IBJNews

Indiana casts eye toward more defense spending

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

State officials have started an effort to attract more military spending to Indiana even though the Defense Department is facing billions of dollars in automatic federal budget cuts.

Lt. Gov. Sue Ellspermann on Monday announced Monday that Duane Embree, a longtime civilian executive at southern Indiana's Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center, would lead the new Office of Defense Development. Gov. Mike Pence created the office using an executive order in January.

Ellspermann said companies do an estimated $4 billion in defense-related work a year in Indiana and that the state wants to better promote itself for that business.

"Our goal is to not only to preserve and protect the assets we have today but also to open our doors" to other opportunities, Ellspermann said.

Embree retired last year after 35 years as a civilian Navy administrator, including 13 years as a top official at the Crane center. The facility southwest of Bloomington has some 6,000 employees, and its work ranges from defusing old bombs to developing jamming devices used to block the detonation of roadside bombs.

Ellspermann cited Crane's economic impact along with several other major defense-related employers around the state, such as Rolls-Royce, which builds engines for military planes and helicopters in Indianapolis; AM General's Humvee factory in Mishawaka; and Ameriqual, which makes military meals in Evansville.

Ellspermann said the defense development office will start out with Embree and two other staffers. She said it would be based in Bloomington so that it's closer to Crane and two of the Indiana National Guard's largest facilities — Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh and the Muscatatuck Urban Training Center near North Vernon.

Embree will work closely with state economic development agencies and the state government's office in Washington in dealing with military officials and defense contractors, Ellspermann said.

It could be a couple months before defense contractors know by how much their projects will be scaled back under the military spending cuts, Embree said.

"Industry will depend on programs — which programs they keep, which programs they decide to cut — and we'll have to make those adjustments as we go," he said. "... I don't think we're going to have a diminished need, but we are going to have to spend our money better."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. You are correct that Obamacare requires health insurance policies to include richer benefits and protects patients who get sick. That's what I was getting at when I wrote above, "That’s because Obamacare required insurers to take all customers, regardless of their health status, and also established a floor on how skimpy the benefits paid for by health plans could be." I think it's vital to know exactly how much the essential health benefits are costing over previous policies. Unless we know the cost of the law, we can't do a cost-benefit analysis. Taxes were raised in order to offset a 31% rise in health insurance premiums, an increase that paid for richer benefits. Are those richer benefits worth that much or not? That's the question we need to answer. This study at least gets us started on doing so.

  2. *5 employees per floor. Either way its ridiculous.

  3. Jim, thanks for always ready my stuff and providing thoughtful comments. I am sure that someone more familiar with research design and methods could take issue with Kowalski's study. I thought it was of considerable value, however, because so far we have been crediting Obamacare for all the gains in coverage and all price increases, neither of which is entirely fair. This is at least a rigorous attempt to sort things out. Maybe a quixotic attempt, but it's one of the first ones I've seen try to do it in a sophisticated way.

  4. In addition to rewriting history, the paper (or at least your summary of it) ignores that Obamacare policies now must provide "essential health benefits". Maybe Mr Wall has always been insured in a group plan but even group plans had holes you could drive a truck through, like the Colts defensive line last night. Individual plans were even worse. So, when you come up with a study that factors that in, let me know, otherwise the numbers are garbage.

  5. You guys are absolutely right: Cummins should build a massive 80-story high rise, and give each employee 5 floors. Or, I suppose they could always rent out the top floors if they wanted, since downtown office space is bursting at the seams (http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=49481).

ADVERTISEMENT