Sometime between now and Monday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will release a list of military bases the department wants closed, labeling it unneeded infrastructure that wastes billions of dollars annually.
Community leaders in affected areas will express shock and anger.
Paid lobbyists will begin pumping out reasons why a new nine-member Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission should spare particular bases from the final list to be sent the White House by Sept. 8.
And tens of thousands of military retirees who rely on these bases for medical care, cost-free drugs, discount shopping and more will wonder whether to pull up roots and move near a base not on the BRAC list.
The size of retiree migrations from past BRAC rounds is a mystery. Defense officials who oversee installations say they have no such data. Neither does the Government Accountability Office, which carefully has studied the impact of previous BRAC rounds.
But there’s general agreement among BRAC experts that the next round of closings should trigger smaller retiree migrations than past rounds.
They point to two health-care options enacted since BRAC 1995 that should ease the expense for retirees of living without a base. They are Tricare for Life, the robust insurance supplement to Medicare for service elderly, and the increasingly popular Tricare mail order pharmacy plan.
They also cite a boom in commercial discount stores, such as Wal-Mart and Price Club, which now compete for customers with military base stores.
Several Arizona cities commissioned a study in 2002 to measure the effect of nearby bases on their economies. The study contractor, Maguire Co. of Phoenix, found it reasonable to assume that 25 percent of military retirees living within 50 miles of a base were so “linked” to its amenities that they would leave the area if the base closed.
The 25 percent was no more than a guess, the study suggested.
Yet a professor at Rutgers University, Michael J. Lahr, used the figure last year in a study for the governor of New Jersey to estimate the impact of base closures in that state. Lahr conceded in his report that he was unable to find any information on the “probable proportion of military retirees” who would relocate “if all military bases in New Jersey were shuttered.”
Lahr wrote that he was using the 25 percent estimate used in Arizona in his own economic models because there “is no reason to believe that New Jersey-base military retirees would behave any differently.”
Sociology professor Mark Fagan at Jackson State University in Jackson, Ala., actually surveyed retirees living in Calhoun County, home of Fort McClellan, in 1995 after the Pentagon released its last BRAC list. Fifty-four percent of respondents said they would leave the county if McClellan closed.
But when the base finally closed, in 1999, there was no follow-up census to learn how many of the surveyed retirees moved. Whatever the percentage was, Fagan suggested in a recent phone interview, fewer retirees likely would migrate today from a new BRAC area.
“With Wal-Mart super-centers and with Internet shopping,” he said, the financial impact for retirees of losing base access “has gone down.”
That doesn’t mean, he added, retirees won’t miss their bases.
“These military people are socialized to live together,” said Fagan. “They are conditioned to the pomp and ceremony and status” of being part of a military community that recognizes their careers and rank. “The nostalgia is very strong to be around a base, around that military culture.”
Fagan said he recently proposed to local community leaders that they encourage developers to turn portions of McClellan, including base housing, the golf course, ponds and walking trails, into a retirement community where retirees who never left could share in that nostalgia again.
The lack of hard facts about retiree migration from BRAC rounds shouldn’t obscure some harsh realities. One reason retirees might not flee is housing prices often plummet in the months following release of a BRAC list.
Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., perhaps the toughest critic of BRAC 2005 in Congress, calls it “incredibly wasteful” and illogical, given that the nation is at war in Iraq and Afghanistan and that the Pentagon has a re-basing plan set that will relocate to stateside bases more than 70,000 service members and 100,000 dependents and defense civilians now assigned overseas.
Taylor charges Rumsfeld and staff with pulling “out of thin air” their early estimate for this BRAC round that the military is burdened with 24 percent excess base capacity. Of particular concern to Taylor and his constituents is the likelihood that the Pascagoula Naval Station, home to 2,500 sailors and 5,000 family members, will be on the closure list.
“There’s a lot of handwriting on the wall,” Taylor said, including a decline in recent years in the number of ships based there. Once a base is on the list, Taylor said, “it’s almost impossible to turn it around.”
When a base is to close, Taylor said, a retiree migration begins.
“About half of all our nation’s [2 million] military retirees chose to retire near a base so they could use the hospital, the commissary, the golf course and recreational opportunities that are there. When the base closes, everything closes … and you have really devastated their lives.”
Tricare for Life will cushion the blow for older retirees, he conceded. But most retirees and many others living in BRAC areas still will lose a lot.
New BRAC Commission Chairman Anthony Principi didn’t shy away from such perceptions at a May 3 inaugural hearing on Capitol Hill.
“The ripples of the proposals” to be announced this month, Principi said, “will be tsunamis in the communities they hit.”
To comment, write Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA 20120-1111, e-mail milupdate@aol.com or visit militaryupdate.com.
