Unlike some conservative organizations, the Rio Grande Foundation speaks openly and frequently about the need to cut all aspects of federal spending, including the military. This news article highlights just one case of Congress forcing the Pentagon to an extra $436 million on a weapon the experts explicitly say is not needed (the Abrams tank). As the article notes, “Keeping the Abrams production line rolling protects businesses and good paying jobs in congressional districts where the tank’s many suppliers are located.”
Are some areas of the Pentagon being negatively-impacted by the sequester? Undoubtedly. But the issue is not inadequate spending (after all, military spending has exploded over the past decade); it is poorly allocated spending. This problem is rampant throughout government and was recently highlighted by the FAA’s ill-advised attempt to squeeze air travelers by cutting service.
Sure, when it comes to the military, the “free market” is not likely to take over soon; the best we can do as citizens is to demand that our elected officials be reasonable with their military spending priorities. The Abrams tank seems to be yet another example of “pork” taking priority.
2 Replies to “Abrams Tank Highlights Pentagon Waste”
Any general who dared to tell the president and Congress that a certain program was not needed was doomed to either be relieved of duty or forced to retire. It is said. You are correct–there a many ways to save money, and no one wants to listen to that, especially the pols with government contracts in their districts.
I invite readers to my blog, http://firstimpressionssecondthoughts.blogspot.com/2013/03/spending-problem-military-boondoggles.html.