Congress Pushing Tanks on Army that Doesn't Want Them

The politics of military spending

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."

It's the inverse of the federal budget world these days, in which automatic spending cuts are leaving sought-after pet programs struggling or unpaid altogether. Republicans and Democrats for years have fought so bitterly that lawmaking in Washington ground to a near-halt.

Comments

[BlueBook]

Strictly speaking, the army does still want tanks, but it wants to develop a new design rather than keep spending on the Cold War era Abrams. It's a good tank, but too expensive in a world where the fear of Commie hordes pouring through the Fulda Gap is a distant memory.

[Sevo]

IOWs, the army would prefer tanks rather than pork spending bills.
That's commendable, but there are many times when the services preferred spending that money in the fear the next year's budget might get cut.

[jessica9]

what Todd answered I cant believe that a person able to profit $5453 in 4 weeks on the internet. did you see this website and go to home tab for more detail--- http://googlejobs.org.qr.net/kiYJ