| Warthog Territory Forums https://warthogterritory.net/forum/ |
|
| And so it begins https://warthogterritory.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9166 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Old Chief [ 15 Jun 2005, 05:57 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I've no idea whether the argument is valid..my lawyering is limited to latrine discussions. If it is, it negates a whole bunch of what BRAC is attempting to do. Old Chief State Resists Move Of Jets Rell Could Stop Bradley Guard's Shift, Officials Say June 15, 2005 By JESSE LEAVENWORTH, Courant Staff Writer State leaders say the federal government has no right to remove the Connecticut Air National Guard's warplanes without the governor's consent - and the governor is not consenting. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal wrote to Gov. M. Jodi Rell on Monday that "any closure, reorganization or relocation of the Bradley Air Guard Unit would likely be unlawful, because you have neither approved nor consented to such action." Pentagon analysts have recommended that the A-10 Thunderbolt squadron at Bradley be sent to the nearby Massachusetts Air National Guard base in Westfield, Mass., which also hosts an A-10 squadron. Combining the units "creates an optimum-sized and more effective squadron," according to U.S. Air Force recommendations to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. But Blumenthal cited federal law that says National Guard units "may not be relocated or withdrawn" without a governor's approval. In a letter dated Tuesday, Rell told Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that she formally objected to the proposed transfer of the Bradley squadron. "I do not consent to this recommended realignment," Rell wrote. "The Department of Defense did not coordinate this recommendation with the State of Connecticut. No federal official contacted my office or my Adjutant General to discuss any federal proposals concerning Air National Guard units or assets located in Connecticut. "This lack of consultation compromises the integrity of the process used to develop the BRAC recommendations," she wrote, "disregarding the role of the Governor in relation to Connecticut's Air National Guard units." The governor's letter, Blumenthal said Tuesday, "puts DOD on notice that we will insist on our legal rights." "The responsibility for the National Guard units are shared by federal and state authorities," Blumenthal said. "Both provide critical support and both have to approve fundamental changes in structure and command as well as location." Leaders in other states have vowed to wage similar battles over proposed removals of their National Guard units. The Illinois governor and attorney general have been at the point of the fight, promising even before the Pentagon's recommendations were made public that they would sue the federal government over the possible loss of Guard units. "This we cannot accept," Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich said after the Air Force recommended transferring an Illinois Air National Guard fighter wing to Indiana. "As the commander in chief of the Illinois National Guard, I will not consent to this." "It is an issue that needs to be resolved one way or the other," BRAC commission Chairman Anthony Principi has been quoted as saying. The commission, Principi has said, would ask the Pentagon's general counsel to issue a finding on the matter. Department of Defense officials could not be reached Tuesday for comment, but at a BRAC hearing last month, an analyst with the Congressional Research Service said the federal law that Illinois officials had cited - the same one Blumenthal cited - did not apply to the BRAC process, according to a transcript of the hearing. Also, Michael W. Wynne, the acting Pentagon undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, has written: "For BRAC to be a truly comprehensive process and to achieve our objective in support of the war-fighter, the process must involve all of our installations, including those used by the reserve component." Asked whether the issue will be prominent at the regional BRAC hearing slated for next month, Blumenthal said he did not know "because we're still strategizing and deciding on how to present our case most effectively." In any case, the Bradley Air National Guard Base is not due to close. If the BRAC commission adopts all the Air Force recommendations, the base would have a bigger role in the maintenance and repair of A-10 engines and would gain an air sovereignty alert system now housed at an air base in Otis, Mass., that is marked for closure. But Connecticut officials are fighting the proposed removal of the "Warthog" squadron, which they say is based on flawed calculations and would cut jobs and harm the Connecticut Guard's recruiting efforts. In other action related to the Pentagon's BRAC recommendations, Blumenthal has pushed for release of documents related to radiological contamination at the U.S. Naval Submarine Base in Groton. State officials already have said that the Pentagon has most likely grossly underestimated clean-up costs at the Groton base. Now Blumenthal says the Department of Defense "erroneously and intentionally" tallied long-term savings that would come from closing the sub base by excluding costs related to radioactive waste clean-up. He wrote on Friday to U.S. Sen. Susan M. Collins, chairwoman of the Senate committee on homeland security and governmental affairs, and U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, a committee member, asking them to subpoena the Pentagon for an update to a 1994 assessment of radioactive contamination at the base. Blumenthal cited Navy officials' admission that the 1994 assessment was only cursory and that further testing would be necessary before the base was converted to any other use. A thorough review of the updated assessment and other documents "is critical so that BRAC can make its determination based on complete and accurate information," Blumenthal wrote. He said Tuesday that Lieberman's staff has added the assessment update to a list of documents being sought as part of the BRAC process. The BRAC commission is slated to hold a regional hearing in Boston on July 6. |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 15 Jun 2005, 08:09 ] |
| Post subject: | |
This is actually a VERY important fight for states rights. I hope the states win this one, because the Fed Gov't is already WAY out of control when it comes to violating states rights. <b>There are two kinds of soldiers. Snipers...and targets.</b> <img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0> |
|
| Author: | fenderstrat72 [ 15 Jun 2005, 09:12 ] |
| Post subject: | |
What if the Feds say OK keep your Jets and oh by the way we are going to cut the funding for said A/C since you will not move them? Pay for the up keep all by yourself. Just a thought. You cant fight "City Hall". Fender "A woman drove me to drink and I hadn't even the courtesy to thank her". W.C. Fields Edited by - Fenderstrat72 on Jun 15 2005 08:12 AM |
|
| Author: | mattlott [ 15 Jun 2005, 09:33 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Just waiting for a govenor to declare war with his war planes as commander in chief. Who knows a future texas govenor might just annex mexico. Get my point, too many chiefs |
|
| Author: | MICHAEL PIJAR [ 15 Jun 2005, 11:21 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I tend to agree with Fender on this one. "GLAD TO HAVE BEEN THERE AND HAVE BEEN PROUD TO HAVE SERVERED" |
|
| Author: | TheBigThug [ 15 Jun 2005, 11:58 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I tend to laugh at MAttlot for that one! <img src=newicons/anim_lol.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=newicons/anim_lol.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=newicons/anim_lol.gif border=0 align=middle> "The greatest pleasure is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see their near and dear bathed in tears, to ride their horses and sleep on the white bellies of their wives and daughters." -Genghis Khan |
|
| Author: | Stinger [ 15 Jun 2005, 13:41 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Just waiting for a govenor to declare war with his war planes as commander in chief. Who knows a future texas govenor might just annex mexico. Get my point, too many chiefs <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>Don't say things like that Matt... I'd be going in as a ground pounder....and its hot as hell down there. " At least God has a sense of humor about the end of the world. Dr. Atkins died. Slipped, hit his head, got brain damage, died on life support. The man that invented the all meat diet...died a vegetable." Titus |
|
| Author: | Old Chief [ 15 Jun 2005, 14:19 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> What if the Feds say OK keep your Jets and oh by the way we are going to cut the funding for said A/C since you will not move them? Pay for the up keep all by yourself. Just a thought. You cant fight "City Hall". <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> Ah jeez Fender, don't make me take back everything I said about you understanding funding. The Air Force doesn't fund Air Guard units. Old Chief |
|
| Author: | mattlott [ 15 Jun 2005, 14:32 ] |
| Post subject: | |
you miss my point dont put it past a southern govenor do something strange like that. Remember we had Huey Long, Edwin Edwards, and Earl Long (who ran the state from his bed in the state mental hospital) |
|
| Author: | Hawg166 [ 15 Jun 2005, 16:49 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I hope they stay also. Their jets are junk ! Hey its just a joke, really I'm kidding. I think it would be bad for two reasons. First, with the closing of the 102nd FW at Cape Cod, I think there is going to be a rif, that would be bad for the 104th. Secondly, I dont want any of my freinds and some of them are good freinds, to loose their jobs without a promise of a new one. That would suck. I have to admit, Connecticut had some bad practices and their base suffers from some issues of being at an international airport. However we all have some practices that someone else would find issues with and all of our bases could be better. I take no issue with that whole article except this. On second thought I am not saying anymore on this thread. By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson |
|
| Author: | fenderstrat72 [ 15 Jun 2005, 18:09 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Chief are saying the states get no money from the Federal goverment to operate guard and reserve units? Fender "A woman drove me to drink and I hadn't even the courtesy to thank her". W.C. Fields |
|
| Author: | Old Chief [ 15 Jun 2005, 20:05 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Chief are saying the states get no money from the Federal goverment to operate guard and reserve units <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> Fender, the way it works is the NGB gets its funding from a separate line item in the DOD budget. I can give you the numbers from the last year I was in (2001). The budget for the Air side was 5.1 Billion. Along with that there's a little kitty..well, not so little, it was 335 Million that year..it's called GREA and it's what the Guard uses to fund little projects like CMS and it's the reason the ALQ-213 got installed 3 years early. The GREA also is the reason Guard A-10s have an additional system (LARS) as well as the Guard having brand new C-130J's while the Air Force has none..they were even funding the new tanker initive..on time-line and on budget until the Air Force stepped in, and you see where that went. There's people here who've heard "maybe we can get the Guard to pay for it"..well, that's where the money would come from. Congress is very friendly to the Guard and would never stop funding one unit..there's too much political incest within the hallowed walls of both houses. So, no, the states don't really get funding from the feds, the full timers are all federal employees or AGR (title 32 active duty), not state and regardless of the gaining command (ACC, AMC, AFSOC, whatever) the MajCom for every Guard unit is the NGB. Old Chief |
|
| Author: | jackb [ 16 Jun 2005, 00:06 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Secondly, I dont want any of my freinds and some of them are good freinds, to loose their jobs without a promise of a new one.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> But see, The whole point of BRAC is it's not <i>(supposed to be about)</i> politics. It's what is best for National Security. Not what's best for National Security so long as noone loses their job. "The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other." - Ronald Reagan |
|
| Author: | mattlott [ 16 Jun 2005, 05:00 ] |
| Post subject: | |
can you say welfare state. So now that I run my own business before I do what best for the business I must make sure everyone is guarenteed a job before I move. You know this it what got the airlines and GM introuble. |
|
| Author: | Dice-man [ 16 Jun 2005, 05:59 ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Guard/Reserves are Fed funded (like Chief said), it's placed seprate account but still Fed funded. If they (the states) want to run their oun air force then the money should come from the state. Ugly But Well Hung |
|
| Author: | 30mike-mike [ 16 Jun 2005, 07:03 ] |
| Post subject: | |
So, IF a Guard unit was strictly state funded, would the feds be able to deploy them...<i>i.e.</i> federalize them? The legal eagles would have a field day with this potential quagmire. "Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together...." - Carl Zwanzig |
|
| Author: | Old Chief [ 16 Jun 2005, 07:54 ] |
| Post subject: | |
30Mike-Mike, the word "quagmire" describes the situation to a tee. I've no idea how this will play out though I thought the concept fascinating. Dice, you've no idea how many times I've wondered just why the *#$! a governor needs a squadron of war planes..makes no sense to me. Old Chief |
|
| Author: | Dice-man [ 16 Jun 2005, 08:29 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Dice, you've no idea how many times I've wondered just why the *#$! a governor needs a squadron of war planes..makes no sense to me. Old Chief <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> Chief, I think it goes back to the Northern War of aggression, the states what the ability to protect themselves if needed. Ugly But Well Hung |
|
| Author: | M&M [ 16 Jun 2005, 10:35 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Northern War of aggression <img src=newicons/anim_lol.gif border=0 align=middle> I always thought you were a yankee Dice <img src="http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/457/bgnrjsiiw81q1gc.jpg" border=0> Edited by - m&m on Jun 16 2005 10:17 AM Edited by - m&m on Jun 16 2005 10:20 AM |
|
| Author: | Old Chief [ 16 Jun 2005, 11:09 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Chief, I think it goes back to the Northern War of aggression, the states what the ability to protect themselves if needed. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> LOL..makes as much sense as anything else I've heard Dice..does this mean all the hawgs will be moved south of the Mason Dixon line? Old Chief Edited by - Dice-man on Jun 16 2005 1:18 PM |
|
| Author: | Stinger [ 16 Jun 2005, 15:15 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> So, IF a Guard unit was strictly state funded, would the feds be able to deploy them...<i>i.e.</i> federalize them? The legal eagles would have a field day with this potential quagmire. "Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together...." - Carl Zwanzig <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>This is along the lines of how State Defense Force units are setup. In which case, and following the same rule set (most likely) then they would not be able to be Federalized. Of course I say that when the fact is that my CoC just got a federal inserted into it (dept of homeland security)... The point remains State Defense Forces may not ne federalized and deployed any farther than the immediate border states and only then with the consent of both state governers. " At least God has a sense of humor about the end of the world. Dr. Atkins died. Slipped, hit his head, got brain damage, died on life support. The man that invented the all meat diet...died a vegetable." Titus |
|
| Author: | mattlott [ 16 Jun 2005, 16:30 ] |
| Post subject: | |
lets see either consent to sending troops over seas or loose medicaid funding. |
|
| Author: | Hawg166 [ 16 Jun 2005, 17:19 ] |
| Post subject: | |
My point is that if you entered into a contract with someone you would want it honored. technicians are the same way and we deserve a fair treatment especially when we pick just as much slack as our active duty counterparts, and do it better, YES READ MY WORDS A LOT BETTER then most active duty units and we do it more efficiently and cheaper. And it doesnt have anything to do with national security here in the north, its about politics and payback. if you dont think so YOU DONT KNOW DICK ABOUT THE MILITARY HISTORY OF MASSACHUSETTS. By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson |
|
| Author: | TheBigThug [ 16 Jun 2005, 17:33 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I know OTIS, CAN SUCK a Phallus for all its Knowledge....HAHAHAHAHA And still not know the pointy end from detached end! IM glad that is one Pigeon Hole being bent over like Mike tysons prison Ho! Even though more than a handful of my Buddies still continue to cross off the squares there. "The greatest pleasure is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see their near and dear bathed in tears, to ride their horses and sleep on the white bellies of their wives and daughters." -Genghis Khan |
|
| Author: | Hawg166 [ 16 Jun 2005, 19:05 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well I hate to say it but the people from Western Mass hold great animosity for the eastern part of the state. Unfortunately and wrongfully, I might add we hold no sympathy for the politicians from the east. That kind of rolls over to the military at that end of the state also. We in Western Mass have been sold out as retribution for the Democratic votes or lack of them before. It has destroyed a once powerfull and beautifull section of New England and the history that went with it. And it is well known that it had nothing to do with national security. It was retribution pure and simple. So as far as Otis goes, yeah screw 'em they should have been bent over the table long ago. But I still believe that the civil servants should have their contracts honored untill they run out. Close anyone down but do it fairly. Sorry for the rant but the Springfield Armory and Westover Air Force Base were prized possesions. They built and kept alive the artisans and tradesmen that created Savage Arms, Smith and Wesson, Colt and the Chicopee Falls tool and die trade. Politics nothing else.<img src=icon_smile_angry.gif border=0 align=middle> By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|