Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/6629

Bill Overview

Title: Informed Lawmaking to Combat Inflation Act

Description: This bill requires the Congressional Budget Office to provide inflation estimates for certain legislation that is projected to cause an annual gross budgetary effect of at least 0.25% of the projected gross domestic product of the United States. The estimates must determine whether the legislation will have no significant impact on inflation, a quantifiable inflationary impact on the consumer price index, or a significant impact on inflation that cannot be quantified at the time the estimate is prepared. The requirement does not apply to legislation that (1) provides for emergency assistance or relief at the request of any state, local, or tribal government; or (2) is necessary for the national security or the ratification or implementation of international treaty obligations.

Sponsors: Rep. Katko, John [R-NY-24]

Target Audience

Population: People affected by inflation in the United States

Estimated Size: 331000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Financial Analyst (New York City, NY)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I appreciate any measure that aims to stabilize inflation.
  • This policy seems procedural but might make a difference if it ensures thorough economic impact analysis.

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 8 7

Small Business Owner (Dallas, TX)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Lower inflation could help keep my operating costs more predictable.
  • If this helps prevent recession-inducing legislation, I'm for it.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 6

Teacher (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 55 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 18/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If experts see high inflation risk in a bill, it's sensible to block it.
  • I hope this results in better funding decisions for public services.

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 6 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 7 5

Retired (Miami, FL)

Age: 62 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Inflation is a constant worry in retirement.
  • Anything likely to moderate inflationary trends is worth considering.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 6 5

Software Engineer (Seattle, WA)

Age: 27 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This could be a useful check against rash economic decisions.
  • Positive that it won't affect tech regulation, but cautious about economic impacts.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 8 8

Healthcare Worker (Portland, OR)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 13/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • A more informed approach might prevent healthcare cuts.
  • Inflation adjustments should consider frontline workers.

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 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

Logistics Manager (Chicago, IL)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Ensuring new policies don't exacerbate inflation is critical.
  • Could make supply chain planning easier if inflation is stable.

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 8 7

Freelance Writer (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 17/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Sometimes inflation risk isn't evident upfront, so this is helpful.
  • Might encourage thoughtful consideration of housing legislation.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

Truck Driver (Atlanta, GA)

Age: 40 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy should help stop bad legislation before it starts.
  • Lowering inflation directly affects my take-home pay.

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 6 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 7 5

PhD Candidate (Boston, MA)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's reassuring to know significant inflation risks would be assessed.
  • Academic interest in the practical application of such policy.

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 8 7

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)

Year 2: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $14000000)

Year 3: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $14000000)

Year 5: $13000000 (Low: $11000000, High: $15000000)

Year 10: $14000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $16000000)

Year 100: $20000000 (Low: $18000000, High: $22000000)

Key Considerations