Congress FORCES the Army to spend-spend-spend

[Star]

Congress Forcing The Army To Make Tanks - Business Insider

Members of Congress are forcing the Army to purchase tanks that it neither wants nor needs, Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston of CNN report. ​

Earlier this year Army chief of staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno told Congress that it would save taxpayers $3 billion if the Pentagon holds off repairing, refurbishing or making new M-1 Abrams tanks for three years until new technologies are developed.​

There are currently more than 2,000 inactive M-1 Abrams tanks sitting at an Army depot in the California desert.
"Our tank fleet is in good shape and we don't need to [make repairs] because of the great support that we have gotten over the last two years," he told the House armed services committee.​

But Congress set aside $181 million for tanks in the proposed congressional budget for next year and a bipartisan group of 173 House members sent a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on April 20 that urged him to support their decision to produce more 60-plus-ton vehicles.​

Congress doesn't want to kill any jobs in their districts and argue that tank production is "necessary to protect the industrial base."​

Not so necessary on the battlefield though, since the last real tank battle occurred in the First Gulf War. Since then tanks have largely been used for anti-personnel purposes, or for making new doors in structures to aid the movement of ground troops. Nevertheless, the U.S. hasn't halted production since before World War II.​

✄snip>​

 

[ScienceRocks]

I could see a major tank battle happen against China or Russia. Always good to have the assets than not to have them. Being caught with one's pants down=bad.

 

[Charles_Main]

You guys are so dishonest. It is just pathetic.

 

[emptystep]

More tanks or more public servants in Detroit? Time to cut defense spending?

 

[ScienceRocks]

More tanks or more public servants in Detroit? Time to cut defense spending?

Public servants are a local issue...One that detroit can't afford as their population are a bunch of idiots.

Defense spending is necessary because you never know when you're going to get into a major war. Tomorrow Turkey may push Nato into Syria with Russia diving in against us.

 

[Moonglow]

Congress Forcing The Army To Make Tanks - Business Insider

Members of Congress are forcing the Army to purchase tanks that it neither wants nor needs, Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston of CNN report. ​

Earlier this year Army chief of staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno told Congress that it would save taxpayers $3 billion if the Pentagon holds off repairing, refurbishing or making new M-1 Abrams tanks for three years until new technologies are developed.​

There are currently more than 2,000 inactive M-1 Abrams tanks sitting at an Army depot in the California desert.
"Our tank fleet is in good shape and we don't need to [make repairs] because of the great support that we have gotten over the last two years," he told the House armed services committee.​

But Congress set aside $181 million for tanks in the proposed congressional budget for next year and a bipartisan group of 173 House members sent a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on April 20 that urged him to support their decision to produce more 60-plus-ton vehicles.​

Congress doesn't want to kill any jobs in their districts and argue that tank production is "necessary to protect the industrial base."​

Not so necessary on the battlefield though, since the last real tank battle occurred in the First Gulf War. Since then tanks have largely been used for anti-personnel purposes, or for making new doors in structures to aid the movement of ground troops. Nevertheless, the U.S. hasn't halted production since before World War II.​

✄snip>​

Maybe I can pick up a spare M-1 Abrahms at a govt. surplus auction.

 

[emptystep]

(i thought this was amusing, in a off sort of way.)
Army to Congress: Thanks, but no tanks – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs
[there's a video for those who don't like to read.]
The answer came in the proposed congressional budget for next year. It includes $181 million for tanks the Army doesn't want or need now. That begs another question: who will likely get the money for the 70 or so tanks covered by that contract when it goes out for bid?

"General Dynamics would probably get the contract for it anyway because they are kind of the ones that are out there leading the way on this," said McKeon.

The Army tank battle sends an unsettling message to the Defense Department, says Sharp, with the defense think tank. But it's a message that may not surprise a public weary from decades of battles and horse-trading that have defined Capitol Hill.

"The fact that the military is having such a hard time getting this relatively small amount of money to be saved, I think is an indication of the huge uphill fight that the military faces when it comes to Congress," Sharp said. "Congress is going to fight tooth and nail to protect defense investments that benefit their constituents and the people that live in their states."

Maybe the next time the generals go up to the Hill, they should take a cue from the well-protected tanks parked in California. Perhaps they might consider wearing body armor.

 

[Star]

I could see a major tank battle happen against China or Russia. Always good to have the assets than not to have them. Being caught with one's pants down=bad.

IOW's you're OK with our congress being bribed, then wasting our tax money on programs the experts say we don't need -- OK, it's good to know where you stand on throwing taxpayer money down rat-holes -- at least you're not lying about not giving a shit about where our taxpayer money is spent.


A tank battle (heeheehee) -- is that your version of the Cheney 1% percent doctrine?

 

[uscitizen]

Pork Pork Pork.
Bipartisan Pork too.

Tha same thing happened a few years back with transport airplanes.

 

[occupied]

"Better tanks we don't need than health care for people we don't like."

Republican party.

 

[whitehall]

What the hell is this all about? First the left accuses congress of cutting funding for military toys and then it accuses congress of forcing the Army to buy tanks. You would think the senate had been abolished and the president was hiding under a desk if you listen to the radical left long enough. Will they ever stop whining about the unfairness of only controlling 2/3 of the government?

 

[Seawytch]

You guys are so dishonest. It is just pathetic.

Who guys? The hypocritical deficit hawks that are okay with pork as long as its painted camouflage or wrapped in the flag?

 

[Oldguy]

Congress Forcing The Army To Make Tanks - Business Insider

Members of Congress are forcing the Army to purchase tanks that it neither wants nor needs, Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston of CNN report. ​

Earlier this year Army chief of staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno told Congress that it would save taxpayers $3 billion if the Pentagon holds off repairing, refurbishing or making new M-1 Abrams tanks for three years until new technologies are developed.​

There are currently more than 2,000 inactive M-1 Abrams tanks sitting at an Army depot in the California desert.
"Our tank fleet is in good shape and we don't need to [make repairs] because of the great support that we have gotten over the last two years," he told the House armed services committee.​

But Congress set aside $181 million for tanks in the proposed congressional budget for next year and a bipartisan group of 173 House members sent a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on April 20 that urged him to support their decision to produce more 60-plus-ton vehicles.​

Congress doesn't want to kill any jobs in their districts and argue that tank production is "necessary to protect the industrial base."​

Not so necessary on the battlefield though, since the last real tank battle occurred in the First Gulf War. Since then tanks have largely been used for anti-personnel purposes, or for making new doors in structures to aid the movement of ground troops. Nevertheless, the U.S. hasn't halted production since before World War II.​

✄snip>​

And this is something new how? Congress has been dictating the purchase of military equipment, with or without the desire of the DOD/War Department since the Republic began.

How much do you know about the military procurement system?