WASHINGTON – Built to dominate the enemy in combat, the Armys 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.
Its 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, theres a bipartisan push to spend an extra $436 million on a weapon the experts explicitly say is not needed.
If we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way, Gen. Ray Odierno, the Armys chief of staff, told The Associated Press last week.
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 tanks many suppliers are located.
If theres a home of the Abrams, its politically important Ohio. The nations only tank plant is in Lima. So its no coincidence that the champions for more tanks are Rep. Jim Jordan and Sen. Rob Portman, two of Capitols 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 issue 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 theres enough money for essential operations, training and equipment.
Hagel, a former Republican senator from Nebraska, faces a daunting task in persuading 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 Armys 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 shut down.
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 Limas 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 companys spending probably have about a $100 million impact annually, Berger said.
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 Pentagons 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.