Army says no more tanks. Congress says yes!

Well, just another example of congressmen doing what is good for their district, as opposed to what is best for the country.

Built to dominate the enemy in combat, the Army's hulking Abrams tank is proving equally hard to beat in a budget battle. Lawmakers from both parties have devoted nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money over the past two years to build improved versions of the 70-ton Abrams. But senior Army officials have said repeatedly, "No thanks."

Ok alright Army officials are trying to save us some tax dollars alright!

Why are the tank dollars still flowing? Politics. Keeping the Abrams production line rolling protects businesses and good paying jobs in congressional districts where the tank's many suppliers are located.

So here we come to the problem. The district that its helping will keep electing this official because its helping them, not the nation as a whole

Rep. Jim Jordan and Sen. Rob Portman, two of Capitol's Hill most prominent deficit hawks, as well as Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. They said their support is rooted in protecting national security, not in pork-barrel politics.

Thanks guys. Well you can read about why this money has to go into defense because of designated budgets....

Federal budgets are always peppered with money for pet projects. What sets the Abrams example apart is the certainty of the Army's position.

Army 1
Congress 0

hosted.ap.org...

reply to post by Covertblack


Maybe we need a few more hundred M1 tanks to give to the Muslim Brotherhood?

Never know.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Covertblack

 

Maybe we need a few more hundred M1 tanks to give to the Muslim Brotherhood?

Never know.

It's messed up we gave them money, eh?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Covertblack

 

Maybe we need a few more hundred M1 tanks to give to the Muslim Brotherhood?

Never know.

Those tanks go to the Egyptian Military who keep the Muslim Brotherhood in check. That is where the real power in Egypt is and that is why the US holds such strong influence over it.

As for the OP, sadly this is all to common. The military has always had to take ships, planes, subs, tanks etc, it does not want because it was built in a important congressional district. Now some people might say so what, it does not do any harm to the military but, it does. They shove extra stuff off on the military and now that stuff needs to be stored and maintained. That money has to come from something else the military considered more vital. Remember during the campaign and Romney kept going on about making the Navy take more destroyers they did not want? That is how you get those ship yard workers to vote for you in some of those battle ground states. Of course this is done by both parties all the time, it is not like one is more guilty than the other.

reply to post by MrSpad


Exactly, politics. Like I said these representatives will be reelected due to it helping that district. Maybe we need to stop thinking about just our small world, and begin to think of the big picture.

There's a bunch of stuff we don't need that politicians shove down our throats in the Army.

The current Army Combat Uniform in the "Universal Camouflage Pattern" is a good example. 5 billion spent on camo that doesn't work only to replace all the equipment for OEF to multicam.

This was a political decision, as well as a senior military decision that has wound up costing the taxpayers a bundle for no reason.

any program that hurts the poor and disadvantaged (no political power)....cut, like a hot knife through butter......but, spend more money on businesses (lots of political power) that donate money to congressmen...FULL SPEED AHEAD!!

Yea tanks are bad. Who would want to have the work for people building the components? It's not like the whole tank is built in one place. In some ways this is not a good thing as there goes another source of jobs. In this case the politicians were actually looking out for the needs of their constituents. Considering the part requirements for a tank, I'm a little surprised that there isn't more production being done to replace parts as part of wear and tear.

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Covertblack

 

Maybe we need a few more hundred M1 tanks to give to the Muslim Brotherhood?

Never know.

It's messed up we gave them money, eh?

And F-16s.

reply to post by MrSpad


Keeps them in check huh?

Is that why nearly 2/3's of them were recently relieved of duty by the Brotherhood controlling Egypt?

You know, to better keep themselves in check?

Originally posted by jimmyx
any program that hurts the poor and disadvantaged (no political power)....cut, like a hot knife through butter......but, spend more money on businesses (lots of political power) that donate money to congressmen...FULL SPEED AHEAD!!

How about cut any program that isn't specifically called for in the Constitution?

National defense would not be one of those.

Way back in 1909, as Churchill put it -

“The Admiralty had demanded six ships; the economists offered four; and we finally compromised on eight”.

Does the U.S need more M1 Abrams to remain strategically strong?

8,725 US Abrams Tanks

386 UK Challenger 2 Tanks

407 French Leclerc Tanks

400 Russian T90 Tanks

500 Chinese Type 99 Tanks

400 German Leopard Tanks

Tanks, but no tanks.

reply to post by hangedman13


And how many of those tanks are currently going from the assembly line to mothballs because the Army doesn't need them? Yes, let's keep all those jobs going, and spend billions more keeping tanks we don't need sitting in storage. Instead of taking those same workers and putting them to work on something better than the Abrams, or something that we can buy cheaper, in smaller numbers, we'll just keep building the same thing and keep those people working. Instead of cutting the military budget by spending money on things that make more sense.

Maybe the Army can borrow some from the DHS.

Originally posted by Helious
Maybe the Army can borrow some from the DHS.

DHS currently doesn't have tanks. Maybe that will change now.

reply to post by Covertblack


They do have MRAPs though.

I'm not sure why either. It's a mine resistant ambush protected vehicle, last I checked no one is mining the roads or ambushing the members of the DHS.

reply to post by Covertblack


Tank building means jobs in a nation where most industry has long since shown its love for country by moving to China and elsewhere. I understand why congress wants to keep the line operating... both for those jobs and because they know that taking them away would make a country already angry as hell, even angrier.

Oh yes, both parties were a part of the globalist agenda that saw our middle class stripped of work and know that we the people are no longer buying their excuses.

On the flip... all that taxpayer money going into a model of tank that will be obsolete in a few years (when the M1A3 arrives) could be redirected to other things... like congressional raises and foodstamps for illegal aliens.

Lovely stuff.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrSpad

 

Keeps them in check huh?

Is that why nearly 2/3's of them were recently relieved of duty by the Brotherhood controlling Egypt?

You know, to better keep themselves in check?

The younger officers cut a deal to get rid of older officers. This is not something new in Egypt nor is it something unique to the Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhoods hold on power is very weak. The military more or less controls Egypts foriegn affairs (pro West and pro treaty with Isreal) in return for the letting the Brotherhood run internal affairs. Both of those are only up to point though. However the life blood of the military is US aid. Of course its not like the Brotherhood leadership is really interested in anything but staying in power. Much like the GOP in the US that wraps itself up as the religious, conservative party but, in fact acts only in its own interests so is the Brotherhood. Of course it is very American to even thing of the Brootherhood as a unfied party when it is more a patch wolk of different groups with different objectives. The opposition is the same. Then you add the military to the mix and you have one heck of a balancing act for anyone in power in Egypt now. Of course this is why the only truly unified group, the military, has been the one true source of power in Egypt for so long. I spent quite a bit of that time in that country with its military trying to explain the crazyness of Egyptian politics but, the one thing they made clear is the military will always be the real leaders of Egypt.

The people on capital hill keep ordering things the military doesn't need or want then when the military needs something they cannot get it. Congress is all about giving money to their contractors. That is all right if what they are buying is needed. The military leaders should be able to buy what they need. Their soldiers could use a little more money too instead of tanks that they don't need.