Bill Overview
Title: Debt Ceiling Reform Act
Description: This bill replaces the existing federal debt limit with procedures that allow the Department of the Treasury to continue issuing additional debt unless Congress passes a joint resolution of disapproval regarding the additional debt, and the joint resolution becomes law.
Sponsors: Rep. Boyle, Brendan F. [D-PA-2]
Target Audience
Population: People potentially affected by changes in US debt ceiling policy
Estimated Size: 335000000
- The debt ceiling is a cap set by Congress on how much the federal government is allowed to borrow.
- Modifications to the debt ceiling influence the government's ability to finance its operations, which impacts public services.
- This bill alters procedures related to debt issuance and Congressional oversight, affecting government operations and fiscal stability.
- Failure to manage the debt ceiling appropriately can result in default, which could have serious repercussions for economies globally.
- Budgetary and fiscal policy changes primarily influence sectors dependent on government funding, financial markets, and macroeconomic stability.
Reasoning
- The Debt Ceiling Reform Act primarily impacts individuals whose livelihoods, investments, or financial wellbeing are connected to federal funding or macroeconomic stability.
- Direct impact is expected to be higher on persons employed in sectors reliant on federal government expenditure, such as public sector workers or contractors.
- Indirect impacts could affect financial markets, potentially influencing individuals with significant investments or savings.
- The effects are wide-ranging but may not be immediately apparent for all citizens; hence the impact on individual wellbeing varies.
- Given the $588,200,000 budget over 10 years, the policy would sustain government operations and programs without drastic borrowing restrictions.
Simulated Interviews
Federal government worker (Washington D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the policy. It will ensure continuous funding for essential projects.
- Without the debt ceiling fiascos, my job feels more secure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Stockbroker (New York, NY)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The removal of the debt ceiling limit could stabilize market expectations.
- Confidence among investors might improve, reducing volatility.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Software Engineer (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel somewhat safer knowing the government will prevent defaults.
- This doesn't directly affect my daily life but is reassuring for future planning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired (Orlando, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If funding for programs like Social Security continues smoothly, I'm all for it.
- I'm worried about potential cuts if the debt ceiling isn't managed well.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Small business owner (Seattle, WA)
Age: 61 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might calm economic waters, which is good for business.
- Less uncertainty from frequent debt ceiling debates benefits the economy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Public School Teacher (Detroit, MI)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stable government funding is crucial for our schools.
- Less drama over debt issues would mean fewer budget cuts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Construction Worker (Columbus, OH)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Job security is important, and this might help.
- Not hugely involved with politics, but stable work opportunities matter.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Nurse (Boston, MA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I want to know that healthcare funding won't be disrupted.
- We need smooth and consistent funding for patient care.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Retired (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 66 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stability in fiscal policy means I worry less about my investments.
- Retirement plans depend on stable economic conditions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Marketing Analyst (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The economy runs better without these constant financial limits.
- It impacts long-term planning, even in tech sectors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $26000000, High: $104000000)
Year 3: $54100000 (Low: $27000000, High: $108200000)
Year 5: $58300000 (Low: $29000000, High: $116600000)
Year 10: $67000000 (Low: $34000000, High: $134000000)
Year 100: $107000000 (Low: $54000000, High: $214000000)
Key Considerations
- The streamlined process could improve fiscal stability but might reduce Congressional control over borrowing.
- Interest rates might not react uniformly; in some scenarios, markets could see continuous borrowing authority as either stabilizing or riskier depending on the fiscal context.
- Influences on financial markets are complex and fluid, tied more to policy predictability than any specific debt ceiling level change.