This is not an unfamiliar story, of course. Ray Odierno, the Army’s chief of staff, told The Associated Press this past week. “If we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way,” Gen. 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 needed. Republicans and Democrats for years have fought so bitterly that lawmaking in Washington ground to a near-halt. 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. ![]() 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 Abramsīut senior Army officials have said repeatedly, “No thanks.” ![]() ![]() Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are trying to force the Army to buy something it doesn’t want:īuilt to dominate the enemy in combat, the Army’s hulking Abrams tank is proving equally hard to beat in a budget battle.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |