Intelligence Community Spending, & More from CRS
In a deeply fractured political environment, the work of the Congressional Research Service may be even more valuable than ever. Non-partisan to a fault, CRS provides the same policy analysis to Republicans and Democrats, to problem-solvers and to nihilists. CRS reports can therefore help to establish a common framework for debate, and a shared vocabulary for discussion. They are at least a place to start a conversation.
One newly updated CRS report “examines Intelligence Community (IC) funding over the past several decades, with an emphasis on the period from 2007-2017.” See Intelligence Community Spending: Trends and Issues by Anne Daugherty Miles, November 8, 2016.
It was issued along with a new companion report on the structure and management of U.S. intelligence. See Intelligence Community Programs, Management, and Enduring Issues, also by Anne Miles, November 8, 2016.
Other new and updated Congressional Research Service reports include the following.
Internet Gambling: Policy Issues for Congress, November 7, 2016
Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy, updated November 8, 2016
Cuba: Issues for the 114th Congress, updated November 8, 2016
FY2017 Defense Spending Under an Interim Continuing Resolution (CR): In Brief, updated November 7, 2016
Women in Congress, 1917-2016: Biographical and Committee Assignment Information, and Listings by State and Congress, updated November 7, 2016
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF): Program Overview and Issues, updated November 8, 2016
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs, updated November 8, 2016
What Is the Farm Bill?, updated November 8, 2016
When Does Sovereign Immunity Protect Property Owned by State Sponsors of Terrorism?, CRS Legal Sidebar, November 8, 2016
January saw us watching whether the government would fund science. February has been about how that funding will be distributed, regulated, and contested.
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.