Post by great plains admin on Aug 13, 2005 21:03:39 GMT -5
August 14, 2005
Many on Base-Closings Panel Question Estimate of Savings
By ERIC SCHMITT
NEW YORK TIMES
www.nytimes.com/
WASHINGTON, Aug. 13 - A majority of the members of the independent commission assessing the Pentagon's proposed list of domestic base closings say that the Defense Department probably overstated the nearly $50 billion in savings projected over 20 years, perhaps by nearly 50 percent.
In interviews this week, eight of the nine members expressed varying degrees of concern about the accuracy of the Pentagon figures, and said they had directed the commission's staff to conduct a separate savings analysis before the commission's final votes on the military's recommendations later this month.
After scores of base visits and public hearings, most of the commission members interviewed said they now agreed with a report issued this summer by federal investigators that concluded that nearly half of the Pentagon's projected savings came from cuts in military jobs that, in many cases, would simply be reassigned to other installations.
"I fail to see at this point how you could arrive at the figures they arrived at," said Anthony J. Principi, a former secretary of veterans affairs who is the commission chairman. "We're going through this effort to save money from excess capacity to modernize forces. If the savings aren't there, and it costs money to do this on top of all the economic upheaval, why are we doing this?"
A Pentagon spokesman, Glenn Flood, defended the Defense Department's analysis and said it was preparing a detailed explanation of the projected savings for the commission. "We stand by what we said," Mr. Flood said.
Other defense officials said the Pentagon's projected savings in military personnel cuts would probably be reallocated to new types of military jobs that were more relevant to today's security environment, like operating remotely piloted Predator aircraft.
The commission, whose members include retired military officers and former cabinet members or members of Congress, must submit its findings to President Bush by Sept. 8. The president and Congress have until Nov. 7 to reject or accept the entire package.
Projected savings will be an important factor in the commission's deliberations, although the military value of the proposed changes is the paramount consideration. Nonetheless, 80 percent of the Pentagon's proposed savings come from just 10 percent of the recommendations, including such contentious changes as the proposed closings of Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota, the Navy's submarine base in Groton, Conn., and the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine.
Commission members say that if they determine that the Pentagon proposals yield smaller savings than projected, or even cost money over time, that may tip the balance in some of the panel's final votes.
"It will have an impact," said Philip E. Coyle III, a commission member who was the Pentagon's top weapons evaluator for much of the 1990's. "It may be that closures or realignments that were proposed, in part because they would save money, may actually cost money. The whole idea is to save taxpayers money, and if it costs the taxpayers money, I think that would cause the commissioners to have a second look."
Commissioners say it is too early to predict what decisions will emerge from four days of public deliberations that are scheduled to begin on Aug. 24 in Crystal City, Va., just outside Washington. But the panel is nearing the end of a process that could shut, consolidate or realign more than 800 military facilities in all 50 states. Some are well known in military history, including Fort McPherson in Georgia.
The commission said Friday that it had invited Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to testify in a rare Saturday session next week to provide the Pentagon's final comments before the panel begins final deliberations.
Earlier this month, Mr. Bush signaled he would accept the panel's recommendations without objection and send them on to Congress for approval. "In order for the process to be nonpolitical, it's very important to make it clear that the decision of the BRAC will stand, as far as I am concerned," Mr. Bush told reporters, using the acronym for the Base Realignment and Closure Commission.
By law, the commission must give priority to the military value of the proposed changes - that is, what would improve the readiness and combat effectiveness of the armed forces. That could include more spacious training areas and the ability to move forces quickly in a crisis.
"The first goal of the BRAC is to improve the war-fighting capability," Maj. Gen. Gary Heckman, co-director of the Air Force's base-closing analysis team, told the commission on July 18.
But cost savings have always been an important selling point for the politically divisive base-closing process, which had previous rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995.
Mr. Rumsfeld said the proposed changes under review would save about $5.5 billion a year, after initial closing costs of $24 billion were paid, and $48.8 billion over 20 years. The previous four rounds of base closings saved a total of $29 billion through 2003, according to the Government Accountability Office. "By making these changes, the American taxpayer benefits," Mr. Rumsfeld told the commission on May 16.
But in a report issued in early July, the accountability office, an investigative arm of Congress, challenged the Pentagon's findings, saying that 47 percent of the projected savings were from cuts in members of the military who in many cases would simply be reassigned to other installations. "This could create a false sense of savings available for other purposes," the report said.
In testimony to the commission on July 18, the head of the office, David M. Walker, the comptroller general, said, "Unless you end up reducing overall head count or the average compensation levels for the applicable positions, there are no net dollar savings for military personnel."
This assessment combined with the commission's own review to this point have left some commission members shaking their heads. "I have a hard time picturing this as a savings unless we're reducing the size of the force, and we're not," said Gen. James T. Hill, a retired Army officer on the panel.
Brig. Gen. Sue E. Turner, a retired Air Force officer and commission member, said, "I think there's still a lot of questions."
Another commissioner, James Hansen, a former Utah congressman, said he was skeptical of both the Pentagon and G.A.O. analyses. "It's extremely hard to project savings," he said.
The G.A.O.'s analysis and the public skepticism voiced by many commission members have given many states and communities with bases on the chopping block renewed hope they can save their installations.
Massachusetts lawmakers argued this week that it would actually cost nearly $163 million over the next 20 years to close Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod, not save $336 million over that time, as the Pentagon claims. The new figures, offered by the Massachusetts National Guard, contend that the Pentagon counted savings from jobs that would not be eliminated and did not take into account retraining costs.
Gov. Michael F. Easley of North Carolina, a Democrat, expressed concern this month about whether the proposal to turn Pope Air Force Base over to the Army would yield the projected $197 million in annual savings.
The Pentagon's savings estimates have come under such fire that some commissioners say they will not rely on them. "The final decisions won't be unduly influenced by the Defense Department estimates because we'll do our own," said Samuel K. Skinner, a commission member who is a former chief of staff to the first President Bush.
In the end, commission members say they will have to carefully balance the military necessity of the proposed changes against other considerations, including savings.
"Military value trumps everything," said Adm. Harold W. Gehman Jr., a retired Navy officer on the panel. "It's very likely that we'll support a Defense Department recommendation even if it couldn't demonstrate the payback, if we were absolutely convinced the military value was significant. But the burden of proof would be on them."
Many on Base-Closings Panel Question Estimate of Savings
By ERIC SCHMITT
NEW YORK TIMES
www.nytimes.com/
WASHINGTON, Aug. 13 - A majority of the members of the independent commission assessing the Pentagon's proposed list of domestic base closings say that the Defense Department probably overstated the nearly $50 billion in savings projected over 20 years, perhaps by nearly 50 percent.
In interviews this week, eight of the nine members expressed varying degrees of concern about the accuracy of the Pentagon figures, and said they had directed the commission's staff to conduct a separate savings analysis before the commission's final votes on the military's recommendations later this month.
After scores of base visits and public hearings, most of the commission members interviewed said they now agreed with a report issued this summer by federal investigators that concluded that nearly half of the Pentagon's projected savings came from cuts in military jobs that, in many cases, would simply be reassigned to other installations.
"I fail to see at this point how you could arrive at the figures they arrived at," said Anthony J. Principi, a former secretary of veterans affairs who is the commission chairman. "We're going through this effort to save money from excess capacity to modernize forces. If the savings aren't there, and it costs money to do this on top of all the economic upheaval, why are we doing this?"
A Pentagon spokesman, Glenn Flood, defended the Defense Department's analysis and said it was preparing a detailed explanation of the projected savings for the commission. "We stand by what we said," Mr. Flood said.
Other defense officials said the Pentagon's projected savings in military personnel cuts would probably be reallocated to new types of military jobs that were more relevant to today's security environment, like operating remotely piloted Predator aircraft.
The commission, whose members include retired military officers and former cabinet members or members of Congress, must submit its findings to President Bush by Sept. 8. The president and Congress have until Nov. 7 to reject or accept the entire package.
Projected savings will be an important factor in the commission's deliberations, although the military value of the proposed changes is the paramount consideration. Nonetheless, 80 percent of the Pentagon's proposed savings come from just 10 percent of the recommendations, including such contentious changes as the proposed closings of Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota, the Navy's submarine base in Groton, Conn., and the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine.
Commission members say that if they determine that the Pentagon proposals yield smaller savings than projected, or even cost money over time, that may tip the balance in some of the panel's final votes.
"It will have an impact," said Philip E. Coyle III, a commission member who was the Pentagon's top weapons evaluator for much of the 1990's. "It may be that closures or realignments that were proposed, in part because they would save money, may actually cost money. The whole idea is to save taxpayers money, and if it costs the taxpayers money, I think that would cause the commissioners to have a second look."
Commissioners say it is too early to predict what decisions will emerge from four days of public deliberations that are scheduled to begin on Aug. 24 in Crystal City, Va., just outside Washington. But the panel is nearing the end of a process that could shut, consolidate or realign more than 800 military facilities in all 50 states. Some are well known in military history, including Fort McPherson in Georgia.
The commission said Friday that it had invited Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to testify in a rare Saturday session next week to provide the Pentagon's final comments before the panel begins final deliberations.
Earlier this month, Mr. Bush signaled he would accept the panel's recommendations without objection and send them on to Congress for approval. "In order for the process to be nonpolitical, it's very important to make it clear that the decision of the BRAC will stand, as far as I am concerned," Mr. Bush told reporters, using the acronym for the Base Realignment and Closure Commission.
By law, the commission must give priority to the military value of the proposed changes - that is, what would improve the readiness and combat effectiveness of the armed forces. That could include more spacious training areas and the ability to move forces quickly in a crisis.
"The first goal of the BRAC is to improve the war-fighting capability," Maj. Gen. Gary Heckman, co-director of the Air Force's base-closing analysis team, told the commission on July 18.
But cost savings have always been an important selling point for the politically divisive base-closing process, which had previous rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995.
Mr. Rumsfeld said the proposed changes under review would save about $5.5 billion a year, after initial closing costs of $24 billion were paid, and $48.8 billion over 20 years. The previous four rounds of base closings saved a total of $29 billion through 2003, according to the Government Accountability Office. "By making these changes, the American taxpayer benefits," Mr. Rumsfeld told the commission on May 16.
But in a report issued in early July, the accountability office, an investigative arm of Congress, challenged the Pentagon's findings, saying that 47 percent of the projected savings were from cuts in members of the military who in many cases would simply be reassigned to other installations. "This could create a false sense of savings available for other purposes," the report said.
In testimony to the commission on July 18, the head of the office, David M. Walker, the comptroller general, said, "Unless you end up reducing overall head count or the average compensation levels for the applicable positions, there are no net dollar savings for military personnel."
This assessment combined with the commission's own review to this point have left some commission members shaking their heads. "I have a hard time picturing this as a savings unless we're reducing the size of the force, and we're not," said Gen. James T. Hill, a retired Army officer on the panel.
Brig. Gen. Sue E. Turner, a retired Air Force officer and commission member, said, "I think there's still a lot of questions."
Another commissioner, James Hansen, a former Utah congressman, said he was skeptical of both the Pentagon and G.A.O. analyses. "It's extremely hard to project savings," he said.
The G.A.O.'s analysis and the public skepticism voiced by many commission members have given many states and communities with bases on the chopping block renewed hope they can save their installations.
Massachusetts lawmakers argued this week that it would actually cost nearly $163 million over the next 20 years to close Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod, not save $336 million over that time, as the Pentagon claims. The new figures, offered by the Massachusetts National Guard, contend that the Pentagon counted savings from jobs that would not be eliminated and did not take into account retraining costs.
Gov. Michael F. Easley of North Carolina, a Democrat, expressed concern this month about whether the proposal to turn Pope Air Force Base over to the Army would yield the projected $197 million in annual savings.
The Pentagon's savings estimates have come under such fire that some commissioners say they will not rely on them. "The final decisions won't be unduly influenced by the Defense Department estimates because we'll do our own," said Samuel K. Skinner, a commission member who is a former chief of staff to the first President Bush.
In the end, commission members say they will have to carefully balance the military necessity of the proposed changes against other considerations, including savings.
"Military value trumps everything," said Adm. Harold W. Gehman Jr., a retired Navy officer on the panel. "It's very likely that we'll support a Defense Department recommendation even if it couldn't demonstrate the payback, if we were absolutely convinced the military value was significant. But the burden of proof would be on them."