U.S. intelligence agencies are anticipating budget reductions of billions of dollars, said Director of National Intelligence James Clapper yesterday. He said he had just submitted a draft budget to OMB (presumably for FY 2013) that involved “double digit” cuts to the intelligence budget over ten years. See “U.S. Spies Facing Tens of Billions in Budget Cuts” by Sharon Weinberger, Wired Danger Room, October 17.
“In the last 10 years,… all we had to do essentially was preside over handing out more money and more people every year,” DNI Clapper told a joint hearing of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees last month.
But “now we’re in a ‘we’re-running-out-of-money-so-we-must-begin-to-think’ mode,” he said. “I think that is serving as the stimulus, if you will, to do some more creative thinking. I think this would do wonders in terms of saving money, efficiency, and promoting integration.”
“Everything we do in intelligence… is not of equal merit. Some things are more valuable than others, particularly as we look to the future. I think it’s very important to try to protect that valuable and most valuable resource we have, which is our people. We must continue some way of hiring every year, which we didn’t do in many cases during that seven-year hiatus period [in the 1990s]. We must try to sustain healthy R&D for the future. And I think we have to be rather cold-hearted and objective about the real contribution the various systems make. So that’s kind of the approach we’re going to take,” DNI Clapper told Congress last month.
“I don’t want anyone to be under the mistaken impression that we are going to sustain all the capabilities we have today, because we’re not,” he said.
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.