GovernmentExecutive.com

While lawmakers from Connecticut and South Dakota -- both hard hit by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's recommended defense base closures and realignments -- are fighting to keep their bases intact, members from districts that stand to gain from the 2005 BRAC round are busy touting their successes.

Maryland stands to add more jobs than any other state, but unlike other potentially large beneficiaries, those gains are mostly civilian and contractor, rather than military, jobs. The state stands to lose 1,570 military jobs, while adding 9,012 civilian and 1,851 contractor jobs.

Fort Meade, located in the district of Democratic Rep. C.A. (Dutch) Ruppersberger, accounts for more than half of Maryland's potential job gains from this BRAC round. Ruppersberger, along with Democratic Rep. Benjamin Cardin, whose district is home to many Fort Meade employees, met with business leaders from Anne Arundel County soon after the recommendations were announced.

Business leaders expressed concern about the added stress on area infrastructure, especially roads, and said that planning for the influx is key, a spokeswoman for Ruppersberger said.

President Bush's home state of Texas also expects large gains. There, Fort Bliss, located in the district of Democratic Rep. Silvestre Reyes, stands to gain 11,501 jobs -- more than any other base, with the exception of Virginia's Fort Belvoir.

Fort Belvoir is located in the districts of Democratic Rep. James Moran and House Government Reform Chairman Davis, and is slated to gain 11,858 jobs.

In all, 22 states stand to gain from this BRAC round. Nationwide, the recommendations would cut more than 18,000 civilian jobs and nearly 11,000 military jobs, while adding nearly 3,000 contractor positions.

Since contractors shoulder the burden of their employees' benefits, adding those jobs rather than hiring civilians can save the military money.

COMMENTS

• taxpayer! Well stated. The corporations pass on all tax expense to we consumers. Therefore, we should eliminate all taxes on corporations to lower our costs, right? I know, the standard argument against is that "they won't lower cost, just make more profit." The usual situation though is that profits will lower, because they can, to only what the market will bare. Witness the average 3-5% margins in most grocery stores. They aren't any higher because there is always some other market that will charge that to get your business... But no, the liberals amongst us demand that we tax the snot out of every perceived "rich" entity to pay for the poor. Caveat Emptor Uber Libertarian Posted June 7, 2005 8:50 AM
• This writer clearly demonstrates that he does not know what he is talking about! "Since contractors shoulder the burden of their employees' benefits, adding those jobs rather than hiring civilians can save the military money." To begin with it is not since, it is because. Also, if the contractor does not pass on the cost of employee benefits they will go broke and out of business! This is like saying that corporations pay taxes. Corporations pass ALL costs on to customers are they go out of business. The individual taxpayer pays in every case! taxpayer Posted June 3, 2005 6:36 AM
• Just a thought on the last line of the story: "Since contractors shoulder the burden of their employees' benefits, adding those jobs rather than hiring civilians can save the military money." The government certainly still pays the cost of those employee benefits through the fee the contractor charges for the service or product provided. There is plenty of evidence showing the higher costs often incurred by the government when work is done by private contractors. Not every opportunity to privatize work is a good one. Karen Heiser Posted June 2, 2005 7:32 AM