Congress Gives Itself a Hand

How to win votes by fattening up the defense budget

"The A-10 Thunderbolt 11 is a most unsophisticated plane. Pilots joke about being struck from behind by birds." That harsh assessment of an Air Force attack plane designed to provide close air support for battlefield troops comes from a top general of the Tactical Air Command. Why, then, is there $357 million in the Pentagon's fiscal 1983 budget for 20 more of the aircraft, each of which is $1.6 million costlier than the more sophisticated F-16 Fighting Falcon? The answer, insists the general: "We are buying them only because of political pressure."

The A-10 is the latest in a long line of weapons-purchasing decisions that illustrate how members of Congress, by looking after their own districts, can quietly add a layer of fat to the military budget-- even as they are deploring excessive defense spending. The A-10 is often referred to as "Joseph Addabbo's plane," after the Democratic Congressman from Queens, N.Y.; his district is near the Long Island plant where the fighter is made by Fairchild Republic Co. Addabbo, chairman of the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, opposes such big-ticket military items as the B-l bomber and the MX missile on grounds of cost. But like most of New York's delegation, he is a strong advocate of the A10. The project is also supported by House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill of Massachusetts; the engine for the plane is made in Lynn, Mass.

To be fair, the low-flying, heavily armored plane is considered by senior Army officers in Europe to be an effective weapon against tanks and artillery. It was also once a good value. First produced in 1975, the planes cost a relatively modest $5.9 million apiece in 1980. The final shipment was scheduled to be delivered this year. But Addabbo and others insisted last year that the production run of the A-10 be stretched out, and a new two-seat trainer introduced, to help the Farmingdale, N.Y., factory, which employs almost 6,000, remain in operation.

In the Senate, however, different political factors were at play. The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee is Republican John Tower of Texas; the F-16 Fighting Falcon is made in Fort Worth by General Dynamics Corp. Tower's committee cut all funds for the rival A10. The Pentagon, which still insists it does not need more A-10s, last week readily accepted the Senate cut. But Addabbo predicts that some of the planes will be restored when the House and Senate work out a final version. Says he: "In conference, I expect a compromise will be made."

Addabbo argues that the planes are useful, and that the Air Force is only pretending frugality by not requesting them: it really does want the A-10 and assumes that Congress will add the money on its own. "This is the game they constantly play," he says.

After an all-night session, the Senate last Friday morning passed by an 84-to-8 vote its version of the fiscal 1983 defense procurement bill. The measure leaves intact Reagan's request for two new nuclear aircraft carriers and $56 million to build chemical weapons. The House has not yet passed a version of the bill. The final day of Senate debate provided an occasion for yet another political struggle. The Pentagon had requested $800 million to buy 50 Lockheed C-5 Galaxy transport planes, a purchase heartily supported by Senators Sam Nunn and Mack Mattingly of Georgia, where they are made. But Senators Henry Jackson and Slade Gorton of Washington successfully led an effort to replace the C-5 funds with $520 million for 50 converted Boeing 747 planes, which are manufactured in their state.

As Congress struggles to cut the federal deficit, its members' credibility is being further undermined by controversy over a tax break they voted themselves in December, which was buried in a bill regulating black-lung benefits for mine workers. The measure instructs the IRS to allow Congressmen and Senators increased allowances for their Washington living expenses. The IRS deduction: a flat $75 a day for the time members are meeting in Washington, a benefit that could be worth up to $19,000 a year. Fred Wertheimer, director of the public affairs lobby Common Cause, says that by allowing a deduction for what is in fact a Congressman's main residence, the rule "provides special treatment for members of Congress that no other taxpayer in America can get." The IRS, which has received more than 20,000 letters protesting the new deduction, held hearings on the issue last week. The IRS can alter the benefit if agency lawyers decide it is unfair. But just as in the case of weapons decisions, Congress has ultimate jurisdiction over the tax laws, and strange things have been known to happen in the quiet of a committee room.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.