Bill Overview
Title: Yachts for Ukraine Act
Description: This bill authorizes the President to provide humanitarian assistance to Ukraine by using the assets seized from sanctions on individuals who are oligarchs of Russia or senior foreign political figures of Russia.
Sponsors: Rep. Moulton, Seth [D-MA-6]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals in Ukraine in need of humanitarian aid due to conflict
Estimated Size: 0
- The bill involves humanitarian assistance to Ukraine, which suggests a focus on the Ukrainian population impacted by conflict.
- Direct humanitarian aid could impact millions due to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, affecting individuals in need of food, medical aid, and shelter.
- Seizing assets from Russian oligarchs and redirecting them may indirectly affect these individuals by reducing their financial power and influence.
- The bill may also impact individuals or entities in Russia who have connections to the oligarchs, particularly if those individuals rely on the oligarchs' economic activities.
Reasoning
- The policy is focused on seizing assets from Russian oligarchs to provide humanitarian aid to Ukraine. This implies no direct impact on American citizens, given the geographic and political focus of the aid.
- Some American citizens may feel an indirect impact if they are economically connected to Russia's financial networks affected by the sanctions. This is speculative and likely limited to a small minority.
- Americans may have personal or emotional reactions to foreign policy decisions, and this could affect their perception of wellbeing, but likely without a substantial change in their tangible life circumstances.
- The budget is restricted to $10 million, which is not significant enough to broadly affect the US economy or the general public, ensuring that the majority of Americans remain relatively unaffected by the policy.
Simulated Interviews
Financial Analyst (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's a good use of seized assets to help those severely affected by conflict.
- There's minimal impact on my day-to-day life or wellbeing.
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 |
Software Developer (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the humanitarian focus of the policy.
- It indirectly impacts my family positively, even if I'm not directly affected.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems morally right but doesn't change much for my personal situation.
- Knowing aid is provided might make me feel slightly better, conceptually.
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 | 6 | 6 |
Oil Industry Executive (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Financial interests might indirectly be affected due to market shifts, albeit insignificantly.
- The policy feels just and beneficial on a global scale.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
College Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'd like to see more policies like this that aid those in need.
- Doesn't impact me directly, but aligns with my values, possibly enhancing my wellbeing slightly.
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 |
Entrepreneur (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Value-driven policy, positive about where assets are allocated.
- No effect on my business or personal life.
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 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Happy to see actions being taken against oligarchs to help people.
- Personally not impacted but supports the initiative as a moral positive.
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 |
Activist (Portland, OR)
Age: 33 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy reinforces our shared responsibility to aid global crises.
- Makes me feel slightly more hopeful about international cooperation.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Investment Banker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Might slightly influence markets, so I keep an eye on these situations.
- No real impact on my wellbeing, but notable in my professional assessments.
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 |
Nonprofit Worker (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy matches efforts I've been part of for some years.
- Positive impact on morale, knowing aid is better directed.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The ability to successfully seize and convert these assets into funds is a critical factor.
- The Ukrainian conflict outcome could change the humanitarian need and therefore the appraisal of the policy's effectiveness.
- Assets that can be seized vary widely in value and liquidity.