How DoD Spends Its Contracting Dollars, and More from CRS
The Department of Defense spends more money on contractors than all other federal agencies combined, a new report from the Congressional Research Service explains.
“This report examines (1) how much money DOD obligates on contracts, (2) what DOD is buying, and (3) where that money is being spent.” See Defense Acquisitions: How and Where DOD Spends Its Contracting Dollars, April 30, 2015.
Relatedly, a provision in the pending FY2016 defense authorization bill would require the Government Accountability Office to “carry out a comprehensive review of the processes and procedures for the integration of intelligence into the Department of Defense acquisition process.” (HR 1735, section 1630).
Other noteworthy new reports from CRS that Congress has withheld from regular public disclosure include the following.
Corporate Tax Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS): An Examination of the Data, April 30, 2015
Tax Expenditures: Overview and Analysis, April 30, 2015
An Introduction to Health Insurance: What Should a Consumer Know?, April 30, 2015
International Investment Agreements (IIAs): Frequently Asked Questions, April 30, 2015
International Air Service Controversies: Frequently Asked Questions, May 4, 2015
Saudi Arabia: Background and U.S. Relations, April 29, 2015
What’s the Difference? — Comparing U.S. and Chinese Trade Data, May 4, 2015
Major U.S. Arms Sales and Grants to Pakistan Since 2001, May 4, 2015
This report serves as a landscape assessment and toolbox from which local governments can negotiate an informed position when it comes to the levers available to them and includes a first-of-its kind analysis of eight executed community benefits agreements.
When a hurricane hits, it’s all hands on deck – that goes for federal data, too. Pulling back from our investments in timely, accurate, and accessible public data will only make us less prepared and put us all at greater risk.
This is bigger than a singular elimination of race and ethnicity questions. It could accelerate the second wave of widespread reductions to demographic data, leaving public health officials with even less information to deliver better health outcomes for all Americans.
Soft law was never meant to be a permanent solution. Treating it as one, and letting the sandcastle stand in for the skyscraper indefinitely, is how we end up with a decade of voluntary commitments and no enforceable accountability to show for it.