Overview: This table compares my Act against current federal budget practices and best practices at the state/local level. It highlights access, input, earmarks, transparency, and enforcement.
| Feature | My Act | Current Federal Practice | Best Practices (States/Local) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public access | Line‑item dashboard within 48 hours of introduction. | USAspending.gov shows some data, but billions missing; not timely[2]. | Some states post searchable budgets; GFOA recommends full transparency[1]. |
| Citizen input | 30‑day comment/ranking period; mandatory responses to top 10% of submissions. | No formal citizen input at federal level; hearings dominated by lobbyists. | Local governments use surveys, participatory budgeting, neighborhood councils[1][3]. |
| Earmark disclosure | Mandatory disclosure; hidden earmarks void; sponsors face censure. | Earmarks disclosed inconsistently; watchdogs report gaps and vague descriptions. | Some states ban earmarks outright; others require detailed disclosure. |
| Subaward transparency | All subawards disclosed within 30 days on the dashboard. | GAO reports missing/incorrect subaward data on USAspending.gov[2]. | Few states track subawards publicly; transparency often ends at prime award. |
| Enforcement | Citizen lawsuits allowed; GAO audits; budgets void if non‑compliant. | GAO audits exist but no citizen enforcement; violations rarely stop spending. | Some states allow taxpayer standing to sue; enforcement varies widely. |
Bottom line: “My Act forces Congress to show every dollar, answer citizens before lobbyists, and voids any budget that cheats the process.”
Sources: [1] Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) — Best Practices in Budget Transparency; [2] GAO Reports on USAspending.gov Data Gaps; [3] Participatory Budgeting Project — Local Government Models.