Another prime example of why your country is so screwed up.
Army says no to more tanks, but Congress insists
WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.
Yet in the case of the Abrams tank, there's a bipartisan push to spend
an extra $436 million on a weapon the experts explicitly say is not
"If we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way," Gen.
Ray Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, told The Associated Press this
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
If there's a home of the Abrams, it's politically important Ohio. The
nation's only tank plant is in Lima. So it's no coincidence that the
champions for more tanks are 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.
"The one area where we are supposed to spend taxpayer money is in
defense of the country," said Jordan, whose district in the northwest
part of the state includes the tank plant.
The Abrams dilemma underscores the challenge that Defense Secretary
Chuck Hagel faces as he seeks to purge programs that the military
considers unnecessary or too expensive in order to ensure there's enough
money for essential operations, training and equipment.
Hagel, a former Republican senator from Nebraska, faces a daunting task
in persuading members of Congress to eliminate or scale back projects
favored by constituents.
Federal budgets are always peppered with money for pet projects. What
sets the Abrams example apart is the certainty of the Army's position.
Sean Kennedy, director of research for the nonpartisan Citizens Against
Government Waste, said Congress should listen when one of the military
services says no to more equipment.
"When an institution as risk averse as the Defense Department says they
have enough tanks, we can probably believe them," Kennedy said.
Congressional backers of the Abrams upgrades view the vast network of
companies, many of them small businesses, that manufacture the tanks'
materials and parts as a critical asset that has to be preserved. The
money, they say, is a modest investment that will keep important tooling
and manufacturing skills from being lost if the Abrams line were to be
The Lima plant is a study in how federal dollars affect local
communities, which in turn hold tight to the federal dollars. The
facility is owned by the federal government but operated by the land
systems division of General Dynamics, a major defense contractor that
spent close to $11 million last year on lobbying, according to the
nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
The plant is Lima's fifth-largest employer with close to 700 employees,
down from about 1,100 just a few years ago, according to Mayor David
Berger. But the facility is still crucial to the local economy. "All of
those jobs and their spending activity in the community and the
company's spending probably have about a $100 million impact annually,"
Jordan, a House conservative leader who has pushed for deep reductions
in federal spending, supported the automatic cuts known as the sequester
that require $42 billion to be shaved from the Pentagon's budget by the
end of September. The military also has to absorb a $487 billion
reduction in defense spending over the next 10 years, as required by the
Budget Control Act passed in 2011.
Still, said Jordan, it would be a big mistake to stop producing tanks.
"Look, (the plant) is in the 4th Congressional District and my job is to
represent the 4th Congressional District, so I understand that," he
said. "But the fact remains, if it was not in the best interests of the
national defense for the United States of America, then you would not
see me supporting it like we do."
The tanks that Congress is requiring the Army to buy aren't brand new.
Earlier models are being outfitted with a sophisticated suite of
electronics that gives the vehicles better microprocessors, color flat
panel displays, a more capable communications system, and other
improvements. The upgraded tanks cost about $7.5 million each, according
to the Army.
Out of a fleet of nearly 2,400 tanks, roughly two-thirds are the
improved versions, which the Army refers to with a moniker that befits
their heft: the M1A2SEPv2, and service officials said they have plenty
of them. "The Army is on record saying we do not require any additional
M1A2s," Davis Welch, deputy director of the Army budget office, said
The tank fleet, on average, is less than 3 years old. The Abrams is
named after Gen. Creighton Abrams, one of the top tank commanders during
World War II and a former Army chief of staff.
The Army's plan was to stop buying tanks until 2017, when production of
a newly designed Abrams would begin. Orders for Abrams tanks from U.S.
allies help fill the gap created by the loss of tanks for the Army,
according to service officials, but congressional proponents of the
program feared there would not be enough international business to keep
the Abrams line going.
This pause in tank production for the U.S. would allow the Army to spend
its money on research and development work for the new and improved
model, said Ashley Givens, a spokeswoman for the Army's Ground Combat
The first editions of the Abrams tank were fielded in the early 1980s.
Over the decades, the Abrams supply chain has become embedded in
communities across the country.
General Dynamics estimated in 2011 that there were more than 560
subcontractors throughout the country involved in the Abrams program and
that they employed as many as 18,000 people. More than 40 of the
companies are in Pennsylvania, according to Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa.,
also a staunch backer of continued tank production.
A letter signed by 173 Democratic and Republican members of the House
last year and sent to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta demonstrated
the depth of bipartisan support for the Abrams program on Capitol Hill.
They chided the Obama administration for neglecting the industrial base
and proposing to terminate tank production in the United States for the
first time since World War II.
Portman, who served as President George W. Bush's budget director before
being elected to the Senate, said allowing the line to wither and close
would create a financial mess.
"People can't sit around for three years on unemployment insurance and
wait for the government to come back," Portman said. "That supply chain
is going to be much more costly and much more inefficient to create if
you mothball the plant."
Pete Keating, a General Dynamics spokesman, said the money from Congress
is allowing for a stable base of production for the Army, which receives
about four tanks a month. With the line open, Lima also can fill
international orders, bringing more work to Lima and preserving American
jobs, he said.
Current foreign customers are Saudi Arabia, which is getting about five
tanks a month, and Egypt, which is getting four. Each country pays all
of their own costs. That's a "success story during a period of economic
pain," Keating said.
Still, far fewer tanks are coming out of the Lima plant than in years
past. The drop-off has affected companies such as Verhoff Machine and
Welding in Continental, Ohio, which makes seats and other parts for the
Abrams. Ed Verhoff, the company's president, said his sales have dropped
from $20 million to $7 million over the past two years. He's also had to
lay off about 25 skilled employees and he expects to be issuing more
pink slips in the future.
"When we start to lose this base of people, what are we going to do? Buy
our tanks from China?" Verhoff said.
Steven Grundman, a defense expert at the Atlantic Council in Washington,
said the difficulty of reviving defense industrial capabilities tends to
"From the fairly insular world in which the defense industry operates,
these capabilities seem to be unique and in many cases extraordinarily
high art," said Grundman, a former deputy undersecretary of defense for
industrial affairs and installations during the Clinton administration.
"But in the greater scope of the economy, they tend not to be."