Bill Overview
Title: No Tax Dollars for First-Class Flights Act
Description: This bill prohibits funds made available for the official travel of a Member of Congress or other officer or employee of the legislative branch from being used for airline accommodations that are not coach-class accommodations. This prohibition is inapplicable for an individual if the use would be permitted for an employee of an agency subject to specified federal regulations for temporary duty travel allowances.
Sponsors: Rep. Craig, Angie [D-MN-2]
Target Audience
Population: Members of legislative branches and their employees
Estimated Size: 10000
- The bill restricts the use of tax dollars for airline travel expenses specifically for Members of Congress and legislative branch employees.
- Members of Congress number 535 — 100 Senators and 435 Representatives.
- There are thousands of legislative employees who support the functions of Congress, including administrative staff, aides, and other professionals.
- The prohibition applies specifically to airline travel costs covered by government funds.
- Individuals impacted are primarily those whose travel expenses are currently or potentially upgraded to classes above coach using tax dollars.
Reasoning
- The policy focuses specifically on the travel expenses of members of Congress and their staff, affecting around 10,000 individuals according to estimates.
- The impact on the wellbeing of general U.S. citizens is likely minimal since most are not directly affected by congressional travel budgets.
- The primary focus should be on those whose travel perks are potentially affected, which may alter their perception of job convenience and benefits.
- For the average taxpayer, the savings on government expenditures may slightly contribute to a perception of efficiency or potentially increased funds for other public uses.
- The commonness of individuals directly benefiting from or being indirectly affected by this policy outside the legislative branch is quite low.
Simulated Interviews
Congressional Aide (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy is a good move. While it might make travel a bit less comfortable, it's important to show that we are mindful of public resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Taxpayer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel more comfortable knowing my taxes aren't being spent on luxuries like first-class travel for politicians.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Member of Congress (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will make travel less convenient. However, it's fair considering we're here to serve the people.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Legislative Analyst (Chicago, IL)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The cost savings is a positive, but personally, it might make work travel more exhausting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Government Contractor (Dallas, TX)
Age: 54 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with efficient spending, which is beneficial for federal budgeting.
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 |
Political Science Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This reinforces a message of accountability in government spending. It's a step in the right direction.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Advocate for Government Transparency (Seattle, WA)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this as a positive change that's long overdue. Every bit helps in reducing unnecessary expenditure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Corporate Executive (Houston, TX)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The symbolism of this policy matters. It may help turn the public opinion in favor of more stringent checks on expenses.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired Government Worker (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring to see legislation tackling overspending at a governmental level. Even small measures can improve trust.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Non-Profit Director (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a prudent measure to ensure taxpayer money is well-utilized. Happy to see positive fiscal actions.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $-5000000 (Low: $-3000000, High: $-8000000)
Year 2: $-5000000 (Low: $-3000000, High: $-8000000)
Year 3: $-5000000 (Low: $-3000000, High: $-8000000)
Year 5: $-5000000 (Low: $-3000000, High: $-8000000)
Year 10: $-5000000 (Low: $-3000000, High: $-8000000)
Year 100: $-5000000 (Low: $-3000000, High: $-8000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill affects only a specific group of government employees, limiting its broad fiscal impact.
- Potential loopholes or exemptions allowed for federal regulations on temporary travel might limit the full enforcement potential.
- Savings largely reflect opportunity costs avoided rather than direct, widespread financial relief.
- Enforcement and administrative oversight to ensure compliance might present its own cost which could marginally reduce net savings.
- Initial costs related to setting up compliance mechanisms are overshadowed by long-term savings.