US Global Health Spending in Dispute, & More from CRS
The Trump Administration budget request proposes a substantial cut to US spending on global health programs, as described in a new report from the Congressional Research Service. But Congress appears poised to provide at least some of the funds that the executive branch had sought to eliminate.
“The FY2018 budget request includes almost $7 billion for global health assistance, roughly 30% less than the FY2017-enacted level,” CRS noted.
“The budget request proposes halving the USAID global health budget through the elimination of funding for global health security, vulnerable children, and family planning and reproductive health. Budget reductions are also recommended for all other health programs,” including various programs to combat infectious diseases around the world.
The US is the largest contributor to international health programs. But according to the Trump budget request, “other stakeholders must do more to contribute their fair share to global health initiatives.” See U.S. Global Health Assistance: FY2001-FY2018 Request, updated October 6, 2017.
Other noteworthy new products from the Congressional Research Service include the following.
U.S. Response to Injuries of U.S. Embassy Personnel in Havana, Cuba, CRS Insight, October 6, 2017
Attack on U.S. Soldiers in Niger: Context and Issues for Congress, CRS Insight, October 5, 2017
Wildfire Suppression Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 115th Congress, October 5, 2017
Electoral College Reform: Contemporary Issues for Congress, updated October 6, 2017
Overview of Continuing Appropriations for FY2018 (P.L. 115-56), October 6, 2017
Kosovo: Background and U.S. Relations, October 6, 2017
Options to Cease Implementing the Iran Nuclear Agreement, updated October 5, 2017
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.