The lastest round of proposed military base closings has sparked the usual reactions, mostly folks bemoaning the loss of civilian jobs, both on the bases and in the supporting communities. This makes me wonder if the real role of military bases spread around the country, now that we have fast transportation and don’t have too many worries about Indian uprisings. Are they still relevant? Are they pork brought from Washington by effective (in the eyes of their constituents) legislators? Or are they a form of workfare propping up local economies?
That’s not an “or” question. (You also left off the purpose of giving legislators a reason to fund the military (beyond the obvious).)
Different bases serve different purposes both to the military and to their communities and legislators. Many bases that were originally in the middle of nowhere are now in the middle of communities that have grown up around them and may not have much else in the way of industry. In addition to their current role they may also provide support to retired military in the community around them. Phil Carter over at Intel-dump argues that they also serve the purpose of connecting the military with the public at large.
As to the fast transportation issue, one could argue that by consolidating the bases we are putting more eggs in fewer baskets.
Okay, which is the OBVIOUS reason for legislators to fund the military: national defense or bringing pork back to the home district?
Perhaps too much time around politicians has made me cynical but more and more I hear them defending defense spending in terms of jobs, specifically jobs in their home districts. They don’t even bother maintaining the illusion there is an unselfish reason for their votes anymore.
Don’t get me wrong; I may be a liberal but I understand and respect the need for the military. I just get mad when my tax dollars go to keep open some base in Bumfuck against the wishes of the DOD because its representative doesn’t want to lose votes. It starts looking like welfare (or workfare, since it gives people jobs, like the WPA, to use an example from the Great Satan of conservatives 
).
But the recent round of base closings and consolidations suggests that fewer and fewer legislators are interested in bringing their districts such pork – or else that fewer and fewer are in a position to swing it.
Is this some sort of trick question?
The military, like fireman and civil defence, are often forgotten - out of sight/ out of mind, in that no one considers that they must be housed and fed in-between times of war, fire and disaster.
The answer is all of the above.
Some spending is necessary, some is pork and some is workfare.
The difficulty arises when you try to decide which specific piece of spending belongs in which category.
A bit of a trick, a bit of snark, a bit of frustration seeing good money thrown after bad in some of these places. Heard a preposterous report on NPR the other night where they were talking to the people responsible for dressing Glenview NAS in mufti. Yeah, it’d be a big help for the residents of Bumfuck to hear how an upscale suburb handled things. :rolleyes: So don’t think I’m not sympathetic with the folks who depend on Fort Stinking Desert for their livelihoods. OTOH, I hear conservatives whinging about people on welfare yet I see whole towns that are on the public dole.
You might be interested in this GQ thread, which I started on hearing Tampa’s MacDill AFB, right down the street from where I live, was being considered for shutdown (but they’ve decided to keep it open): “Redevelopment of closed military bases” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=305547.