Bill Overview
Title: Responsible Budgeting Act
Description: This bill establishes new procedures and requirements for suspending the federal debt limit and considering debt reduction legislation.
Sponsors: Rep. Arrington, Jodey C. [R-TX-19]
Target Audience
Population: Global population affected by federal debt limit management and debt reduction policies
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The federal debt limit impacts government spending and debt servicing, which are tied to economic stability and growth.
- Changes in the federal debt limit can affect interest rates, employment, and inflation, influencing all citizens' cost of living and financial well-being.
- Debt reduction legislation can lead to changes in government programs and services, which directly impact citizens relying on those services.
Reasoning
- The Responsible Budgeting Act focuses on federal debt limit and debt reduction, impacting government spending and economic factors like employment and inflation. This means that some individuals will see direct impacts, especially those reliant on government services affected by budget changes.
- Given the large scale of the policy, most people will not see substantial immediate changes in their day-to-day lives, though there might be trickle-down effects over time affecting financial stability, cost of living, and public service availability.
- The budget constraints imply that while the policy aims to address long-term fiscal stability, its immediate impact on individual wellbeing will largely depend on specific changes in government spending or programs that affect particular segments of the population.
- Citizens less dependent on government services or less sensitive to macroeconomic shifts may not feel a direct impact quickly, while those in vulnerable economic positions or reliant on public services might be more affected.
Simulated Interviews
Public school teacher (Houston, Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned about potential cuts to education funding if the federal budget is reduced.
- Sees fiscal responsibility as important but is worried about the immediate impact on public services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Software engineer (San Francisco, California)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Believes that responsible budgeting will help stabilize the economy.
- Worried about short-term economic fluctuations affecting stock market investments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Retiree (Orlando, Florida)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fears inflation could erode her fixed income.
- Hopes that the policy will stabilize the economy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
College student (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned about potential cuts to federal financial aid programs.
- Not very aware of how these policies work but worries about education affordability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Small business owner (New York, New York)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopes policy can increase consumer confidence and spending.
- Worried about any cuts affecting customers' disposable income.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Healthcare worker (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerns about reduced funding for public health services.
- Believes in the importance of national financial health, but not at the expense of access to care.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Construction worker (Dallas, Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Believes economic stability could help job markets.
- Concerned about immediate job security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Freelance graphic designer (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopes that better budgeting can stabilize interest rates.
- Worries about impact on available public services and potential job opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Tech startup founder (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 35 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Welcomes a responsible budgeting approach.
- Concerned about potential decreases in subsidies affecting team members.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Auto industry worker (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopes policy will ensure economic stability for large industries.
- Worried about potential job cuts if funding decreases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $55000000 (Low: $33000000, High: $77000000)
Year 3: $60000000 (Low: $36000000, High: $84000000)
Year 5: $70000000 (Low: $42000000, High: $98000000)
Year 10: $100000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $140000000)
Year 100: $700000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $900000000)
Key Considerations
- The balance between short-term costs and long-term savings is crucial for evaluating the impact.
- The effect on government services and programs, which could face budget adjustments due to debt management goals, must be monitored.
- Economic policies related to managing federal debt can have significant impacts across various sectors, influencing overall economic stability.