Search

Begin New Search Topic Budget Political Geography United States of America

11. Montana’s Hard Right Turn

Author:
Paul Haber
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
California Journal of Politics and Policy
Institution:
Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley
Abstract:
Budgets, combined with tax policy, provide rich evidence of the applied values of legislative bodies and executives. This paper evaluates budget and tax legislation in Montana that resulted from the 67th legislative session in 2021 that set policy for the 2023 biennium. Montana, whose political complexation has long been purple, moved unambiguously red in the elections of November 2020. This paper speaks to how this changed things in Montana's public policy, in the areas of budget and tax, and a series of other policy areas. One of the more notable findings is that while budget and tax certainly shifted right with the dominance of the Republican Party that itself has moved further right than where it was as recently as 2019, it did not move as far right as many observers had anticipated. The explanation provided here is that this was largely a result of the large infusion of federal COVID relief funds.
Topic:
Governance, Budget, Tax Systems, and Partisanship
Political Geography:
North America, United States of America, and Montana

12. New Mexico’s Box of Pandoras

Author:
Kim Seckler
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
California Journal of Politics and Policy
Institution:
Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley
Abstract:
In the spring of 2020, the global coronavirus pandemic brought deadly disease to New Mexico, a state already struggling with inadequate health care, vulnerable populations and an unreliable state revenue base. A strong executive and mostly willing legislature met multiple times in multiple special sessions to reduce budgets, allocate federal funds, and shore up public finances. They also had to deal with social and cultural fights aggravated by strict public health orders and plunging revenues. By the close of 2020, the state was slowly regaining its fiscal footing and physical health, though the underlying problems of inadequate health care, educational and economic inequality, and a budget overly reliant on extractive industries remain. As a result of the 2020 general election, the public officials chosen to resolve these issues are more likely to be progressive Democrats, more likely to be women, and more demographically reflective of the majority-minority state they call home.
Topic:
Governance, Budget, Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
North America, United States of America, and New Mexico

13. Oregon 2020-21: Budgeting During COVID

Author:
Mark Henkels and Brent S. Steel
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
California Journal of Politics and Policy
Institution:
Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley
Abstract:
Oregon in 2020 and 2021 resembled other Western states: crisis on crisis. COVID, the COVID recession, forest fires and ice storms, and polarized politics dominated the news. Despite these challenges, the state’s fiscal situation turned out very positively. President Biden’s American Rescue Plan and the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act signed in November 2021 provided many billions to the state for 2021 and will cover diverse infrastructure needs over the next five years. This paper analyzes the surprisingly strong general fund and federal fund situations created by the COVID era and considers the political implications of the state’s fiscal situation.
Topic:
Budget, Fiscal Policy, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
North America, United States of America, and Oregon

14. Budgeting in Pandemic Times: Shutdowns, Social Unrest, and Spending in Washington State

Author:
Michael Artime, Erin Richards, and Francis Benjamin
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
California Journal of Politics and Policy
Institution:
Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley
Abstract:
The citizens of State of Washington have, like individuals throughout the country, had to navigate unprecedented personal and economic hardship. The supplemental budget passed by the legislature during the 2021 legislative session represents an attempt to address some of the issues that presented as an outgrowth of the pandemic. However, the legislature also considered significant policy changes with respect to, among other items, the environment, taxation, and education. These policy debates were, at times, rather contentious and are indicative of the partisan fault lines existing throughout the state.
Topic:
Budget, Fiscal Policy, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Washington, North America, and United States of America

15. Time for a Significant Reimagining of Government in Wyoming?

Author:
Robert Schumann and Jeffrey Jensen
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
California Journal of Politics and Policy
Institution:
Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley
Abstract:
Despite $430 million in spending reductions and the loss of 324 state positions, Wyoming’s 2021 supplemental budget reflected an improved pandemic-driven economic climate. Recent budgetary optimism was attributed to increased performance in energy production and pricing, pent up demand for tourism and travel, and higher than expected sales tax revenues. Continued reliance on Wyoming’s Permanent Mineral Trust Fund, and the state’s attachment to the remainder of its boom-and-bust revenue structure, left surprisingly little appetite for discussions of revenue diversificatioan. Instead, “right-sizing” state government to fit the current revenue stream seems more consistent with the spirit of the times.
Topic:
Economics, Budget, Fiscal Policy, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
North America, United States of America, and Wyoming

16. Achieving a Safer U.S. Nuclear Posture

Author:
Joseph Cirincione
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
• U.S. nuclear posture is on a dangerous path that imperils national security and expends far too many resources. It is not a rational response to external threats but is driven primarily by domestic factors including a hubristic strategy of nuclear supremacy, partisan politics, and entrenched arms lobbies with formidable influence in the Pentagon and Congress. • A safer nuclear policy entails, among other steps, reducing the number of deployed strategic warheads by one-third, to about 1,000, taking nuclear-armed missiles off hair-trigger alert, embracing no first use or sole purpose doctrines, and requiring an additional senior official to authorize launch. Pacts such as AUKUS that encourage the spread of nuclear weapons technology must also be rethought. • If implemented, these policies will greatly reduce risk while maintaining deterrence; they will also lead to significant savings in the national security budget. A majority of independent experts believe that U.S. national security objectives can be met at far lower levels and with a safer nuclear posture, saving hundreds of billions of dollars over the next few decades. • Many of these recommendations can be implemented even if the Biden administration’s upcoming Nuclear Posture Review proves disappointing. The president retains substantial policy and budgetary options for reducing the risk of nuclear war and the cost of nuclear deterrence.
Topic:
Defense Policy, National Security, Nuclear Weapons, Budget, and Defense Spending
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

17. US Arms Sales Reveal Discord in Taiwan's Defense Strategy

Author:
Ethan Kessler
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
Washington has started selling arms that serve a "porcupine" defense strategy to Taiwan. Whether Taipei fully embraces this new approach remains to be seen. Taiwan, claimed by China as a rogue province and armed by the United States, is at a crossroads. Should it continue buying big-ticket US arms, such as advanced fighter jets and tanks, to counter Chinese forces in case of a blockade or invasion? Taipei’s longstanding conventional strategy, which calls for these kinds of arms, views the ambiguous US defense commitment as concerning. Since Washington may not intervene against a Chinese attack, conventionalists want to hold on to Taiwan’s traditional, long-range weapons. Conventionalists also claim that buying big-ticket arms strengthens Washington’s political commitment to Taiwan. However, officials and experts increasingly see another strategy as prudent. Recent Chinese economic growth and military modernization have greatly enhanced Beijing’s capabilities, to the point that many believe Taiwan could not hold out alone against a Chinese invasion. Reformers thus argue that Taiwan needs to start building its forces around small, easily distributed weapons such as mobile anti-ship missiles and patrol boats and make greater investments in reserve forces and territorial defense. This “porcupine” defense strategy can theoretically buy more time for US forces to arrive in a war. The fate of Taiwan’s military strategy, which also depends greatly on political relations between Beijing, Taipei, and Washington, will help determine the strength of deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. A breakdown in this deterrence could lead to US-China war. The United States not only influences Taiwan’s strategy, but has a great stake in its future.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Military Affairs, Budget, Defense Spending, and Arms Sales
Political Geography:
China, Taiwan, Asia, North America, and United States of America

18. Making Sense of Cents: Parsing the U.S. Department of Defense’s FY 2022 Budget Request

Author:
Stacie L. Pettyjohn and Becca Wasser
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
This report contextualizes the Biden administration’s discretionary funding request for the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) in fiscal year (FY) 2022, referred to as the “skinny” budget request. The report considers what this initial request—which has not yet been touched by Congress—may mean for the full FY 2022 Presidential Budget Request, given the identified priorities and available resources. The only detailed figure included in the defense budget request is the topline of $715 billion, which is higher than former President Donald Trump’s $705 billion FY 2021 budget request. However, when adjusted for inflation, it amounts to a flat budget. This report identifies several strategic objectives from the skinny budget request, the Biden administration’s interim national security strategic guidance, and the priorities publicly laid out by DoD leadership for which the U.S. government will need to allocate resources. These objectives have implications for ongoing departmental efforts and resourcing. The authors assert that: The continued prioritization of China means the DoD must simultaneously modernize its conventional and nuclear forces to strengthen deterrence. The budget prioritizes additional missions for the DoD, like countering transnational threats—particularly climate change and biothreats such as COVID-19—but it does not resource these missions. There will be fewer resources for modernization due to pressure from the growing military personnel budget, as well as the operations and maintenance budget. The department will undertake these activities with fewer resources and less budgetary flexibility since the overseas contingency operations account has been terminated. However, this move will enhance long-term planning and should make it easier to align future budget requests with the strategy. The FY22 defense budget request identifies a number of planned activities and areas of emphasis, but it does not specify how much money will be allocated toward each area. This report focuses on six key areas of interest—the Pacific Deterrence Initiative (PDI), long-range fires, naval shipbuilding, research and development for technological innovation and readiness, nuclear modernization, and transnational threats—where the United States will need to make the greatest investments or tradeoffs.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Government, Nuclear Weapons, Budget, Finance, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

19. Enabling US Government Participation in Pull Mechanisms for Social Impact Innovation: A Survey of Federal Authorities, Budgetary Barriers, and Potential Solutions

Author:
Steven Kosiak and Rachel Silverman
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
United States government support for scientific and technological research and development (R&D)—across sectors including but not limited to energy, agriculture, and health—has the potential to save lives, reduce global poverty, and help address the most pressing global challenges. Traditionally, the US government has funded most R&D via grants and contracts (“push” funding), directly subsidizing and defraying the up-front R&D costs. An alternative approach—“pull” funding—would use the promise of future sales and/or other revenue to indirectly justify up-front expenditures in R&D, thereby “pulling” innovations to market. Despite several theoretical and practical advantages of “pull” funding, US government use of this approach has thus far been limited, in part due to regulatory and legal barriers. Yet across the entirety of the US government, there are nonetheless creative and interesting approaches to support innovation which include pull elements. To help the US government make broader use of pull approaches, this policy paper surveys the ways in which US government authorities, budgetary rules, and procurement approaches either facilitate or constrain use of pull mechanisms to support R&D. It specifically focused on the budgetary “scoring” issues that can affect, and sometimes hinder, the use of such mechanisms. It concludes with a discussion of potential legislative changes and workarounds to budgetary scoring challenges that might facilitate expanded use of these mechanisms.
Topic:
Governance, Budget, Innovation, and Research and Development
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

20. 2021 Reader’s Guide to Understanding the Proposed US Cyber Enforcement Budget

Author:
Aaron Clarke
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Third Way
Abstract:
Cyber attacks in the United States continue to devastate and disrupt day-to-day operations in the private and public sectors. Marked by events like the ransomware attack on Colonial Pipeline that created gas shortages and increased prices, cybercrime impacts everyday citizens, even if they are not directly targeted by an attack. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reported that in 2020 there were “over $4 billion in cybercrime losses reported to the U.S. government.”1 This growing cybersecurity threat has only been exacerbated by the rise of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and exposed network vulnerabilities from those working from home during the pandemic.2 In response to this influx of cyber attacks, the Biden Administration has taken steps to both bolster the federal government’s ability to detect and respond to cyber attacks as well as protect its own systems.3 The Department of Energy (DOE) and DHS have both made cybersecurity a top priority in their latest initiatives. President Biden called on DOE to launch a 100 day plan aimed at preventing disrupted services for electric utilities, and DHS announced a series of 60-day “sprints” to support private and public partners against ransomware.4 The FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act also created the first U.S. National Cyber Director, tasked to lead the implementation of U.S. cyber policy and strategy, and rapidly improve cybersecurity defense capabilities. Although ransomware attacks have spiked, the federal government has made inroads on combatting cyber criminals. The Cyber Enforcement Budget for FY2022 should continue funding and seek to build on the key improvements and actions taken by the Biden administration. In this guide, we will look at the budget implications for cyber enforcement, recommendations for Congress, and provide a detailed breakdown of the proposed budget’s funding allocations. Specifically, we recommend that Congress should: Restore the $15 million of funding cut from the State Homeland Security Program. The program provides critical grants to states that require recipients spend at least 10% of their grants on cybersecurity needs. Require an alignment of cybercrime goals and outcomes across law enforcement agencies within the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and Treasury. Ensure that federal agencies are prepared to implement President Biden’s cybersecurity executive order.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Science and Technology, Law Enforcement, Budget, and Cybersecurity
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America