pork for me but not for thee

28 Apr 2013 14:43 #1 by Blazer Bob
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... TE=DEFAULT


"
By RICHARD LARDNER
Associated Press
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 needed.".................

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

28 Apr 2013 14:57 #2 by FredHayek
Good to see this story continue to get press. We need rapid response and it takes months to ship armor

Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

01 May 2013 10:45 #3 by Blazer Bob
"The Pentagon as a Jobs Program


By


Tad DeHaven

Share



http://www.cato.org/blog/pentagon-jobs- ... Liberty%29



"One of the realizations that helped me to dispense of the neoconish foreign policy views of my youth is that for federal policymakers, the Pentagon is like a giant jobs program. Regardless of need, a military installation or armament factory can generally count on the unwavering support of the member of Congress who represents the district or state where the facility is located.

On Monday, the Associated Press’s Richard Lardner provided a textbook example: over the past two years Congress has spent almost a half billion taxpayer dollars—and wants to spend another $436 million—upgrading Abrams tanks that experts and the Army itself say aren’t needed.

Who are some of the biggest congressional backers of the tank upgrading? Why, Republican “deficit hawks”! "...................

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.124 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum
sponsors
© My Mountain Town (new)
Google+