Funding Overseas Contingency Ops, and More from CRS
The use of the “overseas contingency operations” budget construct to circumvent limits on discretionary spending was examined in a report from the Congressional Research Service published yesterday.
“Some DOD officials argue that this funding approach is essential to enable a timely military response to a dynamic enemy operating in a complex battlespace,” the CRS report said. “Critics however, have described the DOD’s continued use of the OCO/GWOT account as creating a ‘slush fund’ for military spending.” See Overseas Contingency Operations Funding: Background and Status, June 13, 2016.
Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.
Athletic Footwear for the Military: The Berry Amendment Controversy, CRS Insight, June 10, 2016
The Open Skies Treaty: Issues in the Current Debate, CRS Insight, June 10, 2016
FY2017 Appropriations for the Department of Justice, updated June 9, 2016
Membership of the 114th Congress: A Profile, updated June 10, 2016
Mass Shootings and Terrorism: CRS Products, June 13, 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.