Profiles of Pentagon Spending by State Center
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PROFILES OF PENTAGON SPENDING BY STATE CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL POLICY BASED ON AVAILABLE DATA AS OF DECEMBER 2012 Contact: William D. Hartung Email: [email protected] Tel.: 917-923-3202 Note: These profiles were assembled by Natalie Peterson, Daniel Resnick, and William D. Hartung Profiles of Pentagon Spending by State December 2012 Alabama ......................................................................................... page 4 Alaska ............................................................................................ page 9 Arizona .......................................................................................... page 16 Arkansas ........................................................................................ page 22 California ....................................................................................... page 28 Colorado ....................................................................................... page 36 Connecticut ................................................................................... page 42 Delaware ....................................................................................... page 47 District of Columbia ...................................................................... page 52 Florida ........................................................................................... page 56 Georgia ......................................................................................... page 64 Hawaii ........................................................................................... page 68 Idaho ............................................................................................. page 74 Illinois ............................................................................................ page 77 Indiana .......................................................................................... page 82 Iowa .............................................................................................. page 89 Kansas ........................................................................................... page 92 Kentucky ....................................................................................... page 95 Louisiana ....................................................................................... page 99 Maine ............................................................................................ page 105 Maryland ....................................................................................... page 109 Massachusetts .............................................................................. page 116 Michigan ....................................................................................... page 124 Minnesota ..................................................................................... page 129 Mississippi ..................................................................................... page 135 Missouri ........................................................................................ page 140 Montana ....................................................................................... page 148 Nebraska ....................................................................................... page 152 Nevada .......................................................................................... page 155 New Hampshire ............................................................................ page 161 New Jersey .................................................................................... page 166 New Mexico .................................................................................. page 173 New York ....................................................................................... page 178 North Carolina .............................................................................. page 184 North Dakota ................................................................................ page 191 Ohio .............................................................................................. page 196 Oklahoma ...................................................................................... page 201 Oregon .......................................................................................... page 206 Pennsylvania ................................................................................. page 210 Rhode Island ................................................................................. page 215 South Carolina .............................................................................. page 221 South Dakota ................................................................................ page 225 Tennessee ..................................................................................... page 229 Texas ............................................................................................. page 235 Utah .............................................................................................. page 241 Vermont ........................................................................................ page 247 Virginia .......................................................................................... page 250 Washington .................................................................................... page 262 West Virginia ................................................................................. page 266 Wisconsin ...................................................................................... page 271 Wyoming ....................................................................................... page 275 ALABAMA SUMMARY: MILITARY SPENDING IN ALABAMA GENERAL Alabama is 10th in the country in Pentagon prime contract awards, receiving nearly $9 billion in FY2011. It is 8th in the country with $1,854.80 in contract awards per capita. Prime Pentagon spending accounted for 5.9% of Alabama’s overall GDP in 2011. MILITARY BASES 1) Redstone Arsenal (about 11,000 personnel) – Home to Army rocket and missile programs and components of Defense Intelligence Agency and Missile Defense Agency 2) Fort Rucker (about 11,000 personnel) – Home to the Army’s Aviation units (e.g., Center of Excellence, Technical Test Center) CONTRACTORS Boeing is the largest contractor in Alabama, employing around 2,500 employees at its Huntsville, AL location. This location is the headquarters for Boeing’s Strategic Missile & Defense Systems division, and key programs include work on a $3 billion Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) weapon system contract. The partnership of Army Fleet Support and L-3 Integrated Systems provides aviation maintenance and support for the Aviation Center Logistics Command and Fort Rucker’s tenants. It is based on Fort Rucker and employs 4,000. DETAILED PROFILE: MILITARY SPENDING IN ALABAMA ALABAMA MILITARY BASES 1- Redstone Arsenal - (11,457 total: 1,783 active duty and 9,674 civilians) Mission: • “For more than 40 years, Redstone has been the heart of the Army's rocket and missile programs.” • “’Team Redstone's’ mission is to perform basic and advanced weapons system research and development, placing the right missile and aviation systems with the troops, keeping them ready to fight, providing weapon systems, services and supplies to our allies, managing weapon systems such as the Cobra and PATRIOT, and supporting project managers within the program executive office structure.” • “Today, Redstone is home to the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM), the Space and Missile Defense Command, numerous Program Executive Offices (PEO), and major components of the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Missile Defense Agency. Also located here are numerous tenant and satellite organizations.” (Redstone) Community: • Located in the heart of the Tennessee Valley, in northern Alabama. • Total population served: 157,223 Soldiers (Active, retired, and dependents) and 27,620 civilians • “We have currently identified a net increase in positions associated for BRAC 2005 for Redstone Arsenal. While the actual numbers are still very subject to change, we currently estimate that the net increase will exceed 4000 personnel. This includes military, civilians and government contractors.” NOTE: BRAC stands for Base Realignment and Closure, a process under which an independent commission chooses a list of bases to be closed or scaled back and then Congress is required to vote the entire list up or down. This process is meant to prevent members from pushing to save bases in their states independently of the need for them. In this case it appears that Redstone is gaining personnel from another base that is being closed.. o It is estimated that BRAC will create an additional 5,000 indirect support jobs Redstone FAQ, Redstone Mission 2- Fort Rucker – (6,862: 4,460 active duty and 2,402 civilians) Mission: • Serves as the headquarters for the Army’s Aviation, including the Army’s Aviation Center of Excellence • “The U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence trains military, civilian, and international personnel in aviation and leadership skills, integrates Army aviation war fighting doctrine and requirements determination across the DOTMLPF (doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel and facilities), manages available resources, and sustains our commitment to the well-being of our Soldiers, civilians, retirees, and Families.” (Wikipedia) • “The US Army Aviation Technical Test Center is the only