Bill Overview
Title: Federal Reserve Regulatory Oversight Act
Description: This bill requires the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and Federal Reserve banks to collect assessments and other fees to offset annual appropriations with respect to nonmonetary policy-related administrative costs to the board. The board and the banks may only incur obligations or allow and pay expenses with respect to nonmonetary policy-related administrative costs pursuant to appropriations.
Sponsors: Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by changes in Federal Reserve's administrative activities
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The Federal Reserve System's operations impact the economic stability of the United States, influencing inflation, unemployment, and interest rates.
- The legislation concerns the financial operations of the Federal Reserve, specifically its administrative costs.
- Nonmonetary policy-related administrative changes may not directly impact monetary policy, but could affect the efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal Reserve.
- The general population is indirectly affected as the Federal Reserve plays a crucial role in the economic policy that influences areas such as inflation, employment, and interest rates.
- Indirectly, this could have an effect globally as well, given the role of the US dollar and the Federal Reserve in international markets.
Reasoning
- The Federal Reserve System's operations affect economic stability, influencing inflation, unemployment, and interest rates. This impact can extend to the entire US population.
- The policy is focused on nonmonetary administrative costs, so direct effects on monetary policy are limited, but there could be indirect effects on efficiency and fiscal operations.
- Most people may not immediately see changes in their day-to-day wellbeing, but broader macroeconomic effects could influence overall economic health over time.
- Target populations include financial professionals, economists, business owners, and consumers who are sensitive to monetary climate changes as their primary concerns include economic conditions and job stability.
- Given the budget and target population size, the policy's effect might primarily be administrative unless inefficiencies are significantly reduced or unexpected fiscal benefits emerge.
Simulated Interviews
Financial Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might increase administrative transparency, which could be reassuring for financial analysts monitoring the Fed.
- If administrative costs are managed well, it could lead to better resource allocation for impactful economic strategies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm always concerned about interest rates since they affect my business loan.
- If the policy indirectly helps stabilize the economy, that could be beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
College Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am interested in how this policy may affect the future economic landscape.
- The policy seems more administrative, but the Fed's efficiency can trickle down to macroeconomic conditions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Factory Worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a worker, I'm more concerned about job stability and how inflation might affect our cost of living.
- I don't directly see how this policy could help, but any improvement in economic administration is good.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Economics Professor (Miami, FL)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy reiterates the importance of resource distribution in federal systems.
- Potentially, it could streamline processes that might enhance effective policy delivery.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Software Developer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the Fed operates more efficiently, it might lead to more robust financial tech opportunities.
- I don't think it will have a huge immediate impact, though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired Teacher (Boston, MA)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm retired and closely watch how inflation impacts my fixed income.
- If this helps stabilize financial policies, I'd be pleased.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Local Government Official (Denver, CO)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our community might not feel immediate impacts, but broader implications could inform local policies.
- If this trickles down, it may indirectly help manage budgets more effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Entrepreneur in Tech (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I find the policy interesting for potential shifts in economic conditions.
- It's more administrative, but better Fed operations can influence the business climate.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Marketing Specialist (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems distant from immediate marketing work, but international economic conditions are always relevant to our clients.
- I hope any policy improving financial operations helps, even if indirectly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $260000000 (Low: $210000000, High: $310000000)
Year 3: $270000000 (Low: $220000000, High: $320000000)
Year 5: $290000000 (Low: $240000000, High: $340000000)
Year 10: $320000000 (Low: $260000000, High: $380000000)
Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Key Considerations
- Successful implementation depends on the Federal Reserve's ability to efficiently administer and collect fees.
- There needs to be a clear alignment on what constitutes nonmonetary policy-related activities for accurate cost offloading.
- Potential implications for Federal Reserve resource allocation and prioritization need evaluation to ensure vital functions aren't impacted.