PROPOSED BASE CLOSINGS WILL REVEAL LOSS OF INDUSTRY

By Diane M. Grassi
On May 13, 2005, the Pentagon recommended military base closures and reductions of United States military installations throughout the country. For the first time since 1995, and while the U.S. is at war in the Middle East, the Pentagon’s proposal to close 180 bases, with 33 of them being major bases, in order to unify the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, is even more daunting than the Pentagon would have us believe. In addition, the Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, D.C. would be moved to the present National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, MD, to combine both facilities. Early projections estimate a loss of at least 225,000 federal and civilian jobs combined with dramatic costs to state’s local economies and fiscal health, most notably in the Northeast.

The initial hearings from the independent Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) commenced May 16, 2005 with Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, appearing in defense of the proposed closures. The congressionally chartered commission, dating back to 1988, is required to review the Pentagon’s proposed changes and present any recommendations to President Bush by September 8, 2005. The president must either accept or reject the proposal by September 23, 2005 at which time the Congress must consider passing or changing such proposals.

As noted, to the nine-member panel on May 16th, Secretary Rumsfeld stated that, “I made a conscious decision not to add anything or take anything out or change anything or make it more or make it less. I simply didn’t.” He has reiterated that “the current arrangement, designed for the Cold War, must give way to new demands of the war against extremism and other evolving challenges in the world.” His hands-off approach in not making any suggestions to the proposed closings is unsettling, and with regard to the “extremism” many Americans across the U.S. take issue with the “extremism” of the cuts to bases, with 80% effecting military recruitment centers.

At a time when the Army is well below their desired recruitment levels, and at its lowest in 15 years, one would be wrong not to take issue with some of the Pentagon’s proposals. In testimony before Congress on May 2, 2005, General Myers voiced concern that the sustained deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan poses “significant risks” for future American war plans. And in the annual Military Risk Assessment and Threat Mitigation Plan revealed to the press in early May 2005, Myers reportedly stated that the level of deployed troops meant that future wars could not be carried out as quickly or with as few American casualties as the Pentagon has planned.

But the ramifications of the military restructuring loom much larger than mere fights over real estate between states, their respective economies or the politics of Capitol Hill. What has yet to come to the fore and still relegated to the back pages of the business section of newspapers and rarely publicly discussed by our lawmakers is that base closings this time around will be more devastating than ever, due to considerable erosion of our industrial and manufacturing base, especially since the last base closings ten years ago. As a result of our outsourcing, offshoring and the permanent loss of specific areas of U.S. manufacturing, many of these effected communities, also once rich in the manufacturing sector, look to never recover from a purported base closing in 2005.

“Factory jobs that disappeared won’t come back, said Richard Berner, chief U.S. economist for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, when speculating recently on the future of manufacturing job growth. Roughly 83% of all garments sold in the U.S. today are made offshore as are 80% of toys, 90% of sporting goods and 95% of all shoes. This is especially relevant to communities in the south which once enjoyed a thriving textile industry and along with a furniture industry since lost to U.S. companies, primarily outsourced to China. The tobacco industry also can no longer sustain the southern economy. Such underscores the extraordinary need to retain military bases such as Camp Lejeune in North Carolina for example, which will be spared calls for downsizing or closure this go-round.

The Pentagon is more and more dependent upon overseas manufacturers for weapons and equipment. For example the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, used in Iraq and Afghanistan, is proposed this year to be built by BAE Systems in Britain. The Marine One Helicopter fleet of 23, which is utilized by the president and his staff, will be built by Lockheed-Martin which will utilize its British base with major components supplied by European counterparts, although Lockheed still maintains that the copters will be “manufactured” in the U.S. Meanwhile Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. based in Connecticut, supplier of the presidential ‘copters since 1957 will be especially hit hard by losing its contract as Connecticut will suffer the largest loss of military jobs from the proposed shut down of the Navy’s submarine base in Groton, CT. And the Army awarded a multi-million dollar contract for 70 million rounds of ammunition to Israel Military Industries, for present use in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ft. Monmouth in New Jersey is also included on the list for closure by the Pentagon. It has long been the hub of communications and electronics research and development functions. It is responsible for the development of the technology which jams signals intended to detonate roadside bombs, the defense measures used when missiles are fired at helicopters and locates sources of enemy mortar fire within seconds. All are presently being utilized in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Unlike our government’s rallying call to end dependence on foreign countries for our oil supply, there is no such cry for rolling back U.S. dependence on foreign countries for the natural resources and components used for our nation’s national defense and security. 50-100% of natural materials to create metals used in everything from “smart bombs” to reconnaissance satellites, jet-engine turbines, telecommunications, electronics and electrical transmissions, come from foreign entities. Aluminum, beryllium, nickel-based super alloys and titanium are critical components for U.S. military aircraft and space systems and with U.S. mining down 70% since 1997 we no longer depend on U.S. sources. According to the U.S. metal castings industry the majority of metal castings now come from China and other third world countries.

Especially while at war, our lack of oversight of production and access to our technological needs with overseas entities puts us even more at risk. And with the European Union looking to end its arms embargo with China in late 2005, it could have a dramatic long-term effect on our sovereignty.

30% of all jobs in the U.S. are either federal or state government jobs, while only 15% of the economy is manufacturing-based. Combining the elimination of military jobs, both administrative as well as those which touch upon some area of manufacturing, in a community with privately held factories which have long moved on, leaves the average American worker more vulnerable and more dependent upon entitlement programs. Thus such will ultimately cut into projected savings from the proposed base closures. And while it has been convenient for prognosticators in both the private and public sectors to preach to workers to acquire more advanced degrees, high-tech jobs are being sent overseas and U.S. workers must compete with the importation of foreign workers hired to work on projects on a temporary basis, through the H1B Visa Program, specifically in the fields of research and development.

The matter of base closings is being portrayed to the American public as one of location or geography, cloaked in political squabbles rather than as a matter of national security. Similarly, as the battle continues on Capitol Hill to formulate an equation to equitably satisfy states in the funding of first-responders for matters of homeland security, both issues will have a profound effect on the future of Americans. As such, politics should be placed on the back burner.

This time around no one goes unscathed and it is a rare opportunity for us to come together as a nation, which should not be squandered. Important, vital issues which will effect the future of Americans for generations to come, must be decided not just for the good of the military but for the future health of the U.S. economy. Such decisions require critical thinking from our representatives and now we will see if they are up to the challenge.

U.S. SECURITY STILL THREATENED BY PORK & POLITICS

By Diane M. Grassi

It is now nearly four years after September 11, 2001 and billions and billions of dollars have been spent on domestic security. It includes $4.5 billion on screening devices to protect our homeland, $2.2 billion for first-responders in all fifty states and U.S. territories and a new FBI database software security system costing $170 million which has been totally scrapped. In addition the airport screeners solely hired by the federal government in the aftermath of 9/11 have proven no more effective than those working for private screening contractors according to the Government Accountability Agency in a report issued in May 2005. With a total of $15 billion spent on airport security alone since 2001, one might say that we have better deterrents in place. But due to injudicious decisions by our government which led to overspending on ineffective equipment and management systems we are again behind the curve in protecting ourselves.

The evident rush to judgment in spending included radiation monitors at ports and borders that cannot detect differences between radioactivity emitted by a nuclear bomb or naturally occurring radiation such as that from everyday material in the form of cat litter or ceramic tile. Air-monitoring equipment in major cities protects only minimally because of a shortage of detectors as well as not being properly calibrated or installed. The U.S. Postal Service machines only test a small percentage of mail for anthrax or about 20% of all mail which comes from blue post boxes only, while no precautions are in place to test mail for any other biological agents. Passenger screening equipment at airports has resulted in no better detection of passengers trying to carry a weapon or bomb aboard an airplane. In addition, all cargo loaded onto commercial aircraft is still not being screened at all.

The Transportation Security Administration bought 1,344 machines costing over $1 million each to search for explosives in checked bags at airports, but items such as shampoo bottles which share the same density as certain explosives can set off machines. The result has been false alarms for 15% -30% of all checked bags and has called for the hiring of more screeners. At busy times, due to time restraints and the screening machines not integrated with the baggage conveyor systems, bags are sometimes loaded onto planes without proper examination, according to former and current screeners. And although equipment to screen passengers and their carry-on bags includes nearly 5,000 new metal detectors, x-ray machines and trace-explosive detectors a handgun can still slip through because screeners rely on two dimensional x-ray machines rather than newer three-dimensional models.

In addition to sporadic false-positive or non-detected passenger items at airports the GAO report found that the federally hired airport screeners have not improved at all in detection of weapons or bombs since 2003. Among the findings were that screeners were not receiving the basic legislatively required remedial training or the required amount of recurrent training. Also, workers have become complacent, given the addition of new x-ray and metal detector equipment. And while the airlines have been given the choice since November 2004 to again hire private screeners with federal government oversight, none of the major airports have signed on due to liability which the government would not cover.

Lest you think lawmakers on Capitol Hill are not doing their jobs, much hand wringing and postulating has been going on concerning two proposed bills, one in the House of Representatives and one in the Senate concerning funding for first-responders. After suggestions in the 9/11 Commission Report, H.R. 1544 was introduced by Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA) of the House Homeland Security Committee and S. 21 was put forth by the Senate Homeland Security & Government Affairs Committee Chair, Susan Collins (R-ME), in April 2005.

At issue is changing the formula currently required for funding states’ first-responders in rural areas versus urban areas. Initially provided funding through the U.S. Patriot Act after 9/11, those first in defense of security have become fodder for pork barrel justice as funding was not based upon risk but .75 per cent was judiciously divided among all fifty states and U.S. territories with the balance provided in the form of grants.

Unlike other spending bills which are usually partisan in nature, this has become the debate of the little states hanging tough against the big states. Collins has suggested a formula in which each state would receive .55 per cent of homeland security grant funding. Larger states could receive a higher percentage or up to 3% based upon population and population density. The Homeland Security Secretary would allocate the remaining funds on the basis of risk. No less than 10 amendments are expected to be added to S.21.

In H.R. 1544, emphasis is increased on threat vulnerability with .25 per cent for each state with the remaining funds available in grants based on assessment of risk and need with incentives for states to expeditiously distribute funding directly to those departments in need. The present dole has allowed states and cities to spend subsidies on anything and everything giving their states non-discretionary funding. And with New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco receiving the least per capita funding in Homeland Security allocations, sparsely populated states such as Wyoming, South Dakota and Montana have bought things for their police and fire departments that they at one time could only dream about.

So the pork barrel has been rolled out once again and the rush to spend is alive and well. But have we not learned anything in the past four years? It should not be business as usual while lives are at stake and especially while we are heavily invested in the war in Iraq, leaving little leeway for error. It is quite disturbing that as people remove their shoes and belts at airports there are many remaining flaws in the security systems at airports and on planes, at ports and at the borders. It does little to quell New York City residents’ fears that they are least protected should first responders be called into action, as they wish they were living in some rural state.

But with a proposed additional $7 billion to be spent on domestic security equipment and an additional $2.9 billion already proposed for first-responders in 2006, at least another $250 million will be needed to recreate a new FBI database security system. Additional spending figures are not yet publicly available for ramped up security at our ports, nuclear facilities, railways and waterways. But any formula which includes big states versus little states, Republicans versus Democrats, the White House versus the Congress or the FBI versus the CIA will only lead to our own self-destruction.

Our security is only as good as our weakest link. We can no longer tolerate window dressing in place of security with teeth which includes bolstering protection at our borders and meaningful immigration reform. Since 9/11 we have been preached to time and time again that we now live in a different world. When will all of our government factions start acting like it? Rushed and more expensive legislation is not the answer. Our government must become more creative in drafting more meaningful legislation while striving for fiscal responsibility. We expect our lawmakers to protect the American people’s interests and lives first, and count on them to readdress the changing world in which we live. And as such, political correctness and politics as usual no longer have a place in the War on Terrorism.

MILITARY FAULTED FOR HUMVEE SHORTAGES

By Diane M. Grassi

Well before Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was questioned by an active reservist soldier at a news conference last December concerning the status of armoring battlefield Humvees, the Army had apparently been less than forthcoming to the Pentagon about how many production orders for armor kits and up-armored Humvees were processed with the firms which manufacture them. Whether or not you agree with the way in which Rumsfeld was supposedly put on the spot, it served a purpose in bringing to light a systemic problem which has gravely impacted our soldiers on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The United States Government Accountability Office, a non-partisan investigative arm of the Congress, released a report this month which is virtually the first independent investigative study on the shortage of armoring Humvees which now can be attributable to the deaths of 400 U.S. soldiers. And directly responsible for those shortages are military planners. When the U.S. entered the land war in Iraq in March of 2003 there were only 235 armored versions out of the 8,000 Humvees in Iraq. At that time there was only on contractor, O’Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt of Fairfield, OH, hired to reinforce only 50 vehicles a month. But only gradually has the Pentagon ramped up O’Gara-Hess to the present 550 vehicles as of this spring.

“It’s a matter of production and capability of doing it,” Mr. Rumsfeld said. But now we find that that the military failed to order additional beefed-up Humvee models from the AM General Corp. in Mishawaka, IN as well as additional armor kits from O’Gara-Hess. So the problem was two-fold in installing shielding for new Humvees as well as reinforcing what came to a total 10,000 older models. It was evident to the Pentagon by June 2003 of the need for armor kits when Army’s 101st Airborne Division cited “numerous” injuries from I.E.D’s when it put in its plea for not only vehicle armor but training as well for the troops to avoid such attacks, even more crucial with the absence of protective vehicle armor.

The Army fell short of its projected goal of supplying soldiers in Iraq with 8,105 factory-armored Humvees for use in both Iraq and Afghanistan by April 1, 2005. Army Brig. General Jeffrey Sorenson said that they were in fact completed by the end of March. However, the count included those still on U.S. soil. Congressman Robert Simmons (R-CT) and a member of the Armed Services Committee was quoted as saying, “What the hell good is it to possess a Humvee in America if the guy in Iraq doesn’t have it to drive?” Presently the proposed number of Humvees for manufacture has risen to 10,079 and the Army claims its new deadline is June 2005.

Yet given all of the Pentagon’s bean counters and the public’s awareness of armor deficiencies in the fields of combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan, our military officials chose to follow Capitol Hill’s lead by playing politics at the expense of our soldiers’ lives. It was bad enough when it became clear shortly after the full-scale war in Iraq was underway that our soldiers lacked sufficient supplies of body armor, as families stateside began receiving letters from troops requesting them to purchase Kevlar vests for them from army surplus stores.

Now it has taken an act of Congress to subsidize the $81 billion spending bill for the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan by adding an additional $213 million specifically appropriated for buying additional fully armored Humvees, proposed by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) in an amendment ratified by the Senate a week after the GAO report was released. The amendment also orders the Secretary of Defense to report to the Congress more frequently on the status of Humvee orders in order to expedite them to Iraq. Without such appropriation production would have dropped from 550 this month to 239 in June with zero produced in July. With the House of Representatives approving an additional $185 million on spending for factory-armored Humvees in March, there is now assurance that the differences in the allocations, in both the House and Senate amendments, to the bill will be reconciled providing for the necessary expenditure.

At the heart of failing our troops with the necessary vehicle armor was the Army’s negligence in utilizing extra production capacity available to make factory-armored Humvees as well as the add-on armor kits. According to a GAO stinging indictment the Pentagon “did not use the maximum available production capacity as the requirements increased dramatically.” So Mr. Rumsfeld’s off-the-cuff retort in December now looms large. His implication then was that production was at maximum capacity. Now we learn that the manufacturers were nowhere near capacity and more like 50%. In addition the Department of Defense never informed Congress about the available production capacity.

The GAO report further revealed that there were indeed seven additional areas of deficient supply of key items which included the protective vests, along with batteries, tires, vehicle generators, tank track shoes and packaged meals. The Army said it would review the recommendations of the report and would make the necessary adjustments in the supply line. And while as of last month all of the military’s 35,000 vehicles had been protected with some type of armor, 11,700 of them were retrofitted with mere sheets of cut steel; hardly adequate enough.

Loss of life we are told is a reality of war. However our federal agencies, the Congress and our Commander in Chief are all culpable for the lives of 400 Americans who perished as a direct result of lacking the necessary armor for combat. Various powers-that-be not only knew of the deficiencies of the required armor but apparently looked the other way in addition to casting blame on others when they were found out.

After the attacks of 9/11 many have stated that our country came together. We were all just Americans for a time. Later when we invaded Afghanistan followed by infiltration of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein our unity continued to thrive. But since Saddam’s capture we have fallen back into complacency and the fabric of our nation has yet become torn again. It is back to politics-as-usual with a government bereft of honesty with the American people. But perhaps we can all learn from this latest irreverence by our leadership that it will no longer be tolerated by the American people and that we intend to communicate such to its so-called leaders.

BANKRUPTCY REFORM LIFTS BASIC PROTECTIONS

By Diane M. Grassi

Lately it seems that important legislation which directly effects the American people is getting little coverage in the press with the broadcast and print media in addition to our government all responsible. Enactment of the biggest legislative reform in 27 years of the United States Bankruptcy Code was ratified by the House of Representatives on April 14, 2005 following its passage in the Senate in March of this year. It was enthusiastically signed by President Bush on April 20, 2005.

Missing from coverage of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005 are reports on the benefits deleted which gave basic protections for those filing for personal bankruptcy with limited assets. Instead, financial institutions, corporations and millionaires will continue to enjoy asset protection trusts which ensure them a fresh start while they are able to keep unlimited amounts of revenue or cash out-of-reach of the courts.

Since 1898 U.S. bankruptcy law has afforded Americans a so-called fresh start after extinguishing their debts. With the new legislation most filers will now be forced into Chapter 13, or reorganization, requiring them to pay back their debts over a period of 5 years, as opposed to Chapter 7 which would wipe their slate clean.

But a lot has changed in the past 27 years when a restructuring of the law would then have been more of a viable option. Not disclosed by the press or by our legislators are the details of the new law which does not take into account that 95% of bankruptcy claims involve a combination of catastrophic illness, disability, identity theft, job loss, divorce or the caregiving to loved ones. In fact there was no such term as ‘identity theft’ 27 years ago, which is a constant threat to any of us on any given day in the electronic world in which we now live.

Basically the way the new law works is that every filer must now be means-tested based upon their income of the prior 6 months regardless of the filer’s ability to pay. If the filer’s income is at or above the median income of the state in which they reside they would be forced into a payment plan now extended over a five year period, with no cap on interest rates for lenders who extend credit, now at a high 30% APR. If the filer owns a home, the homestead exemption would no longer apply if the home is purchased within 1,215 days of filing. Any interest in the home greater than $125,000.00 would not be protected. If a debtor shows that they can make a minimum payment of $100.00 a month toward debts over 5 years, they will be shifted to Chapter 13 rather than to Chapter 7 which in the past would have let them fully recover.

Much misunderstood in the present day is the changed face of most individual filers. So-called deadbeat abusers of bankruptcy filings which Congress would like us to believe are the majority, make up approximately 1-3% of total claims. A recent study by the Harvard Law and Medical Schools shows that more than half of Chapter 7 bankruptcy filings are due to a serious illness or disabling injury and their related medical costs. 27 years ago we did not have the astronomical medical costs of today which can easily land a steadily employed individual even with medical insurance into serious debt. If the illness or injury is permanent or chronic and followed by job loss the person or family may have no choice but to file for bankruptcy. As little has been done in the way of curtailing medical and pharmaceutical costs spiraling out of control over the past decade, many have no other option, especially if many of those costs were additionally applied to credit cards.

The credit card industry, largely responsible for wording much of the language in the new legislation, has much to gain with the new law in extending its $130 billion yearly profit in 2004 resulting from interest and late fees collected from credit card users. And the 10-30% interest rates which card companies presently charge customers precisely to protect themselves from riskier users who default on their credit, will not only be able to continue to collect interest with no future caps on interest rates but will get a bail-out from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court as well.

The most egregious aspect of the new legislation is that it punishes the most vulnerable who need protection. The new law eliminates the requirement of judges to evaluate each case in an effort to discern between the deadbeat and the seriously ill or the breadwinner laid off in a volatile job market. This takes the onus away from the courts and returns it to the filer. Far different from 27 years ago, the present job market routinely suffers from downsizing, outsourcing, displacement and offshoring with low-level paying jobs absorbed by the underground economy. One could rely on their job or educational skills in the past, but today there are no such guarantees.

However, this is not a call for the dissolution of bankruptcy laws, but rather for the courts and the Congress to realize the harm the reformed legislation imposes upon those most at risk in ever recovering. No one wants people who deliberately or irresponsibly live beyond their means to get a free pass. But the additional proposed amendments to the new bill, all of which were dismissed by the Congress, give insight into the types of provisions which would have preserved the rights of the individual filer: limiting the homestead exemption for the disabled or elderly; protecting service members and veterans from means-testing and exempting their property; protecting employees and retirees from corporate practices depriving them of their earnings and retirement savings when businesses file for bankruptcy; cutting off trusts and loopholes for millionaires; exempting debtors from means-testing if debt is caused by identity theft; limiting amount of interest on extension of credit to 30%; exempting those in debt due to serious medical problems from means-testing; requiring credit card issuers to disclose all hidden fees and consequences of making minimum monthly payments to consumers.

All of the stricken amendments would not have limited the extent of the law but would have extended much needed help for those most in need, who either no longer can earn an income or have one with their only asset being a home in which they live. But it is apparent that our lawmakers have a myopic view of this misguided legislation, and could not be bothered by reading it prior to their decisions, as it was a couple of hundred pages. It is also no coincidence that financial institutions now account for the largest lobby in Washington, D.C., surpassing the oil and gas industries. And partisanship can no longer be blamed for this flawed legislation, as there was surprising bipartisanship support on the Hill with one third of those in favor of it representing Democrats in a Republican controlled Congress.

Most importantly it represents yet another stab in the proverbial backs of law abiding and honest individuals who wind up in a catastrophic situation due to no fault of their own. Rather than punishing the abusers the law punishes all only to reward the financial institutions and corporations. Profiting off of the backs of the fallen who have landed on hard times is neither honest nor decent. It once again displays a Congress which can only tackle issues in black and white. And it appears that Congress no longer has the will to fight for its constituency or in saving face in light of its imprudent decisions.