The use of the national security classification system to conceal “earmarks” — targeted allocations of funds — that are self-serving or corrupt would be eliminated if a proposal by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) becomes law.
The proposal was offered as an amendment to Senate bill S. 1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, which is pending in the Senate.
“The amendment prohibits any bill authorization or appropriation from containing an earmark in the classified portion of that bill or accompanying a report, unless there is unclassified language that describes in general terms the nature of the earmark. The amount of the earmark is disclosed and the sponsor of the earmark is identified,” Sen. Feinstein explained.
“This amendment would provide the public with the assurance that the classified parts of the defense and intelligence budgets–which are indeed large–are subjected to the same scrutiny and openness as everything else.”
“The need for the amendment was made clear by the actions of former Congressman Duke Cunningham. According to a report by the House Intelligence Committee, Cunningham was able to enact a staggering $70 million to $80 million in classified earmarks over a 5-year period. These earmarks benefited his business partners and were not known to most Members of the Congress or the public,” Sen. Feinstein said on January 16.
The fate of the Legislative Transparency bill was uncertain after Republican Senators objected to a Democratic refusal to consider an amendment concerning a line-item veto.
Americans are paying too much for almost everything, because the United States has long treated its trucking industry as an artifact to be preserved rather than as an opportunity for innovation.
These ideas aim to advance the detailed policy solutions needed to foster public trust and implement fairness in the adoption of AI across diverse domains, from healthcare and government benefits to rural access, education, and worker protections.
The evidence is clear: algorithmic pay-setting is established in app-based work, and payroll/timekeeping failures show how software can produce systemic wage harm at scale
While a few states have taken steps to implement decision-making mechanisms for certain AI systems, too many leaders are simply accepting narratives about AI’s purported public benefit at face value – jumping to the “how” of AI implementation before thoroughly vetting potential systems and deciding whether they are appropriate to use at all.