists part of the countries problems? Couldn't agree more. We elected 3 officials to represent Alaska, like them or not. Contact them, tell them your opinions. Even though it seems futile in an individual way, collective opinions matter. Parnell is just another fake "fiscal conservative." Alaska, even more so than the rest of the country, needs to go on a reduced pork diet. So much for thinking ahead. I assumed we already had a lobbyist covering armed forces matters. I guess better late than never but it is always better to build relationships before you need them. Conservatives everywhere should be applauding the reduction in wasteful military spending. Instead, the governor wastes more money on more Big Government lobbyist. Cut that budget? No, not in my back yard. Yep, we all say the WH wastes our tax dollars and we want to see the budget deficit addressed but, by gawd, do it in someone else's district or state and don't ask us to sacrifice towards the good of the Country. -TomClark |
Print 
Single Page
Comments