Kirtland AFB officials release Fiscal Year 2010 economic impact statement

On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Robert Anderson <citizen@comcast.net> wrote:

April 22, 2011  Release #11-15

Kirtland AFB officials release Fiscal Year 2010 economic impact statement

KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. – In Fiscal Year 2010, from Oct. 1, 2009 through Sept. 30, 2010, Kirtland Air Force Base entities infused nearly $7.8 billion into the economy nationwide.

In the local “Economic Impact Region,” which includes all counties within 50 miles of the base, the 2010 impact amount was $4.3 billion. That figure includes $2.2 billion in payroll and more than $2 billion in job creation and expenditures.

Col. Robert L. Maness, commander of the 377th Air Base Wing, the host unit at Kirtland AFB, said the base’s connections with the people and businesses of New Mexico are essential to performing the assigned functions of national security.

“The business relationships between Kirtland Air Force Base and our community partners are key factors in the success of the many missions underway here. In addition to enhancing our ability to carry out the duties entrusted to us, these relationships have cascading benefits beyond the base’s boundaries, as the dollar amounts in the economic impact statement indicate,” he said.

Some highlights of the installation’s 2010 economic impact appear below:

·         Kirtland AFB is the largest employer in New Mexico, with more than 21,000 people working on base – estimated to be one of every 14 jobs in the state.

·         Small businesses were awarded $428 million in contracts.

·         Three major military construction projects totaling $30 million were completed or are in progress.

·         The Air Force Research laboratory invests $3 million a year in New Mexico to provide science, technology, engineering and mathematics education outreach to students ranging from fifth grade through graduate school.

******************************************************************************************



This was my reply:

In his March 10, 2011 NYTimes oped Nobel Laurette Paul Krugman wrote:

Like anyone who writes regularly about what passes for economic and fiscal debate in American politics, I’ve developed a strong tolerance for nonsense. After all, if I got upset every time powerful people were illogical and/or dishonest, I’d spend every waking hour in a state of raging despair.

Yet there are still moments when I find myself saying, “They can’t really be that stupid,” or maybe, “They can’t really think the rest of us are that stupid.”

 


This is one of those moments, when faced with sufficient economic nonsense, I find myself responding. 

The major problem with this PR piece is not that the negative impacts have been excluded from measurement. It is what is being purported as being a "benefit/positive" is itself in fact a "cost/negative".

KAFB spins the money they TOOK from the community as an "infusion"  rather than as the "extraction" it actually is. Labor is an INPUT INTO the production process, not an OUTPUT FROM that process.  The $2.2 billion is a measure of what is LOST, not what is GAINED.

....of the $7.8 billion that KAFB extorted, they claim to have "invested" (returned) $3million, or about 1/25 of 1% to the schools; and much of that likely is not for teaching how to live better, but how to kill better.  So perhaps one hundredth of one per cent could be deducted from the $7.8 billion that former President Eishenhower would have labeled as theft.

That "contribution" pales in comparison to the contribution other criminals, such as Pepe Escobar,  returned to his Colombian community, without causing nearly as much devastation.

KAFB is just one of many (LANL, SNL,CAFB, WSMR) military installations in New Mexico, one that by KAFB's own admission consumes one of every fourteen jobs.   Could they have someone explain to the community whether they think that if ALL US citizens were employed at high paying military functions how they envision citizens are to live? Do they envision the U.S. being able to extort enough product from other nations in the manner former Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee James Galbraith describes in his book "The Predator State" ?

Perhaps those employed by KAFB should be forced to sharecrop, to be paid out of the proceeds of what they "produce"?   A diet of bombs might reveal the dishonesty of such an accounting system.

 

 “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. ---Dwight D Eisenhower, 1953

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it”  -- Upton Sinclair

                   “The efforts of men are utilized in two different ways: they are directed to  

                     the production or transformation of economic goods, or else to the 

                    appropriation of goods produced by others” –Vilfredo Pareto

                   "What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for 

                    sure that just ain't so"     ---   Mark Twain

 

Pakistan gives CIA license to kill Pakistani – asserts ex-CIA Undercover Operative

Check out the interview of Albuquerque's Bob Anderson from Stop the War Machine

Pakistan gives CIA license to kill Pakistani – asserts ex-CIA Undercover Operative

 

By Omar Farooque, on March 25th, 2011

 

Talkhaba interviews Robert Anderson a CIA operative who operated in Vietnam some 60 years back recently he wrote an article on CounterPunchon what the undercover work CIA did back then and the similarities with CIA now in terms of running operative like Raymond Davis working in Pakistan Robert Anderson teaches economics and political science at a U.S. community college. He served in the U.S. Air Force (like Bruce Gagnon) and saw combat during the 1967-68 Tet Offensive in Vietnam. Later, he helped form the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
Continue reading Pakistan gives CIA license to kill Pakistani – asserts ex-CIA Undercover Operative
 

What is often lost in the discussion about government debt, especially in the discussion of extending tax cuts to billionaires is what the debt buys matters.   Increasing debt to finance tax cuts is bad in the same way borrowing to go on vacation or gamble is bad; wealthy folks (despite protestations to the contrary) simply do not spend their proceeds on infrastructure or capital goods - they buy treasury bonds, in essence loaning back to the government at interest, in the same way they make money by charging the public interest for the money they received from the public for free. (or other existing assets, merely recreating a bubble).  Is anything more reprehensible than for corporations, that caused the unemployment, to be generating record profits while unemployment is so high?

Debt offset by collateral, whether in the form a machine, school, hospital, wind turbines, solar panels is entirely different.  As Martin Wolf points out, assets matter.  In fact, I would go so far as to those that argue for consumer spending in the form of more trinkets are also wrong. Consumers were misled into overspending, their inflated housing and stock prices leading them to reduce these balances to a level thought to be more appropriate for their wealth position. When these perceived household balances were discovered to be overstated, consumers STOP spending on consumer goods, and desire to build up these balances. This implies INVESTMENT goods or PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE is too low, NOT consumer goods expenditures.


See, eg this article by Axel Leijonhufud on balance sheet recessions.

Assets matter just as much as debt

By Martin Wolf
Published: November 25 2010 20:43 | Last updated: November 26 2010 20:41

Crises have always led to intense discussion of the role of the state. The present one should be no exception. The immediate danger has not passed: just look at events in the eurozone. But the time has come to look at the longer-run implications. This is particularly important when one considers fiscal consolidation. On this I make a simple point: it is not just about debt; it must also be about assets.

rest here: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fb6c9312-f8d1-11df-b550-00144feab49a.html

Chalmers Johnson passes on at 79

More here:

THE IMPACT TODAY AND TOMORROW OF CHALMERS JOHNSON


by his partner at the Japanese Policy Research Institute, Steve Clemons:

One of  really important thinkers and writers of American Empire. 

As Steve writes:  

who from my perspective rivals Henry Kissinger as the most significant intellectual force who has shaped and defined the fundamental boundaries and goal posts of US foreign policy in the modern era.

 He will be sorely missed.

Update:  

Also nice piece on Chalmers at Democracy Now,  
Monday, November 22, 2010

Santa Fe City Council Proposed Resolution on a Training Proposal

 This appeared in last Thursday's Albuquerque Journal, November 4.

Council To Consider Support for Flyover Training

By Kiera Hay
Journal Staff Writer
          Breaking from its neighbors, the Santa Fe City Council is set to consider next week a resolution supporting — with conditions — an Air Force proposal to create a low-altitude tactical navigation (LATN) area in northern New Mexico and southern Colorado.
        The measure marks a flip-flop of sorts. City Councilor Rebecca Wurzburger last month introduced a resolution opposing the flyovers — a stance in line with that taken by Santa Fe, Taos and Rio Arriba counties, among others, as well as the city's own Public Works Committee. Wurzburger withdrew the resolution at last week's City Council meeting.

Read more: ABQJOURNAL NORTH: Council To Consider Support for Flyover Training http://www.abqjournal.com/north/042350199809north11-04-10.htm#ixzz14tufGnPl

\

The Santa Fe New Mexican reported on the Council resolution Monday, November 8.

City considers support of flyovers

Measure on training flights moves forward ahead of impact study

By Tom Sharpe | The New Mexican

11/8/2010

The Santa Fe City Council is moving toward passing a resolution that supports, with conditions, the U.S. Air Force plan for low-altitude training flights over Northern New Mexico.

On Monday, the council's Public Works Committee recommended passage, with a sole dissenting vote from Councilor Rosemary Romero. The measure goes to the full City Council on Wednesday.

The resolution would support a proposal to establish a so-called Low-Altitude Tactical Navigation training area, but only if an environmental assessment, now under way, identifies potential impacts to Northern New Mexico and Santa Fe and determines ways to mitigate the impacts.

"Such impacts include, but are not limited to, possible detrimental effects to air space/air traffic, noise levels, public safety, air quality, physical sciences, biological sciences, cultural and historic resources, land use and recreation, tourism and other socioeconomic elements of the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of affected areas, as well as possible increases in forest fires due to aircraft crashes or flare use," says the resolution sponsored by Mayor David Coss and Councilor Rebecca Wurzburger.

Wurzburger last month withdrew a resolution she had sponsored opposing the planned flights, which also had prompted expressions of concern by officials in other Northern New Mexico communities and counties. At the urging of New Mexico's congressional delegation, the Air Force this fall delayed implementing such a plan while it gathers more public comments.
rest here

My response, emailed to Mayor Coss and the eight Santa Fe City Councilor:

Dear Mayor Coss:                                                                   10 November  2010

Dear Santa Fe City Councilors:

I started my career teaching economics at then Southern Colorado State College in Pueblo in 1971 [I taught quite a few Air Force Academy cadets their economics], and was hired by director Howard McKee to be a part of the Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill  [SOM] Environmental Study group during the summer of 1972 to contribute to an EIS on the Mount Hood Freeway, a study that is still a model for planners around the country.

The irony of this is that Howard is BOTH the poster child of how to do an Environmental Impact Study [EIS] correctly, and how even a committed public servant with a reputation for “building community” can become, along with Chicago entrepreneur and Libertarian Mike Keiser, the poster child of how one can unwittingly be the recipient of enormous wealth transfers from working Americans, what I believe is at play here. [ look inside book here, and read “first pages”]

These experiences (Howard’s and my path crossed several more times on other projects) compel me to advise you that while I find your apparent support of a document that “determines the potential environmental and socioeconomic consequences of the proposed LATN training area on Northern New Mexico" quite laudable, I can unequivocally state that your assertion or belief that an Environmental Assessment can achieve this objective is false. It has absolutely no chance of understanding these impacts.

An EA, by definition, is very brief, keeping its focus only on the impacts of the proposal, and how those impacts might be mitigated. It does not state a purpose that is broad enough so that other alternatives may be considered, which after all, as Section 1502.14. Alternatives including the proposed action, states, beginning thus:

This section is the heart of an environmental impact statement.

By advocating for an EA, rather than an EIS, you are in fact contradicting your avowed interest in wishing to know the impacts.  My experience has made it clear  that without defining the purpose in a broad enough way so as to consider real alternatives (flight training by simulators, mission achieved by UAV  drones, use of Osprey and C-130 in humanitarian missions rather than as death squads) it is impossible to even approach the objectives you seem to think might be achieved with an EA.

In short, you could have a resolution EITHER supporting LATN, OR a resolution demanding an evidence based study of the environmental and socio-economic impacts. You cannot have both.  In fact the outspoken support for a broader mission, that considers socio-economic impacts has been advocated by the President, by General McCrystal, by former and present Secretaries of State Dick Cheney and Robert Gates, by two former Sen. Bingaman aides, Winston Wheeler and Steve Clemons, and countless national forums, by people such as Thomas Friedman, Christopher Preble, Andrew Bacevich,  and Robert Pape. Even the recent Military Times Poll of officers does not support the allegation that this mission has the support of military officers, with 83% recognizing the importance of non-military missions.

Sincerely, Erich Kuerschner, Public Choice Economist, Taos, NM  575.770.3338  Erich's Blog

Links to Cooking the Books on Employment Data

Much of what is being taught as macro economics and Keynes at the undergraduate level is quite different from what is taught at the graduate level. I am not aware of any other field having this disparity. In any case Mike Whitney gets Keynes, who is having a revival.

Mike Whitney: Bernanke's Dollar Policy

 

 

Links to articles on "cooking employment data at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Taos is fortunate to have folks dedicated to generating their own employment data.

Phantom jobs: Big Lies, Little Lies.  by Paul Craig Roberts

BS From the BLS: Thins are a Lot Worse Than They're Telling Us. By Dave Lindorff

Summer Rerun: America: Banana Republic Watch  by Yves Smith

Shadow Government Statistics : Home Page

www.shadowstats.com

‎"John Williams’ Shadow Government Statistics" is an electronic newsletter service that exposes and analyzes flaws in current U.S. government economic data and reporting, as well as in certain private-sector numbers, and provides an assessment of underlying economic and financial conditions, net

Update on Earlier [Nov 3, 2010] Post on David Cay Johnson's Non-reporting of Income shifts:

Update:  Nov. 6, 2011 on Nov. 3 post on David Cay Johnson's Non-reporting of Income shifts:

  

Checking  into this a bit further, I find this: It gets more and more interesting:

Social Security’s $32.2 Billion Mistake

November 3, 2010 3:53 P.M.

By Daniel Foster    

In the midst of electoral chaos yesterday, I did not get around to noting a striking screw-up at the Social Security Administration — you know, the folks with which we’re supposed to entrust our retirements. I’ll get to that in a minute, but first, a Bob Herbert column sent along by a friend, on rising income inequality and a new book on the subject by two political scientists:

          <snip>

        The SSA data Johnston (and Herbert) rely on is completely bogus — the result of a massive error. Check it:

The Social Security Administration asked its inspector general to investigate how a $32.3 billion mistake skewed its statistics on 2009 wages in the U.S.
Two people were found to have filed multiple W-2 forms that made them into multibillionaires, an agency official said yesterday. Those reports threw statistical wage tables out of whack and, in figures released Oct. 15, made it appear that top U.S. earners had seen their pay quintuple in 2009 to an average of $519 million.

 <snip>

         

UPDATE: Mr. Johnston writes me:
Your final point about me in your post is dead wrong.
The Social Security Administration discovered its mistake BECAUSE my column in Tax Notes drew attention to the figures, which I accurately reported. Gosh, but for my accurate reporting this mistake would have stayed permanently in the record and forever given us a false impression of wage income in 2009!

The whole post is worth a read, for those for whom truth, rather than dogma, is important.  it is here