A Stitch in Haste

The latest round of proposed military base closings has some politicians crying foul:

The Air Force wants to retire aging aircraft from many Guard units, close or consolidate some of their bases and give some units new missions, like flying remotely piloted Predator aircraft, that are better suited to today's national security environment, Air Force officials say.

But doing that would leave more than two dozen states without emergency aircraft to fight fires, recover from hurricanes and cope with other natural disasters, lawmakers say.
...
[Pennsylvania Governor Ed] Rendell said closing the base would infringe on his authority to deploy Pennsylvania guard personnel and would strip the state's efforts to prevent a terrorist attack and respond to natural disasters.

To the extent that the federal government has contractual obligations to the states to provide a certain minimum support of National Guard operations, then the affected states may have a valid gripe.

But the "local disaster" argument is a totally different matter and a totally invalid argument. It is not, or at least it should not be, the federal government's obligation to subsidize states' disaster preparedness infrastructure.

Obviously individual states are not allowed to acquire their own fighter jets or nuclear submarines. But there is nothing whatsoever preventing states from acquiring their own rescue planes, helicopters or boats, nor is there any reason why those states especially prone to forest fires, hurricanes or earthquakes cannot incorporate emergency preparedness into their own public safety infrastructure.

Nothing, that is, except their own fiscal stinginess. They want the airplanes — they just don't want to have to pay for them.

Why exactly should taxpayers in New York pay for National Guard units in Pennsylvania that serve no purpose except to benefit Pennsylvanians? Protecting our air space is a truly federal public good and should be provided, and paid for, with federal tax dollars. But local disasters are, um, local and preparations for them should be provided, and paid for, locally.

State politicians should not try to bolster their contractual arguments with "local disaster" appeals to the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling. If they have legal arguments to make, then make them. But don't tell me that I should have to pay for their local problems.

UPDATE #1: Pennsylvania Governor Rendell and the state's two (Republican) senators are now suing to block the closure of a Reserve unit. Of course, if the State of Pennsylvania offered to fully fund all the expenses of the unit from now on, then the Pentagon probably wouldn't mind keeping the unit active. But somehow I doubt that's what the Keystone Cops Politicians have in mind.

More thoughts at Arkanssouri.

UPDATE #2: Pennsylvania has won its lawsuit against the Department of Defense. You can now expect any base closing that affects any National Guard unit to be challenged by state politicians. I still say that if a state wants to maintain a unit for, say, emergency preparendness, then let the state pay for it.